Federal Register, Volume 63 Issue 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33992-34056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15932]

[[Page 33991]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Department of Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

Federal Railroad Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

49 CFR Part 213

Track Safety Standards; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 33992]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[Docket No. RST-90-1, Notice No. 8]
RIN 2130-AA75

Track Safety Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FRA amends the Track Safety Standards to update and enhance
its track safety regulatory program. To address today's railroad
operating environment, these amendments present additional regulatory
requirements, including standards specifically addressing high speed
train operations. FRA issues these changes to improve track safety and
provide the railroad industry with the flexibility needed to effect a
safer and more efficient use of resources. The amendments reflect
recommendations submitted to FRA by the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee. The provisions included in this notice become effective with
this rule. However, FRA anticipates that further amendments will be
added to address the use of Gage Restraint Measuring Systems.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective September 21, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison H. MacDowell, Office of Safety
Enforcement, Federal Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Mail Stop 25, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-632-3344), or
Nancy Lummen Lewis, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington,
D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-632-3174).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

The first Federal Track Safety Standards were implemented in
October, 1971, following the enactment of the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970 in which Congress granted to FRA comprehensive authority
over ``all areas of railroad safety.'' See 36 FR 20336 and 49 U.S.C.
20101 et seq. FRA envisioned the new standards to be an evolving set of
safety requirements subject to continuous revision allowing the
regulations to keep pace with industry innovations and agency research
and development.
FRA amended the Track Safety Standards with minor revisions several
times in the past two decades. It began a project to revise the
standards extensively in 1978, but later withdrew the effort when
investigation revealed that considerably more data collection and
analysis were necessary to support recommended revisions. A less
extensive revision of the Track Safety Standards was issued in
November, 1982. Since then, FRA has acquired much information crucial
to further development of the Track Safety Standards through the
enhanced statistical analysis capabilities resulting from additional
field reporting requirements and improved data collection processes.

Statutory Background

The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992, Public Law 102-
365, 106 Stat. 972 (September 3, 1992), later amended by the Federal
Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-440, 108
Stat. 4615 (November 2, 1994), requires FRA to revise the track safety
regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 213. Now codified at 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 20142, the amended statute requires:

(a) Review of Existing Regulations.--Not later than March 3,
1993, the Secretary of Transportation shall begin a review of
Department of Transportation regulations related to track safety
standards. The review at least shall include an evaluation of--
(1) Procedures associated with maintaining and installing
continuous welded rail and its attendant structure, including cold
weather installation procedures;
(2) The need for revisions to regulations on track excepted from
track safety standards; and
(3) Employee safety.
(b) Revision of Regulations.--Not later than September 1, 1995,
the Secretary shall prescribe regulations and issue orders to revise
track safety standards, considering safety information presented
during the review under subsection (a) of this section and the
report of the Comptroller General submitted under subsection (c) of
this section.
* * * * *
(d) Identification of Internal Rail Defects.--In carrying out
subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall consider whether or not
to prescribe regulations and issue orders concerning--
(1) Inspection procedures to identify internal rail defects,
before they reach imminent failure size, in rail that has
significant shelling; and
(2) Any specific actions that should be taken when a rail
surface condition, such as shelling, prevents the identification of
internal defects.

Petitions for Rulemaking

In May, 1990, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (BMWE)
filed a petition with FRA to revise the Track Safety Standards. The
petition suggested substantive changes to the standards, the addition
of new regulations addressing recent developments in the industry, as
well as the reinstatement of many of the regulations deleted from the
standards in 1982. The BMWE also petitioned FRA to further address
employee safety by incorporating in the Track Safety Standards certain
sections of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards presently
administered by the U.S. Department of Labor.
In March, 1992, the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
submitted to FRA a list of recommended revisions to the Track Safety
Standards. The AAR suggested some changes in the wording of existing
regulations to provide additional flexibility to accommodate future
innovations in railroad technology. Several suggested revisions
included new approaches to determining compliance with certain existing
regulations. Most notable among those was AAR's proposal that the
revised track standards permit the use of a Gage Restraint Measuring
System (GRMS) in place of detailed crosstie and fastener requirements.

Proceedings to Date

On November 16, 1992, FRA published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in this docket. See 57 FR 54038. The ANPRM
summarized FRA's knowledge about developments in the rail industry in
the past two decades and then posed some 52 questions regarding how
those developments should be addressed in the revised track safety
standards.
The ANPRM also announced plans for four public workshops in which
technically-knowledgeable persons with specialized experience in track
maintenance were invited to share their views with FRA in an informal
setting. The workshops were fact-finding sessions comprised of informal
give-and-take exchanges between industry, labor, and government
professionals charged with the administration of the track safety
standards on a day-to-day basis. They constituted an initial step by
FRA to use more active collaboration with labor, railroad management,
manufacturers, state governments, and public interest associations in
structuring the revised regulations.
Participants in the workshops included representatives of major and
short line railroads, the AAR, the American Short Line Railroad
Association (ASLRA), the BMWE, as well as individuals with a particular
interest in certain areas of the track safety standards. In addition to
the workshops, FRA invited interested

[[Page 33993]]

persons to submit written comments to the questions posed in the ANPRM.
Approximately 30 individuals, railroads, and industry groups submitted
their suggestions and observations.
Following one workshop which included an extensive discussion about
the safety of maintenance-of-way employees, FRA decided to isolate that
issue from this proceeding so that it could be addressed thoroughly in
a separate rulemaking. That issue became the focus of a proceeding
addressing roadway worker safety, FRA's first negotiated rulemaking.
FRA established its first formal regulatory negotiation committee in
1994. After months of discussions and debates, the committee reached
consensus conclusions and recommended provisions for an NPRM to the
Federal Railroad Administrator (Administrator) on May 17, 1995. An NPRM
based upon those recommendations was published on March 14, 1996 (see
61 FR 10528), and a final rule was issued on December 16, 1996 (see 61
FR 65959). Thus, a significant portion of the mandate of the Rail
Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 calling for a general
revision of the Track Safety Standards already has become effective.

The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee and the Track Working Group

In past rulemakings, interested parties generally have approached
the proceedings in an adversarial manner, a tactic that often inhibited
the development of the best regulatory solutions to resolve difficult
safety issues. In addition, parties also have resorted to pressuring
Congress for legislation that would grant regulatory results with which
FRA disagreed or were at odds with FRA's regulatory agenda. FRA
concluded, therefore, that inclusion of these parties in its regulatory
process would result in a more positive approach to developing the best
solutions to pressing safety problems.
Although FRA gathered much information in the 1993 track workshops,
as well as in similar workshops associated with other rulemaking
proceedings, the agency recognized that continued use of these ``ad
hoc'' collaborative procedures for each rulemaking was not the most
effective means of accomplishing the agency's goal of achieving a more
consensus-based regulatory program. Following the success in 1995 of
the negotiated rulemaking addressing roadway worker safety, FRA decided
that several pending rulemakings, including this proceeding to revise
Part 213, should advance under a new rulemaking model that relies upon
consensus among various members of the affected industry and the
regulated community. On March 11, 1996, FRA announced formation of the
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), the centerpiece of the
agency's new regulatory program which emphasizes rulemaking by
consensus with those most affected by the agency's regulations. See 61
FR 740.
The RSAC is comprised of 48 individual representatives drawn from
27 member organizations. The membership of the RSAC is representative
of those interested in railroad safety issues, including railroad
owners, manufacturers, labor groups, state government groups, and
public interest associations. It's sponsor is the Administrator, who
recommends specific issues for it to address. The RSAC operates by
consensus. It is authorized to establish smaller ``working groups'' to
research and initially address the issues recommended by the
Administrator and accepted by the RSAC to resolve.
Most of the text of this final rule was recommended to FRA by the
RSAC. The committee was tasked by the Administrator to formulate and
present to FRA recommendations for new regulations and revisions of
existing ones.
In accordance with established RSAC procedures, RSAC formed a Track
Working Group, comprised of approximately 30 representatives from
railroads, rail labor, trade associations, state government, track
equipment manufacturers, and FRA, to develop and draft a proposed rule
for the revision of Part 213. It met periodically over a span of six
months in 1996.
The Track Working Group identified issues for discussion from
several sources. One source of issues was, of course, the statutory
mandates issued by Congress in 1992 and in 1994. Two other sources were
the BMWE's petition and AAR proposals. Several issues came to the Track
Working Group by way of requests for consideration made by FRA's track
safety Technical Resolution Committee. The group also examined track
issues involved in a number of recommendations made to FRA by the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the past decade.
Discussions utilized information acquired by FRA through its research
and development program, as well as from findings from routine agency
investigations and accident investigations. Finally, the Track Working
Group systematically surveyed the existing regulations to identify
those sections and subsections that needed updating or, in some cases,
deletion.
At a public meeting on October 31, 1996, the Track Working Group
presented its proposed rule to the RSAC for approval to recommend it to
the Administrator. As required by RSAC procedures, each provision in
the proposed rule had received unanimous approval by the members of the
Track Working Group. At the request of the BMWE, the RSAC agreed to
defer the vote on whether to recommend the proposed rule to the
Administrator to provide that organization additional time to inform
its members. At the time of the formal vote by mail on November 21,
1996, representatives of many of the labor unions withdrew support of
the proposed rule and recommended that it be returned to the Track
Working Group for further discussion.
Despite the lack of support by many RSAC representatives of rail
labor, the number of votes cast in favor of recommending the proposed
rule to the Administrator exceeded the number necessary for a simple
majority. RSAC's procedures provide that where there is a majority vote
to recommend to the Administrator a rule presented to the RSAC with
full consensus of the working group that produced it, the RSAC will
recommend adoption of the rule by the Administrator. Following those
procedures, the RSAC formally recommended to the Administrator that FRA
issue the proposed rule as it was drafted.
On July 3, 1997, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) which included substantially the same rule text and preamble
developed by the Track Working Group. See 62 FR 36138. In developing
the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM, FRA attempted to incorporate
additional data in the cost/benefit analysis beyond the impact data
provided by the Track Working Group. In the NPRM, FRA requested
additional relevant data to use in the regulatory evaluation for this
final rule, but parties who had access to relevant data did not respond
to that request.

Comments and Responses

The NPRM generated comments from 12 sources. Four of the
commenters, namely, the AAR, the BMWE, the ASLRA, and Amtrak, were
represented on the Track Working Group and helped draft the recommended
rule which became the basis for the NPRM. All four of those commenters
expressed support for the RSAC process.
The BMWE stated that it agrees with many of the revisions proposed
in the NPRM, but that the standards proposed

[[Page 33994]]

therein ``do not go far enough to ensure the integrity of the track
structure.'' The BMWE stated that ``several significant deficiencies''
led that group, as well as RSAC members representing other labor
organizations, to recommend to RSAC that the proposed rule as drafted
by the Track Working Group be returned to that group for further
consideration.
The AAR, in its comments to the docket, stated that it continues to
support the NPRM and the language drafted by the Track Working Group.
However, the AAR also added a request that should FRA revise any of the
proposed rule in direct response to comments by RSAC participants who
withdrew support of the rule drafted by the Track Working Group, then
FRA would also re-examine the positions the AAR originally expressed
about those issues. The AAR stated that its support of the proposed
rule reflects that organization's willingness to compromise some of its
positions in the interest in reaching consensus about the proposed rule
in the Track Working Group. Therefore, the AAR's general support of the
NPRM should not be misconstrued as agreement by the organization with
each and every provision of the NPRM.
FRA has not significantly changed the NPRM based on comments from
other RSAC participants who withdrew support for the rule proposed by
the Track Working Group. Thus the AAR's suggested revisions based on
that contingency are not examined in the ``Section By Section
Analysis'' portion of this final rule.

Continuous Welded Rail (CWR)

In the first track safety standards published in 1971, Sec. 213.119
dealt with CWR in a rather general manner, stating simply that CWR must
be installed at a rail temperature that prevents lateral displacement
of track or pull-aparts of rail ends, and that it should not be
disturbed at rail temperatures higher than the installation or adjusted
installation temperature. (See 36 FR 20341.) In 1979, when FRA proposed
a significant revision of Part 213, the agency suggested that this
subsection be eliminated because it provided ``little guidance to
railroads'' and was ``difficult to enforce.'' The agency further stated
that research had ``not advanced to the point where specific safety
requirements can be established.'' (See 44 FR 52114.) However, when the
proposed revision was withdrawn in 1981 (see 46 FR 32896), the proposal
to eliminate Sec. 213.119 was also abandoned. In the November, 1982
revisions to the Track Safety Standards, Sec. 213.119 was deleted.
In the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992, Congress
mandated FRA to evaluate procedures for installing and maintaining CWR.
In 1994, in the Federal Railroad Authorization Act, Congress added an
evaluation of cold weather installation procedures to that mandate. In
light of the evaluation of those procedures, as well as information
resulting from FRA's own research and development, this final rule
returns CWR procedures to Part 213.
CWR is naturally subjected to high compressive and tensile forces
which, if not adequately restrained, can result in track buckling or
pull-aparts. The potential for track buckling increases as the ambient
air temperature increases while the potential for pull-aparts increases
as the ambient air temperature decreases. Track buckling tends to occur
under train movement and therefore can be instantaneous and somewhat
unpredictable.
In recent years, FRA engaged in a research program to develop
criteria and guidelines for improving CWR's resistance to buckling. The
program sought to (1) define critical forces and conditions associated
with track buckling, (2) quantify parameters which govern the
resistance of track to buckling, and (3) develop technology to detect
incipient failures prior to track buckling. Railroads have also
invested considerable resources into CWR research and employee training
which has resulted in a marked decrease in the number of reportable
buckled track incidents over the last decade. FRA's Accident/Incident
data base reveals that the number of reportable buckled track
derailments has been reduced by approximately 50% since 1985, dropping
from a yearly average of approximately 60 instances to approximately 30
such occurrences per year.
How a railroad provides the adequate lateral resistance to prevent
track buckling may vary from railroad to railroad. The Track Working
Group found that consistent methodology is not as important as
effective methodology in installing and maintaining CWR. Therefore, the
Track Working Group's recommendations and the new subsection
(Sec. 213.119) are premised on the concept that the regulations should
provide railroads with as much flexibility as safely feasible. The new
subsection allows railroads to develop and implement their individual
CWR programs based on procedures which have proven effective for them
over the years. At a minimum, procedures shall be developed for the
installation, adjustment, maintenance, and inspection of CWR, as well
as a training program and minimal requirements for recordkeeping. FRA
fully expects the railroad industry to take advantage of continuing
research initiatives to update and enhance their CWR procedures, and
cautions railroads not to develop less than acceptable CWR procedures
as a means to lessen the effect of regulatory oversight. FRA will
monitor the railroads' adherence to these procedures as well as the
overall effectiveness of the CWR programs.
While the CWR provision, as proposed, received support from some
commenters (the NTSB), others were critical of the new provision. The
AAR called it ``a classic case of overregulation'' and suggested that
the provision require track owners only to have CWR procedures and
training programs in effect and accessible to FRA. While it supported
the provision as a means to enhance track safety, the BMWE also advised
that the provision lacks a means to address railroads' non-compliance
with their own CWR programs. The ASLRA suggested that railroads should
have the option of excluding from their CWR plans any trackage over
which trains do not operate at speeds over 30 m.p.h. and which do not
exceed one million gross ton miles in traffic annually. The AAR also
stated that it generally supports the provision as drafted by the Track
Working Group and that its suggestions for changes were to be
considered only in the event FRA decides to revise the proposed
provision in response to recommendations of other RSAC participants
who, after helping to draft the recommended NPRM, withdrew support for
the recommendation. All three commenters who expressed negative
comments were active participants in the Track Working Group and helped
to draft the language which adds the provision for CWR in this final
rule.

Excepted Track

With some limitations, the excepted track regulation permits
railroads to designate track as ``excepted'' from compliance with
minimum safety requirements for roadbed, track geometry and track
structure. FRA added the excepted track provision (Sec. 213.4) to the
regulations in 1982 in response to an industry outcry for regulatory
relief on those rail lines producing little or no income. FRA believed
that without some relief for low density lines, railroads would
accelerate abandonment of those lines rather than invest their slim
resources where returns would be limited.

[[Page 33995]]

Therefore, the 1982 revision provided the industry with a means to
operate over designated tracks without complying with the substantive
requirements of the Track Safety Standards. FRA believed that the
designated tracks would be located in yards or otherwise on
comparatively level terrain in areas where the likelihood was remote
that a derailment would endanger a train crew or the general public.
The 1982 provision contains a number of operating restrictions,
including limitations on where excepted track can be located and the
number of cars containing hazardous materials (five) that can be hauled
in one train. Maximum speed is 10 m.p.h., and passenger service is
prohibited.
Despite these limitations, railroads have embraced the concept of
excepted track. In 1992, an FRA survey revealed the existence of
approximately 12,000 miles of designated excepted track nationwide, far
more than FRA envisioned when the provision was added to the
regulations. Recent surveys conducted by the AAR and the ASLRA indicate
that between 8,000 and 9,000 miles of excepted track presently exist
nationwide.
Comments to the ANPRM, the NPRM, as well as some opinions expressed
within the Track Working Group, showed that many railroads favor
maintaining an excepted track provision in the Track Safety Standards.
They argued that accident and injury data do not support the notion
that trackage in ``excepted'' status presents any significant safety
hazard. FRA's data show that between 1990 and 1995, track-caused
derailments on excepted track caused three reportable injuries and one
release of hazardous materials. In commenting on the NPRM, the ASLRA
stated that, in a recent survey of short line railroads, 146 railroads
that reported having excepted track had 122 reportable accidents in a
five-year period from 1991 through 1995. Of those accidents, 87 were
track-related.
The ASLRA strenuously argued that short line railroads depend on
the excepted track provision in order to keep certain track segments in
business. Many short lines operate over track they acquired just before
abandonment by a major railroad. A significant number of those lines
serve only a handful of industries with comparatively small gross
tonnage. The ASLRA commented that the cost to short line railroads to
upgrade and maintain excepted track would exceed $230 million.
Elimination of the excepted track provision would cause the abandonment
of approximately 95 lines affecting 1,063 shippers who may be then
compelled to use highway transportation.
Approximately 65% of all reportable derailments on excepted track
from 1988 through the third quarter of 1995 were track-caused. Of
those, nearly 33% were attributed to wide gage as a result of defective
crossties or rail fasteners. Several commenters expressed approval of
some type of gage restriction. The BMWE suggested that the revised
provision should also address the condition and placement of ties and
fasteners, as well as switch maintenance and rail/joint bar defects.
The AAR commented that the gage restrictions proposed in the NPRM
should be eliminated. The AAR stated that there are situations where
wide gage is safe, for instance, in road crossings. In those cases,
pavement would have to be destroyed and replaced to correct wide gage
when the pavement would have restricted wheel position and prevented a
derailment. The AAR also stated that it recommends that the gage
restriction be eliminated only if FRA decides to revise the proposed
provision based on the comments of other RSAC participants who helped
draft the recommendations and then later withdrew support of them.
Otherwise, the AAR supports the NPRM as drafted by the Track Working
Group.
Because none of the commenters presented FRA with a compelling
reason to make further changes to the gage restrictions in the excepted
track provision, this final rule adopts the language as recommended by
the Track Working Group and as proposed in the NPRM. Under this final
rule, track owners must maintain gage to a 58\1/4\'' standard and
perform periodic switch inspections.
FRA and state inspectors have found instances where railroads have
taken advantage of the permissive language in the 1982 provision to
conduct operations in a manner not envisioned when FRA drafted the
provision. For example, a railroad removes a segment of track from the
excepted designation only long enough to move a train with more than
five cars carrying hazardous materials, or to operate an excursion
passenger train, and then replaces the segment in excepted status as
soon as the movement is completed. The BMWE and the NTSB suggested that
the revised provision include time limits for the use of this provision
over any segment of track. The final rule adopts the language as
proposed in the NPRM and requires railroads to provide FRA with
notification 10 days prior to removing track from excepted status.
The revision also changes the word ``revenue'' to ``occupied'' in
describing passenger trains prohibited from operating over excepted
track. This change codifies FRA's long-standing interpretation of the
1982 provision which allowed trains on excepted track to be occupied by
crews, work gangs, and other railroad employees attending to their job-
related duties. It is also designed to dispel the misconception by some
railroads that passengers could be hauled over excepted track as long
as they were not charged, and the railroad received no ``revenue,'' for
their transportation. The purpose of the passenger prohibition is to
safeguard railroad passengers; its purpose is not concerned with the
revenue-generating power of passenger service.

Liability Standard

The current track regulations are enforced against a track owner
``who knows or has notice'' that the track does not meet compliance
standards. This knowledge standard is unique to the track regulations;
other FRA regulations are based on strict liability. The knowledge
standard is founded on the notion that railroads cannot prevent the
occurrence of some defects in track structures that are continually
changing in response to the loads imposed on them by traffic and
effects of weather. Many defects may not be detected even when the
track owner exercises reasonable care. Therefore, track owners should
be held responsible only for those defects about which they know or
should know. Today, even after years of track abandonments by major
railroads, the industry is responsible for maintaining about 200,000
miles of track. Many defects occur suddenly in remote areas, making it
difficult for even the most diligent track inspectors to keep pace with
all defects as they happen.
With a knowledge standard attached to the track regulations,
railroads are held liable for non-compliance or civil penalties for
only those defects that they knew about or those that are so evident
the railroad is deemed to have known about them. FRA and state
inspectors meet this knowledge standard in a number of ways. Sometimes
they record and notify a railroad of a defect that they find, and then
re-inspect later to see if the defect has been repaired. If it has not,
they may cite the railroad for a violation of the track safety
standards. While this method provides a failsafe way of proving
railroad notice of a defect, it is not always practicable for
inspectors to perform follow-up inspections. Such a system would make
railroads responsible only for defects

[[Page 33996]]

FRA already has detected, which is clearly not a sufficient incentive
to comply.
Often, inspectors choose to inspect the railroad's own inspection
records to see if a defect they have noted is recorded there. If it is,
the inspection record forms proof that the railroad had notice of the
defect. If the defect is not recorded in the railroad's inspection
records, but is of the nature that it would have had to exist at the
time of the railroad's last inspection (for example, defective
crossties or certain breaks that are covered with rust) and would have
been detected with the exercise of reasonable care, the defect's
existence constitutes constructive knowledge by the railroad and the
railroad is cited for a violation. FRA's reading of its ``knows or has
notice'' standard has been its long-standing enforcement policy and is
explained in FRA's Track Enforcement Manual.
In its petition, the BMWE suggested that FRA put track owners under
a strict liability standard by removing the phrase ``knows or has
notice'' from Sec. 213.5. Under that standard, any defect found by an
FRA inspector could be written as a violation regardless of the
railroad's ignorance of it or the railroad's opportunity to have
detected it under the required inspection schedule. The AAR requested
in its petition that FRA develop performance standards for the track
regulations. Certain defects would not be cited as long as the track is
performing safely, making unnecessary many of the regulations (for
example, inspection requirements and the minimum number of crossties).
The inherent weakness in such a proposal is that railroads will develop
differing internal requirements for track inspection and maintenance.
Some railroads may not be as vigilant as others in spotting defects or
potential defects. Track defects compromising safety may not be
discovered until the track fails, causing a derailment and possibly
injuries and death.
Neither the BMWE nor the AAR provided FRA with cost/benefit
information to support their respective requests.
The Track Working Group considered and rejected both proposals,
finding that the existing language, as it has been enforced to date,
strikes the best balance of all interests. Therefore, the NPRM proposed
to leave the standard of liability unchanged. In its comments on the
NPRM, the BMWE again proposed that the standard of liability be changed
to that of strict liability. According to the BMWE, the current
language encourages railroads to under-report track defects and offers
the railroads no disincentive from assigning railroad track inspectors
``overly-expansive inspection territories'' resulting in less thorough
and comprehensive track inspections.
In preparing this final rule, FRA weighed the BMWE comments, as
well as its own enforcement experience, against the consensus-based
recommendation of the Track Working Group which representatives of the
railroads, FRA, and labor developed. FRA has concluded that the Track
Working Group struck the right balance, and thus in this final rule,
railroads will continue to be held liable for track defects of which
they knew or had notice. Even if a railroad has not recorded those
defects, notice may include constructive knowledge of defects that, by
their nature, would have had to be in existence when the railroad was
last required to perform an inspection.
Moreover, the penalty provision now makes clear what has been the
law for many years, i.e., that anyone who makes a false report under
the safety laws is liable for criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21311.
This should provide an additional deterrent to anyone who would
purposely under-report defects.

Tourist Railroads

The Track Safety Standards apply to only those tourist railroads
that operate on the general system. FRA estimates that approximately 95
tourist railroads operating over 1,350 miles of standard gage track off
the general system are not currently subject to the track safety
standards. The agency sees the need to address this growing market and
increasing safety exposure in the area of track safety, as well as
other areas of rail operation.
In April, 1996, FRA referred tourist railroad safety issues to the
RSAC. The RSAC, in turn, established a working group comprised of
agency and tourist railroad industry representatives to analyze the
industry's unique aspects and formulate recommendations for appropriate
regulation of that specialized industry. Among the issues the working
group will examine is track safety. The findings of that group may or
may not lead to a recommendation by the RSAC that the Track Safety
Standards should be revised to apply to all tourist railroads. However,
if such a recommendation is the result, FRA may then consider
initiating a separate rulemaking to address that issue. The NTSB took
the opportunity of this proceeding to express its opinion that the
Track Safety Standards should apply to tourist railroads both on and
off the general system. Because many issues affecting tourist railroads
are still under consideration by FRA, this final rule includes no
changes to the Track Safety Standards that are directed specifically to
those railroads.

Gage Restraint Measurement System

Historically, railroads assess a track's ability to maintain gage
through visual inspections of crossties and rail fasteners. However,
the inability of the track structure to maintain gage sometimes becomes
apparent only after a derailment occurs. Many railroads throughout the
country have successfully tested the GRMS, which was developed under a
joint FRA/industry research project.
Accident statistics taken from FRA's Annual Accident/Incident
Bulletins reveal that from 1985 through 1995, reportable wide gage
derailments from defective crossties and fasteners totaled 2,232
instances and cost the industry over 60 million dollars in damages.
Current crosstie and fastener maintenance techniques rely heavily
on visual inspections by track inspectors, whose subjective knowledge
is based on varying degrees of experience and training. The subjective
nature of those inspections sometimes creates inconsistent
determinations about the ability of individual crossties and fasteners
to restrain track gage. Crossties may not always exhibit strong
indications of good or bad condition. If a crosstie in questionable
condition is removed from track prematurely, its maximum service life
is unnecessarily shortened resulting in added maintenance costs for the
railroad. Yet, a crosstie of questionable condition left too long in
track can cause a wide-gage derailment with its inherent risk of injury
to railroad personnel and passengers and damage to property. In many
instances of gage failure caused by defective crossties and/or
fasteners, the static or unloaded gage is within the limits prescribed
by the current track standards. However, when a train applies an
abnormally high lateral load to a section of track that contains
marginal crosstie or fastener conditions, the result is often a wide
gage derailment.
In 1993, FRA granted CSX Transportation a waiver of compliance for
the purpose of conducting a test program to evaluate the GRMS
performance-based standard using FRA's research vehicle, in lieu of
existing crosstie and rail fastening requirements, on nearly 500 miles
of various track segments. The experience gained under this waiver has
provided FRA with the opportunity to continually make adjustments to
the conditional

[[Page 33997]]

requirements of the waiver to the point where the technology has proven
itself to be a more consistent method of objectively determining
crosstie and fastener effectiveness. FRA believes the technology is now
ready to be deployed within the industry.
The Track Working Group could not reach consensus about how the
revised Track Safety Standards should address GRMS technology. The RSAC
therefore recommended that a small task group continue evaluating the
possibility of developing GRMS standards for broader application within
the industry. Nevertheless, some parties submitted comments to the NPRM
concerning the use of GRMS. The NTSB recommended that the revised
standards incorporate the use of advanced track inspection
technologies, such as track geometry cars, GRMS, light-weight loading
fixtures, and state-of-the-art rail inspection methods for internal
rail defects. In its comments to the NPRM, the BMWE reiterated its
position that GRMS technology be used in conjunction with current
inspection requirements. The AAR, in its comments, repeated its
position that the revised Track Safety Standards should allow alternate
inspection procedures that would permit railroads to use some
combination of geometry cars, measurement equipment and instrumentation
such as GRMS, hyrail inspections, and other means of inspecting in
place of the required visual inspections. At the publication of this
final rule, the task group continues to work to reconcile the
differences and reach a consensus on what type of GRMS provision would
be most effective. FRA, for its part, is still examining the points
made for and against incorporation of a GRMS provision and is not
prepared to resolve the issue at this time. However, FRA anticipates
coming to resolution in the near future. All of the relevant issues
appear to have been identified and discussed in this proceeding.

High Speed Rail Standards

The current Track Safety Standards include six classes of track
that permit passenger and freight trains to travel up to 110 m.p.h.
Passenger trains have been allowed to operate at speeds over 125 m.p.h
under conditional waiver granted by FRA. This final rule adds three new
classes of track that designate standards for track over which trains
may travel at speeds up to 200 m.p.h. Standards for high speed track
classes will be contained in a new Subpart G of Part 213 which will
cover track Classes 6 through 9. The new subpart is intended to
function as ``stand alone'' regulations governing any track identified
as belonging to one of these higher classes. In other words, the track
owner needs to refer only to Subpart G for compliance with the Track
Safety Standards for track over which railroads operate trains at the
speeds associated with the high speed track classes. However, if that
same track does not meet the standards in Subpart G at any time, the
other subparts (A through F) apply.
These track standards constitute only one of several components
comprising a regulatory program permitting trains to travel at high
speeds. FRA also may address high speed issues in regulations outside
of Part 213, such as emergency preparedness, wheel conditions, braking
systems, and grade crossings. These track standards are an integral
part of that larger regulatory scheme.
FRA's approach to track safety standards for high speeds is based
on the fundamental principle that vehicles in the high speed regime
must demonstrate that they will not exceed minimum vehicle/track
performance safety limits when operating on specified track. In
addition, railroads must monitor the vehicle/track system to ensure
that the safety limits will be met under traffic conditions.
A panel of experts in high speed rail transportation worked with
the Track Safety Working Group to provide recommendations for vehicle/
track performance limits and track geometry. The panel identified
acceleration and wheel/rail force safety criteria by reviewing
technical studies, considering foreign experience and practices, and
performing independent computer simulation and analytical studies. Once
it identified vehicle/track performance limits, the panel developed
specific geometry safety criteria. The panel also recommended
requirements necessary for track structure to sustain the forces
generated by vehicles at high speeds.
In developing this final rule, FRA sought out the best available
technical data about dynamic performance of vehicle/track systems to
devise safety standards that are practical to implement. The high speed
standards in this notice provide for the qualification of vehicles;
geometry standards for gage, surface, and alinement; track structure;
and inspection requirements for both automated and visual inspections.
While some of the sections in the new Subpart G are identical, or
nearly identical, to their counterparts in other sections of the
regulation, the standards for high speed operations generally differ
markedly from those for the lower track classes which cover a much
broader range of railroad vehicles. Several sections have no
counterpart in the standards for the lower classes of track because
they address issues unique to the high speed environment. Other
sections are simply modifications of the requirements for the lower
track classes.
Comments to the new Subpart G proposed in the NPRM came from
Amtrak, the NTSB, Bombardier GEC Alsthom Consortium, Union Switch and
Signal, and the Director of Ground Transportation of the French
Ministere de l'Equipment des Transports et du Logement. The commenters
were generally supportive of the new standards, but they offered
suggestions for modifying some sections in the subpart. Their specific
comments are addressed in this notice under segment designated as
``Section by Section Analysis.''
A representative for the Florida Overland eXpress responded to the
NPRM with a request that FRA remove from the final rule reference to
Florida Overland eXpress's plans to operate trains at very high speeds.
Florida Overland eXpress petitioned FRA in 1996 for a Rule of
Particular Applicability for its proposed operation. Such a rule would
include a variety of railroad safety regulations, including track
safety regulations, that would apply only to the Florida Overland
eXpress. FRA issued a Notice of Rule of Particular Applicability,
published on December 12, 1997. See 62 FR 65478. Florida Overland
eXpress objected to a reference to that operation in the NPRM because
this rule of general applicability will not apply to its operation. FRA
agrees that the reference in the NPRM to the Florida Overland eXpress,
without explanation of its unique circumstances, may mislead others
into believing that this rule will apply to that operation. It will
not.
Following the closure of the comment period for the NPRM (September
15, 1997), the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC)
issued a working paper entitled ``Evaluation of Proposed High Speed
Track Surface Geometry Specification,'' dated December 1, 1997. The
working paper evaluated the response of different high speed locomotive
designs to track profile geometry variations. Because the VNTSC working
paper contained relevant and useful information for this final rule but
was not available at the time of the publication of the NPRM, FRA
placed the paper in the docket for this proceeding and issued a special
notice on December 12, 1997, inviting public comment on its content.
See 62 FR 65401. The comment period for the

[[Page 33998]]

VNTSC working paper expired on December 22, 1997. FRA received only one
response to the special notice. The AAR noted that it would not be able
to provide comment on the VNTSC working paper without knowing how FRA
would use the report to set the geometry standards for the high speed
classes of track.

Torch Cut Rails

Torch cutting rail, a practice that was widespread in the railroad
industry until a few years ago, is now used by most railroads only for
emergency repairs in Classes 3 through 5 track. Technology has advanced
to the point where cutting rail with the various types of rail saws
that are readily available is more efficient than torch cutting. FRA
lacks reliable data on the number of existing torch cuts. The railroads
report that torch cuts no longer exist on Class 6 track, and the torch
cuts remaining in Class 5 track nationwide probably number ``in the
hundreds.'' Nevertheless, torch cuts from years ago when the practice
was more prevalent still exist and are believed to pose a safety
hazard.
In 1983, following its investigation of an Amtrak derailment in
Texas, the NTSB recommended that torch cuts be removed and that trains
move at only 10 m.p.h. over torch cuts made in emergency situations or
as a preparatory step in field welding. It should be noted, however,
that the rail involved in the Texas accident had a type of high alloy
content which the industry now recognizes as inferior. It is no longer
used in the industry.
Because rails that have been torch-cut have a greater tendency to
develop fractures in the short term, the NPRM proposed that the
practice of torch-cutting rails in Classes 3 through 5 track should be
prohibited in the future except for emergency temporary repairs. The
NPRM further proposed that existing torch cuts in Class 3 track over
which regularly scheduled passenger trains operate should be
inventoried and any torch cuts that are found later but are not listed
on the inventory must be removed. Torch cuts in Class 4 track must be
removed within two years of the effective date of this final rule, and
torch cuts in Class 5 track must be removed within one year. Because
torch cuts existing on yard tracks and main tracks where trains operate
at slow speeds (Classes 1 and 2) do not pose as high a risk, the NPRM
proposed that existing torch cuts in Classes 1 and 2 track be allowed
to remain.
In commenting on the NPRM, the NTSB suggested that torch cuts
should be prohibited and eliminated from all track in classes above
Class 1, and movement over torch cuts should be restricted to 10 m.p.h.
The BMWE commented that torch cutting should be prohibited in all
classes above Class 2, and that existing torch cuts in Class 2 track
should be removed within a reasonable time. The AAR commented that the
torch cut provision should simply prohibit torch cutting in Classes 3
through 5 track. However, the AAR further stated that it generally
supports the NPRM and offered this suggestion to be considered only in
the event FRA decides to change the proposed provision in accordance
with the comments of other RSAC participants who helped draft the
provision and then later withdrew support of the RSAC recommendations.
This final rule adopts the proposed rule as drafted by the Track
Working Group, approved by majority consensus of the RSAC, and proposed
in the NPRM. The comment by the NTSB, that torch cuts should be removed
from any track class above Class 1, is based upon the NTSB's
investigation of the 1983 Amtrak derailment in Texas. However, FRA's
analysis of the derailment indicates that the high alloy content of the
rail at the site of the accident played a larger part in causing the
derailment than did the torch cut. Therefore, FRA is not persuaded by
the NTSB's analysis. The BMWE offered no clear explanation of its
proposal to prohibit all torch cuts in track classes above Class 2.
Similarly, FRA was not persuaded by AAR's argument that accident
statistics fail to support a torch cut regulation that requires
anything more than a prohibition against any future torch cutting in
track classes above Class 3. FRA believes that existing torch cuts in
the higher classes of track may pose a danger of derailment.

Other Issues

Plant Railroads and Industrial Spurs

In general, FRA has elected not to exercise jurisdiction over the
safety of railroads that conduct their operations exclusively within an
industrial or military installation. FRA chose this self-imposed
limitation because such operations have not demonstrated the same
degree and frequency of track problems found on tracks in the general
system which are subject to heavier tonnages and more frequent use.
Nevertheless, FRA recognizes its responsibility for the safety of
railroad employees and operations inside such facilities where a
general system railroad provides service on that property, either by
picking up and placing cars for transportation in interstate commerce
or by switching for the plant. The same responsibility applies to
operations on privately owned industrial spurs used exclusively by a
main line railroad to serve an industry.
The applicability section of the current Track Safety Standards
(Sec. 213.3) excludes track ``located inside an installation which is
not part of the general railroad system of transportation.'' This broad
statement implies that the track standards do not apply anywhere inside
a plant, regardless of who operates there or the type of operations
that occur on the plant track. However, Sec. 213.3 must be read in
conjunction with 49 C.F.R. Part 209, Appendix A, which explains that
the track owner of any plant railroad trackage over which a general
system railroad operates is responsible for the condition of track used
by the general system railroad. With the entrance of a general system
railroad, the plant does not become part of the general system, but it
does lose some of its insularity as to that part of the track used by
the general system railroad.
Since the enactment of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, FRA
has had at its disposal statutory authority to issue emergency orders
to repair or discontinue use of industrial or plant trackage should the
agency find that conditions of the track pose a hazard of death or
injury. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20901. It is FRA's opinion that this
emergency order authority is sufficient power to ensure track safety
within plants, as well as other installations (e.g., military
installations). However, if conditions or events in the future tend to
demonstrate that track safety within plants or installations should be
more specifically regulated, FRA will seek to change the applicability
of this Part in a future rulemaking. This final rule leaves the
application section of the Track Safety Standards unchanged.

Train Speed/Preemption

Under the current Track Safety Standards, FRA has only an indirect
role in determining speed limits. Railroads set train speed in their
timetables or train orders. Once a railroad sets a train speed, it must
then maintain the track according to FRA standards for the class of
track that corresponds to that train speed. The signal and train
control regulations also fix limits on train speed based upon the type
of signal system that is in place. If the railroad fails to comply with
track or signal system requirements for speed at which trains are
operated, the railroad is subject to penalty.

[[Page 33999]]

FRA's current regulations governing train speed do not afford any
adjustment of train speeds in urban settings or at grade crossings.
This omission is intentional. FRA believes that locally established
speed limits may result in hundreds of individual speed restrictions
along a train's route, increasing safety hazards and causing train
delays. The safest train maintains a steady speed. Every time a train
must slow down and then speed up, safety hazards, such as buff and
draft forces, are introduced. These kinds of forces can enhance the
chance of derailment with its attendant risk of injury to employees,
the traveling public, and surrounding communities.
FRA always has contended that Federal regulations preempt any local
speed restrictions on trains. Section 20106 of Title 49, United States
Code (formerly 45 U.S.C. Sec. 434) declares that--

[l]aws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety shall be
nationally uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or
continue in force an additional or more stringent law, regulation,
or order related to railroad safety when the law, regulation, or
order--(1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local
safety hazard; (2) is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or
order of the United States Government; and (3) does not unreasonable
burden interstate commerce.

FRA's long-held belief that Part 213 preempts local speed laws was
verified by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 in the case CSX v.
Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993). The Court held that legal duties
imposed on railroads by a state's common law of negligence fall within
the scope of preemption provision of 49 U.S.C. 20106, which preempts
any state ``law, rule, regulation, order or standard relating to
railroad safety.'' The Court said that preemption of such state laws
``will lie only if the federal regulations substantially subsume the
subject matter of the relevant state law.'' Easterwood, 664. However,
the Court further stated that because Part 213 ties certain track
requirements to train speed, it should be viewed as ``covering the
subject matter'' of speed limits.
Notwithstanding some of the language in Easterwood that a cursory
reading may otherwise indicate, FRA has never assumed the task of
setting train speed. Rather, the agency holds railroads responsible for
minimizing the risk of derailment by properly maintaining track for the
speed they set themselves. For example, if a railroad wants its freight
trains to operate at 59 m.p.h. between two certain locations, it must
maintain the tracks between those locations to Class 4 standards.
Moreover, there are significant safety reasons for facilitating the
fastest transit of trains throughout the railroad system. For example,
the risk of releases of hazardous materials is reduced by minimizing
the time such shipments spend in transportation. It would be poor
public policy to allow local governments to attempt to lower their risk
by raising everyone's risk and by clogging the transportation system.
Railroads have strong economic motives to minimize the time shipments
spend in transportation, so public safety and employee safety are best
served by setting and enforcing the standards railroads must meet to
travel at particular speeds.
In recent years, FRA has encountered increasing pressure from
communities along railroad rights-of-way to set slower train speeds on
main tracks located in urban areas. They typically cite the inherent
dangers of grade crossings, pedestrian safety, as well as the risk of
derailments of rail cars containing hazardous materials.
As to grade crossings, FRA has consistently maintained that their
danger is a separate issue from train speed. The physical properties of
a moving train virtually always prevent it from stopping in time to
avoid hitting an object on the tracks regardless of the speed at which
the train is traveling. Prevention of grade crossing accidents is more
effectively achieved through the use of adequate crossing warning
systems and through observance by the traveling public of crossing
restrictions and precautions. Therefore, FRA continues to sponsor and/
or support initiatives to improve safety at grade crossings under the
Department of Transportation's Grade Crossing Action Plan. These
initiatives are geared towards enhancing enforcement of traffic laws at
crossings, closing unneeded crossings, enhancing rail corridor crossing
reviews and improvements, expanding public education and Operation
Lifesaver activities, increasing safety at private crossings, improving
data and research efforts, and preventing rail trespassing.
In January, 1995, FRA implemented regulations for maintenance,
inspection and testing of warning devices at crossings, such as lights
and gates. See 59 FR 50086. The agency also implemented regulations
requiring certain locomotives to be equipped with auxiliary lights
making trains more visible to motorists, railroad employees, and
pedestrians. See 61 FR 8881. FRA believes that these measures are more
effective approaches to enhancing safety at grade crossings than an
attempt to design speed limits for each geographic situation.
FRA received no comments on this issue following a similar
discussion of the issue in the NPRM.

Vegetation

The vegetation control requirements of Part 213 currently deal with
fire hazards to bridges, visibility of railroad signs and signals,
interference with normal trackside duties of employees, proper
functioning of signal and communication lines, and the ability to
inspect moving equipment (``roll by'' inspections). The regulation does
not address the issues of motorists' and pedestrians' ability to see
warning devices at highway-rail crossings.
Since 1978, accidents and fatalities at highway-rail grade
crossings have decreased dramatically due to engineering improvements
at individual crossings, education of the public, and greater
enforcement of highway traffic laws. Nevertheless, FRA finds that the
present loss of life, injuries, and property damage are still
unacceptable. Projections for 1997 based upon nine months of
preliminary data show that 441 people were killed, and 1,525 suffered
serious injuries in grade crossing accidents. Second only to trespasser
fatalities as a leading cause of death in the railroad industry,
highway-rail collisions far out-number fatalities to railroad employees
and passengers.
In lengthy discussions about vegetation at grade crossings, the
Track Working Group quickly realized that the issue requires the
expertise of entities not represented on the Track Working Group or
RSAC, e.g., state and federal highway designers, traffic engineers, as
well as representatives of local jurisdictions with grade crossings.
The NPRM generated no comments concerning the issue of vegetation at
grade crossings. FRA agrees with the assessment reached by the Track
Working Group that the issue requires the judgment of experts in other
transportation arenas. Therefore, this final rule adds only one
requirement for railroads in maintaining vegetation. Under this rule,
railroads are required to clear vegetation away from signs and signals
on railroad rights-of-way at grade crossings. The additional language
is intended only to cover the clearing of vegetation at highway-rail
grade crossings to provide adequate visibility of railroad signs and
signals to the traveling public. It is not intended to cover or preempt
state or local requirements for the clearing of vegetation on railroad
rights-of-way at highway-rail grade crossings, nor is it

[[Page 34000]]

intended to dictate standards for surrounding landowners.
Because concern about this issue remains, the FRA Administrator has
recommended that the Department of Transportation initiate a joint
regulatory proceeding by FRA and the Federal Highway Administration to
address vegetation maintenance and sight distances for motorists at
grade crossings. Should the Department of Transportation decide not to
initiate such a regulatory project, FRA will then consider the next
appropriate action which may include launching its own regulatory
proceeding.

Metric System

In the 1992 ANPRM, FRA requested comments in response to a proposal
to create a dual system of measurements, English and metric, for
inclusion in these regulations. Responses were varied. Some commenters
suggested that FRA implement metric standards, while others recommended
that a dual system would be better. Still others argued that the
addition of metric standards, whether as a single standard or in a dual
system with English standards, would cause confusion in the industry.
They added that computerized recordkeeping would have to be re-
programmed at a significant expense.
The RSAC did not recommend the addition of metric standards in this
proceeding. Although the issue was raised in the NPRM, it generated no
comments. FRA concludes that the introduction of metric values into the
regulations is not appropriate at this time.

Section by Section Analysis--Track Classes 1-5

The Federal Track Safety Standards, until now, included only six
classes of track representing speeds up to 110 m.p.h. The regulations
applied to all of the classes. This final rule separates the classes of
track into two general categories: Classes 1 through 5 for speeds up to
90 m.p.h. (80 m.p.h. for freight) and Classes 6 through 9 for speeds
above 90 m.p.h. (80 m.p.h. for freight). Subparts A through F apply to
Classes 1 through 5, as they always have. However, the new Subpart G
applies exclusively to Classes 6 through 9. This separation of the
classes of track is designed for better ease of use. Owners of track
over which high speed trains operate need to refer only to Subpart G
for almost all of the relevant regulations. (The exceptions are
Sec. 213.2, Preemptive effect; Sec. 213.3, Application; and
Sec. 213.15, Penalties.) On the other hand, track owners over which
train speeds do not exceed 90 m.p.h. continue to refer to Subparts A
through .
Class 6 is included in the category for high speed track, governed
by Subpart G, because the safety issues associated with that class of
track more closely resemble those associated with the higher classes.

Section 213.1--Scope of the Part

Proposed rule: An amendment to this section would eliminate the
word ``initial.'' When the Track Safety Standards were first published
in 1971, they were referred to as ``initial safety standards'' because
they were the first Federal standards addressing track safety. Twenty-
five years and several amendments later, the current Track Safety
Standards are no longer initial standards. Therefore this amendment
eliminates a mischaracterization of the standards by removing the
outdated descriptive ``initial.''
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendment.
Final rule: The section incorporates the change as proposed in the
NPRM and adds a sentence to distinguish the applicability of Subpart G
from the applicability of Subparts A through F. Subpart G applies to
track over which trains are operated at speeds in excess of those
permitted over Class 5 track, a maximum of 80 m.p.h. for freight trains
and 90 m.p.h. for passenger trains. Subpart G is designed to be mostly
comprehensive, so that a railroad operating at speeds above Class 5
maximum speeds may refer to Subpart G for all of the substantive track
safety requirements for high speed rail. Such a railroad needs to refer
to the earlier sections of the Track Safety Standards only for the
general provisions at Sec. 213.2 (preemptive effect), Sec. 213.3
(application), and Sec. 213.1 (Penalties). On the other hand, railroads
which never operate at speeds in excess of the maximum Class 5 speeds
need not refer to Subpart G at all.
The final rule also adds language to this section to state that
railroads are not restricted from adopting and enforcing more stringent
track safety requirements as long as they are not inconsistent with the
track safety standards in this Part. This statement is consistent with
the earlier statement that these regulations are minimum requirements.

Section 213.2--Preemptive Effect

Proposed rule: This section is added to Part 213 to indicate that
states cannot adopt or continue in force laws related to the subject
matter covered in this rule, unless such laws are needed to address a
local safety hazard and they impose no undue burden on interstate
commerce. This section is consistent with the mandate of 49 U.S.C.
20106, formerly Sec. 205 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970.
Although the courts ultimately determine preemption in any particular
factual context, this section provides a statement of agency intent and
promotes national uniformity of regulation in accordance with the
statute.
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendment.
Final rule: The section is modified slightly so that the language
more closely corresponds to the language of the statute. See 49 U.S.C.
20106.

Section 213.3--Application

Proposed rule: This section was not proposed to be amended. The
Track Working Group discussed amending subsection (b) to reference
Appendix A of Part 209 in an effort to clarify FRA's safety policy
toward trackage used by general system railroads within the confines of
installations. According to Appendix A of Part 209, a plant does not
become a general system railroad, subject to all of the attendant
safety requirements applied to such railroads, simply because a general
system railroad operates over a portion of the plant trackage.
Nevertheless, a plant owner is held liable for the condition of any
plant trackage over which a general system railroad operates. Under
this policy, FRA will not hold plant owners responsible for compliance
with ancillary track safety provisions, such as the requirements for
recordkeeping or inspection frequencies. However, FRA will judge the
safety of the plant railroad against the substantive safety
requirements in those standards to assess the need to invoke its
emergency order authority against the plant owner.
The Track Working Group advised that a reference in Part 213 to
Appendix A of Part 209, which is merely a statement of FRA policy,
could have the effect of making all provisions of Part 213, including
those ancillary provisions, enforceable against thousands of plant
owners, at least to the extent general system railroads operate within
plant borders. Such a result would be more far-reaching than intended
by the RSAC.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the application of Part 213
be extended to cover standard gage tourist railroads which operate off
the general system and meet the FRA's test for insularity. This
commenter also suggested that the agency consider developing track
safety standards for non-standard gage tourist railroad operations.

[[Page 34001]]

Final rule: This section is amended to conform the discussion of
jurisdiction over rapid transit service to the statute. See 49 U.S.C.
20102. The statute has been amended since part 213 was issued, but
Sec. 213.3(b)(2) was never amended to conform to the statute. The Track
Safety Standards will still exclude urban area rapid transit systems
that are unconnected to the general system. This change is not intended
make the Track Safety Standards applicable to rapid transit whose only
connection to the general system is a switch permitting receipt of
shipments from the general system.
In response to concerns expressed by and about tourist railroads,
FRA proffered, and the RSAC accepted, a task to study tourist railroad
concerns. The RSAC has established a working group to perform the task.
It is comprised of agency and tourist railroad industry representatives
who are analyzing the industry's unique aspects and formulating
recommendations for appropriate regulation of that specialized
industry. Therefore, the NPRM proposed no changes in that regard.
While FRA does not think a reference to Appendix A to Part 209
would have the effect feared by the Track Working Group, FRA declines
to exercise its jurisdiction over plant railroads at this time because
the safety issues now presented on their track do not warrant the
allocation of agency resources that would be diverted from matters
presenting greater safety risks. The agency continues to have safety
jurisdiction over those railroads and may invoke its statutory
emergency authority if it deems that necessary in order to safeguard
anyone from the hazard of death or personal injury.

Section 213.4--Excepted Track

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to maintain the provision for
excepted track with added restrictions for its use and maintenance.
Since its inception in 1982, the excepted track category has become an
economic issue for some small railroads, particularly short line
railroads and low volume shippers. It allows railroads to continue to
use, on a limited basis, low-density trackage that does not earn
sufficient revenue to justify the expense of maintaining it to higher
track standards. It allows short lines to acquire and use trackage that
may have been abandoned by larger railroads, thereby preserving rail
service to shippers and avoiding the necessity of shifting traffic over
those lines from moving to some other, perhaps more hazardous, means of
transport.
Because the majority of reportable derailments on excepted track
are track-caused, and the majority of this total are wide gage-related,
the NPRM proposed to institute a requirement that gage must not exceed
of 58\1/4\'' on excepted track. This requirement would apply to the
actual gage measurement itself, and would not extend to the evaluation
of crossties and fasteners which provide the gage restraint. A
clarification was added to the inspection requirements on excepted
track which specifically reference turnout inspections required under
this section.
The NPRM also proposed to include a requirement that railroads
notify FRA at least 10 days before removing trackage from excepted
status. This provision is intended to prevent the practice FRA has
witnessed in the past by some railroads who remove trackage from
excepted status only long enough to move a passenger excursion train or
a train with more than five cars containing hazardous materials.
Furthermore, the NPRM included an edit to Sec. 213.4(e)(2) changing the
word ``revenue'' to ``occupied'' in describing passenger trains
prohibited from operating over excepted track. This change addresses a
misconception by some railroads that they could operate passenger
excursion trains over excepted track as long as they did not charge
passengers admission for a ride. The proposed change clarifies that the
prohibition is directed toward all passengers but is not meant to
include train crew members, track maintenance crews, and other railroad
employees who must travel over the track to attend to their work
duties.
Comments: Comments received generally supported the proposed
amendments to the excepted track regulation. However, several
commenters proposed that additional requirements and restrictions
should be incorporated into the regulation. Proposals included a total
prohibition of hazardous materials shipments, additional restrictions
on where excepted track could be utilized, additional minimum safety
standards, and a time limit for length of time a track could remain in
excepted status.
Final rule: In preparing its recommended proposed rule, the Track
Working Group discussed at length the same requirements and
restrictions suggested for inclusion into this final rule by
commenters. The final rule includes additional regulatory control over
abuses of the excepted track provision which have been documented in
the past. The final rule also prescribes a minimum safety standard for
gage that addresses the major causal factor associated with track-
caused derailments on excepted track.
FRA rejected the suggestion that the provision should include a
prohibition of all hazardous material shipments. Many small short line
railroads who operate over excepted track haul hazardous materials on a
regular basis. A general prohibition would cause many of these
railroads to close operation, and the hazardous materials would be
hauled by trucks over public highways. Similarly, a restriction on the
length of time track may remain in excepted status, and a restriction
on where excepted track could be utilized, would place an undue burden
on many short line railroads who operate exclusively on excepted track.
Statistics show that 87 track-caused reportable accidents occurred on
8,000 to 9,000 miles of excepted track in five years. These numbers, in
FRA's judgment, do not justify implementing restrictions over-
burdensome to small railroads.
FRA considered implementing minimum safety standards, in addition
to the new gage and switch requirements. However, the ASLRA estimated
that the cost to short line railroads to improve excepted track to
Class 1 standards would cost the short line industry some $230 million.
FRA believes that this final rule provides needed additional measures
of safety for excepted track while maintaining the regulatory relief
the excepted track provision provides, but under more restrictive
conditional and operational requirements.

Section 213.5--Responsibility of Track Owners

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to change subsections (c) and (d)
to modify the way in which track owners may assign compliance
responsibility to another entity. Under the current regulations, a
track owner may petition the Federal Railroad Administrator to
recognize another party as the one primarily responsible for the
maintenance and inspection of the owner's track. This provision is
intended to facilitate compliance by track owners whose track is leased
to another entity for operation. Often track owners (e.g., municipal
communities, county governments) do not have the necessary expertise to
maintain compliance with Federal track standards, but their track
lessees do. Thus, track owners can successfully petition FRA for
reassignment of primary responsibility by providing certain information
about the assigned party and the relationship of the assigned party to
the track owner. When such a petition is approved by FRA, the

[[Page 34002]]

assigned party becomes responsible, along with the track owner, for
compliance with Part 213.
The change for these subsections eliminates the approval process by
FRA, shown in years past to be the cause of unnecessary paperwork.
Records show that FRA has approved almost every such petition it has
reviewed. Under the subsection proposed in the NPRM, a track owner
could reassign responsibility to another entity simply by notifying
FRA's regional administrator for the FRA region in which the track is
located. The notification would include the same information required
for the petitions under the current standards. However, FRA would
discontinue its practice of publishing in the Federal Register the
petitions for reassignment, along with requests for public comment. The
reassignments would no longer be reviewed by FRA's Railroad Safety
Board.
FRA believes that the change would not diminish track safety.
Although the intent of the original subsection was to give FRA some
control over who should be responsible for maintaining track, the
practical application of the subsection has shown that such control by
the agency is unnecessary. Rather, it is more important for FRA to know
what party or parties to hold responsible for compliance with track
safety standards. Therefore, the subsection (c) would require
notification to the agency of reassignments of track responsibility,
but it would no longer require approval by FRA now required in
subsection (d). The text currently shown as subsection (d) would be
eliminated.
The NPRM also proposed one minor change in current subsection (e),
substituting the name ``Surface Transportation Board'' for ``Interstate
Commerce Commission.'' This substitution is meant to reflect Congress'
action in 1995 to eliminate the Interstate Commerce Commission and turn
over many of its functions to the new Surface Transportation Board
within the Department of Transportation. With the elimination of the
current text of subsection (d), this subsection now designated as (e)
would become subsection (d).
Comments: Comments received were supportive of these changes.
Final rule: Subsection (f) of this section is added to include in
the category of those responsible for compliance with the track
standards those who perform the function of complying with the
standards, not just the track owner. For example, this addition will
hold track maintenance contractors responsible for compliance. This is
not inconsistent with past enforcement and it conforms to the authority
given FRA by the statute. See 49 U.S.C. 21301 and 1 U.S.C. 1.
Paragraph (e) of this section is changed to correct a typographical
error in the NPRM. The correct cite for the Federal law which gives the
Surface Transportation Board authority to direct rail service is 49
U.S.C. 11123.

Section 213.7--Designation of Qualified Persons To Supervise Certain
Renewals and Inspect Track

Proposed rule: In the past, FRA has interpreted this section in a
way that allowed signal maintainers and other railroad employees to
pass trains over broken rails or pull-aparts in situations when they
were the first on the scene to investigate a signal or track circuit
problem. Under this interpretation, the intent of the regulation would
not be violated if signal maintainers or others had been given selected
training relating to the safe passage of trains over broken rails and
pull-aparts. The BMWE, however, has argued that this section was never
intended to allow for the partial qualification of personnel on Part
213 standards.
The RSAC recommended the creation of a new subsection (d) which
prescribes the manner in which persons not fully qualified as outlined
in subsections (a) and (b) of this section may be qualified for the
specific purpose of authorizing train movements over broken rails and
pull-aparts. Language in the new subsection is specific to employees
with at least one year of maintenance of way or signal experience and
requires a minimum of four hours of training and examination on
requirements related to the safe passage of trains over broken rails
and pull-aparts. The purpose of the examination is to ascertain the
person's ability to effectively apply these requirements. A railroad
may use the examination to determine whether or not a person should be
allowed to authorize train movements over broken rails and pull-aparts.
However, the examination is not to be used as a test to disqualify the
person from other duties.
The maximum speed over broken rails and pull-aparts shall not
exceed 10 m.p.h. However, movement authorized by a person qualified
under this subsection may further restrict speed over broken rails and
pull-aparts if warranted by the particular circumstances. This person
must watch all movements and be prepared to stop the train if
necessary. Fully qualified persons under Sec. 213.7 must be notified
and dispatched to the location promptly to assume responsibility for
authorizing train movements and effecting temporary or permanent
repairs. The word ``promptly'' is meant to provide the railroad with
some flexibility in events where there is only one train to pass over
the condition prior to the time when a fully qualified person would
report for a regular tour of duty, or where a train is due to pass over
the condition before a fully qualified person is able to report to the
scene. Railroads should not use persons qualified under 213.7(d) to
authorize multiple train movements over such conditions for an extended
period of time.
Comments: Comments generally supported the proposed amendments to
this section. One commenter argued that only those employees fully
qualified under Sec. 213.7 should be designated to authorize train
movements over broken rails and pull-aparts. FRA disagrees with this
statement. For the narrow purpose of temporarily authorizing train
movements over broken rails or pull aparts, a person does not need to
be trained in all of the remedial actions included in Part 213, as
outlined in Sec. 213.7.
Several commenters suggested that Sec. 213.7 should contain a
requirement for the requalification of employees designated to inspect
track or to supervise restorations or renewals. A regulation requiring
such requalification of designated persons would overlap the existing
regulation, as FRA has long held that the requirement to be
``qualified'' is a continuing requirement, not a static one, and it is
the responsibility of the track owner to assure that persons designated
under this section are qualified at all times. This mandate for
qualification is not periodic, it is continuing. FRA will address this
issue by issuing a technical bulletin containing ``good practice''
industry guidelines for the requalification of persons designated under
Sec. 213.7, as drafted by the Track Working Group.
Final rule: FRA believes that persons who are trained, examined,
and periodically re-examined on specific issues relating to the
singular function of passing trains over broken rails and pull-aparts
at restricted speed does not violate the intent of the Track Safety
Standards, nor does this practice compromise safety provided those
persons demonstrate to the track owner that they know and understand
the requirements on which they were examined.
FRA proposes to re-designate paragraph (d) in the NPRM as paragraph
(c) in the final rule. Similarly, paragraph (c) in the NPRM will become
paragraph

[[Page 34003]]

(d) in the final rule with a reference to ``persons not fully
qualified'' for the purpose of maintaining records of those
designations. These changes provide for a more orderly structure of the
requirements of this section and also recognize FRA's and the railroads
``need to know'' what persons are being designated under this new
paragraph for purposes of compliance with this part.

Section 213.9--Classes of Track: Operating Speed Limits

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to move Class 6 standards to
Subpart G, a new subpart which establishes track safety standards for
high speed rail operations. As proposed in the NPRM, the new subpart
would consist of Class 6 and three new track classes, Classes 7 through
9, to accommodate train speeds up to 200 m.p.h. The Track Working Group
and the RSAC recommended including Class 6 in the high speed standards
because that class of track already requires certain heightened
maintenance practices not required by the lower classes of track.
Comments: Comments received generally supported the proposed
amendment to this section. One commenter suggested that the provision
under Sec. 213.9(b) allowing operation for up to 30 days over track not
in compliance with Class 1 standards was too liberal, and this option
should only be allowed as an upper limit for track under emergency
repairs.
Final rule: FRA believes that the option provided the track owner
under subsection (b) of this section, to continue operations over track
not in full compliance with Class 1 standards, at Class 1 speeds for a
period of not more than 30 days, is appropriate, considering the many
types of defects that can occur and the various levels of risks
associated with these defects. The regulation requires that the person
designated under Sec. 213.7(a) who makes the determination to continue
operations at Class 1 speeds shall do so only after personally
evaluating the immediate circumstances and the associated risks
presented by the non-compliance condition, and then determining that
operations may safely continue.
However, this provision is not meant to supplant the remedial
actions for defective rails prescribed in Sec. 213.113. If a person
designated under Sec. 213.7 determines that tracks containing defective
rail may continue in use, the rail must be replaced or the remedial
action prescribed in the table in Sec. 213.113 must be initiated.
There are several minor editorial changes to this section. In
subsection (a), the reference to subsection (c) contained in the NPRM
was deleted in the final rule because there is no subsection (c) to
this section. The final rule also cross-references the maximum
allowable speed for excepted track in the Sec. 213.9(a) table
concerning ``Maximum Allowable Operating Speeds.''
Otherwise, this section as proposed, is adopted in this final rule.
In grouping Class 6 with Classes 7 through 9, FRA does not suggest, and
it would be inaccurate to infer, that Class 6 track or operation of
trains over Class 6 track at the speeds permitted is in any way
unconventional or unusual. Trains have been run at those speeds for
decades.

Section 213.11--Restoration or Renewal of Track Under Traffic
Conditions

Proposed rule: An added phrase recommended by the RSAC for the end
of this section would clarify a qualified inspector's authority to
limit the speed of trains operating through areas under restoration or
renewal. In the Track Working Group, the BMWE expressed concern that
the current language of the section provides no guidance for track
inspectors determining the appropriate speed through restoration areas.
The language proposed by the NPRM gives a qualified track inspector
discretion to set train speed through a work area, but does not allow
the inspector to authorize trains to operate at speeds faster than the
maximum speed for the appropriate track class. This change does not
represent a change to past interpretation and enforcement of this
section; it is merely a clarification of established policy.
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendment.
Final rule: The section as proposed is adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.13--Measuring Track Not Under Load

Proposed rule: The proposed rule recommended no changes to this
section.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the phrase ``under a loaded
condition'' should be more clearly defined.
Final rule: FRA considers that the dynamic loading conditions
applied by train operations is implicit in the phrase ``under a loaded
condition'' and therefore the final rule is adopted as proposed by the
NPRM.

Section 213.15--Penalties

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed no changes to this section. The
section covers all subparts to this part, including the new Subpart G.
Comments: One commenter advised FRA that Appendix B had not been
revised to reflect entries for the new Sec. 213.119 addressing
Continuous Welded Rail (CWR).
Final rule: The final rule changes this section in several ways.
The section is now entitled, ``Penalties'' rather than ``Civil
penalties'' because it now includes a provision for criminal penalties.
The authority for FRA to initiate criminal penalties is granted by the
statute at 49 U.S.C. 21311.
The section also adds language to indicate that ``person'' as used
in this section is defined by the statute at 1 U.S.C. 1 and includes,
but is not limited to, a railroad, manager, supervisor, official, agent
of the railroad, owner, manufacturer, lessor or lessee of railroad
equipment or track, independent contractor to the railroad.
The section also changes the maximum penalties FRA is authorized to
assess for violations of the provisions of this Part. The maximum
penalty is raised from $10,000 to $11,000 for violations, and from
$20,000 to $22,000 for willful violations. This change is included to
comply with the provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996 which requires Federal agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties
to counter inflation's effect of diminishing the impact of these
penalties. See Pub. L. 104-134, April 26, 1996. According to the Act,
the inflation adjustment is to be calculated by increasing the maximum
civil monetary penalty by the percentage that the Consumer Price Index
for the month of June, 1995, exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the
month of June of the last calendar year in which the amount of the
penalty was last set or adjusted. The initial adjustment, however, may
not exceed 10 percent. Hence, the maximum penalties for violations of
this Part are increased by 10 percent. In addition, the minimum civil
penalty amount shown in this section is changed from $250 to $500 to
conform with Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992, codified
at 49 U.S.C. 21301.
In further compliance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act, FRA
reviewed existing penalties contained in Appendix B of Part 213. After
examination of those penalties and FRA's enforcement policies, FRA
decided that the existing penalties require no adjustment at this time.
The civil penalties shown in Appendix B of the NPRM did not include
penalties for CWR, torch cut rail, new provisions in excepted track or
Subpart G. The Appendix B in this final rule includes penalties for the
new provisions in the final rule. Because

[[Page 34004]]

FRA's civil penalties are statements of policy, notice and comment of
these changes were not required.

Section 213.17--Exemptions

Proposed rule: The Track Working Group considered a proposal by the
BMWE that this section be eliminated. However, the group agreed that
the existing language allowing for the temporary suspension of certain
track standards is appropriate and exemptions are necessary for the
industry to experiment with alternative methods of compliance and new
technology. Further, FRA is required by law to consider appropriately
suggested waiver requests and has adopted generally applicable
procedures for doing so in 49 CFR Part 211. Therefore, the NPRM
recommended that this section be left as currently written.
Comments: No comments received.
Final rule: The title of this section, as well as the language of
the section itself, are changed by the replacement of ``exemptions''
with ``waivers.'' This language change makes the section consistent
with the language contained in 49 U.S.C. 20103, as well as 49 CFR Part
211.

Section 213.19--Information Collection

Proposed rule: The addition of this section was not proposed in the
NPRM.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this addition.
Final rule: FRA adds this section to show which sections of this
part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. See 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The requirement for approval by OMB has been added since
the Track Safety Standards were first issued. While subsequent
revisions to the track standards have received OMB approval, those
approvals have not been reflected in the standards themselves.

Section 213.31--Scope

Proposed rule: The Track Working Group discussed this section and
recommended that it remain as currently written.
Comments: FRA received no comments.
Final rule: FRA agrees with the recommendation of the Track Working
Group and this section as proposed is adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.33--Drainage

Proposed rule: In its 1990 petition for revision of the track
standards, the BMWE requested that this section be expanded to include
more specific requirements for drainage and water diversion around
track roadbeds, addressing water seeping toward the track, water
falling upon the roadbed, cross drainage, and the use of geotextiles.
The proposal was discussed by the Track Working Group, as was a
proposal by the AAR that merely modified the phrase ``clear of
obstruction'' to ``sufficiently clear of obstruction.'' The NPRM
proposed to follow an RSAC recommendation that the section be left
unchanged.
Comments: No comments received.
Final rule: The section as proposed is adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.37--Vegetation

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to add a phrase to subsection (b)
to include a requirement to clear vegetation from signs and signals
along railroad rights-of-way and at highway-rail grade crossings. The
current regulation stipulates only that vegetation cannot interfere
with visibility of railroad signs and signals. Because the scope of
Part 213 limits vegetation requirements to railroad property, this
proposal was not intended to be an attempt to dictate standards for
surrounding landowners. The additional language was intended only to
cover the clearing of vegetation at highway-rail grade crossings to
provide adequate visibility to the traveling public of railroad signs
and signals; it was not intended to cover or preempt state or local
requirements for the clearing of vegetation on railroad rights-of-way
at highway-rail grade crossings.
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendment.
Final rule: The final rule includes one minor change to the rule
text of this section to correct an error regarding the effective date
for compliance with the change. In the NPRM, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
were both exempt from compliance for a period of one year following the
effective date of the rule. The requirement for controlling vegetation
along the right-of-way so that it does not obstruct the visibility of
railroad signs and signals, as outlined in paragraph (b)(1), has been a
requirement of the Track Safety Standards since their inception. The
final rule will clarify that only paragraph (b)(2), which was added to
enhance visibility to the traveling public of railroad signs and
signals at highway-rail crossings, will be exempt from compliance for
one year following the effective date of the rule.

Section 213.51--Scope

Section 213.53--Gage

Proposed rule: The proposed rule recommended no changes to this
section.
Comments: No comments received.
Final rule: The final rule includes one minor editorial change to
this section. The section now cross-references the maximum allowable
gage for excepted track in the gage table under Sec. 213.53(b) which
was inadvertently omitted in the NPRM.

Section 213.55--Alinement

Proposed rule: The NPRM introduced a 31-foot chord requirement, in
addition to the present 62-foot chord requirement, for measuring
alinement on curves in Classes 3 through 5 track. The RSAC, on advice
from the Track Working Group, recommended this addition to control
transient short wavelength variations in alinement. This control was
considered necessary to introduce an averaging approach for the
application of the Vmax formula which determines the maximum
allowable operating speed for each curve. The change in the application
of the Vmax formula is discussed in Sec. 213.57 of this
notice.
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendment.
Final rule: The section as proposed is adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.57--Curves; Elevation and Speed Limitations

Proposed rule: The existing subsection (a) limits the design
elevation on curves to a maximum of six inches. However, this
subsection also provides for a deviation from this design elevation,
which is contained in the Sec. 213.63 table. For a curve elevated to
six inches in Class 1 track, the allowable deviation would be three
inches and therefore any point in that curve could have as much as nine
inches of elevation and remain in compliance. For a similar situation
in Class 3 track, any point in that curve could have as much as seven
and three-fourths inches of elevation and still be in compliance. For
modern rail cars with a high center of gravity, low speed curve
negotiation under excessive levels of superelevation places the vehicle
in an increased state of overbalance. This condition creates the
possibility of wheel unloading and

[[Page 34005]]

subsequent wheel climb when warp conditions are encountered within the
curve.
The Track Working Group considered the characteristics of the
present-day vehicle fleet and concluded that a lower limit on maximum
elevation in a curve should be prescribed in the regulations.
Therefore, the NPRM proposed to revise subsection (a) to limit the
amount of crosslevel at any point in a curve to not more than eight
inches on Classes 1 and 2 track, and not more than seven inches on
Classes 3 through 5 track.
Subsection (b) of this section addresses the maximum allowable
operating speed for curved track. The equilibrium speed on a curve is
the speed where the resultant force of the weight and centrifugal force
is perpendicular to the plane of the track. The American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association's (AREMA) Manual of
Engineering, Chapter 5, states that passenger cars have been shown to
ride comfortably around a curve at a speed which produces three inches
of underbalance, or otherwise stated, three inches less elevation than
would be required to produce equilibrium conditions. The AREMA Manual
sets forth a formula based on the steady-state forces involved in curve
negotiation which is commonly referred to as the Vmax
formula. This formula considers the variables of elevation, curvature,
and the amount of unbalanced elevation or cant deficiency in
determining the maximum curving speed. (Note: FRA considers the terms
``unbalanced elevation'' and ``cant deficiency'' to be
interchangeable.) The present standards under paragraph (b) limit
curving speed based on a maximum of three inches of unbalance or cant
deficiency and is commonly referred to as the ``three-inch unbalance
formula.'' FRA has granted waivers for other levels of unbalance on
specified equipment.
Over the years, railroad engineers have differed as to the
application of this three-inch unbalance formula. Some engineers have
suggested the designed elevation and curvature should be used to
calculate the maximum operating speed around a curve. Other engineers
recommend that an average of the entire curve or segment of the curve
better recognizes situations where steady-state conditions change. For
example, the elevation may be decreased through a road crossing to
accommodate road levels and then increased beyond the crossing.
Recognizing the origin and purpose of the Vmax formula,
the Track Working Group recommended that an average of the alinement
and crosslevel measurements through a track segment in the body of the
curve should be used in the formula to arrive at the maximum authorized
speed. This approach recognizes the ``steady-state'' purpose of the
formula. Transient locations (points) are covered by the alinement and
track surface tables. Normally, approximately 10 stations are used
through the track segment, spaced at 15'6'' apart. If the length of the
body of the curve is less than 155 feet, measurements should be taken
for the full length of the body of the curve.
This uniform or averaging technique over the 10 stations through
the track segment is consistent with the concept used by the vehicle/
track dynamicists who discuss ``g'' levels in steady-state conditions,
often considered to be one or two seconds. At 80 m.p.h., a vehicle will
have traversed approximately 118 feet of track in one second.
Measurements taken over 155 feet (10 stations at 15'6'') provide the
necessary distance to determine the behavior of the vehicle over the
one- or two-second steady-state interval.
Analysis has shown that, although application of the
Vmax formula on a point-by-point basis is overly
conservative, it does provide for the coverage of certain combinations
of alinement and crosslevel deviations in Classes 3 through 5 track
which could result in wheel climb derailments. However, further
analysis has shown that these transient short-wavelength anomalies can
be covered by the introduction of a 31-foot chord to the alinement
table contained in Sec. 213.55.
The Track Working Group also recommended the addition of new
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) which will permit curving speeds
based on four inches of unbalance or cant deficiency for certain
categories of equipment that demonstrate safe curving performance at
this level of unbalance. The means of qualification is a basic
procedure known as a ``static lean'' test that has been used many times
in recent years for the testing of equipment for operation at higher
cant deficiencies. Although four inches of cant deficiency is usually
applied to passenger trains, other types of equipment with comparable
suspension systems, centers of gravity, and cross-sectional areas may
perform equally well. Standard freight equipment, however, typically
does not have the prerequisite vehicle characteristics which would
allow curving speeds based on more than three inches of cant
deficiency. The Track Working Group recommended that FRA review the
information provided by the track owner or operator to verify safe
curving performance and approve the proposal before the vehicles are
operated at four inches of cant deficiency.
The NPRM proposed to revise Appendix A, which currently contains a
table specifying the maximum allowable operating speed for each curve
based on three inches of cant deficiency. Under this proposed change,
Appendix A would be amended to include two tables. Table 1 would be
identical to the current table, while Table 2 would specify curving
speeds based on four inches of cant deficiency.
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendments.
Final rule: FRA adds paragraph (g) to this section to afford track
owners or railroads operating above Class 5 speeds an option to qualify
equipment at cant deficiencies greater than four inches in lower track
classes. Track owners or railroads operating under the provisions of
Subpart G may exercise the option on lower track classes (Classes 1
through 5) that are contiguous with high speed territory without first
petitioning FRA for a waiver from compliance with the other provisions
of Sec. 213.57.
Under paragraph (g), a track owner or railroad operating under
Subpart G on track that is contiguous to lower speed track may request
FRA approval to operate at a higher level of cant deficiency using the
same procedures available under Sec. 213.329(c) and (d). The track
owner or railroad must submit to FRA for approval a test plan which
will determine through engineering analysis the safety limits for
lateral carbody accelerations which can be used as a surrogate measure
to determine the amount of wheel unloading under cant deficient
operation.
Upon FRA approval of the test plan, the track owner or railroad may
conduct incrementally increasing train speed test runs to demonstrate
that wheel unloading is within the prescribed safety limits. Once the
test is completed and FRA approves a level of cant deficient operation,
paragraph (g) requires geometry car inspections and acceleration
measurements to confirm the integrity of the vehicle/track interaction
on the curves.
The provision in paragraph (g) does not apply to track owners or
railroads which operate trains in only Classes 1 through 5. FRA must
consider other factors associated with track in Classes 1 through 5,
such as the likelihood of a decrease in overall track quality and an
absence of information generated through vehicle qualification testing
procedures as required under Sec. 213.345. Therefore, a track owner or
railroad wishing to operate in Classes 1 through

[[Page 34006]]

5 at cant deficiencies greater than four inches must petition FRA for a
waiver.

Section 213.59--Elevation of Curved Track; Runoff

Sec. 213.63--Track Surface

Proposed rule: The present track surface table contained in this
section was established in the original standards more than 20 years
ago and has served the industry well as a minimum safety requirement.
However, some of the parameters need updating to recognize the
knowledge gained from investigation of derailment causes, engineering
analysis, and changes in terminology. Therefore, the NPRM proposed
several changes to track surface requirements to better address current
knowledge of track/vehicle interaction.
The NPRM proposed that the parameter referring to the rate of
runoff at the end of a track raise and the parameter for deviation from
uniform profile should both remain unchanged. The profile parameter is
conservative for single occurrences on both rails and less conservative
for repeated perturbations.
In the 1982 revisions to the Track Safety Standards, the
requirement for maintenance of curve records, including degree of
curvature and the amount of elevation designated in curves was removed.
Since that time, the term ``designated elevation'' has been
controversial and difficult to apply. The NPRM proposed to remove that
term from the revised table.
The NPRM also proposed to revise the way the Track Safety Standards
address transition spirals. For many curves, especially in the lower
track classes, track maintenance personnel often differ as to the
locations where spirals begin and end, as well as to the measured
runoff rate. In view of the somewhat subjective nature of the concept
of uniform runoff in spirals, the proposed changes in this notice use a
different approach from runoff or ``variation in crosslevel in
spirals'' and incorporate this parameter into another parameter.
In the present track surface table, the maximum variation in
crosslevel in spirals could exceed that allowed on tangents and in the
full body of curves over the same distance. The mechanism for
derailment in the body of the curve is the same as in the spiral. The
NPRM proposed that the differences in crosslevel in spirals be included
in one parameter to simplify the table and correct the discrepancy that
currently exists. The NPRM also proposed that the existing parameters
referring to ``deviation from designated elevation'' and ``variation in
crosslevel'' in spirals are unnecessary, provided spiral variations in
crosslevel are included in the ``warp'' parameter. The ``warp''
parameter is measured by determining the difference in crosslevel
between two points less than 62-feet apart.
While the difference in crosslevel parameter (warp) addresses the
majority of situations where wheel climb or rock off can occur, three
footnotes are added to the table to address specific situations.
The footnote identified by an asterisk inside the table addresses
the present practice on some railroads to design a greater runoff of
elevation in spirals due to physical restrictions on the length of
spirals. Spiral runoff in new construction must be designed and
maintained within the limits shown in the table for difference in
crosslevel.
Footnote 1 is included to address the known derailment cause where
a warp occurs in conjunction with an amount of curve elevation that
approaches the maximum typically in use. When a vehicle is in an
unbalanced condition on this curve elevation and encounters a warp
condition, the vehicle is subjected to wheel/rail forces that could
result in wheel climb.
Footnote 2 is included to address the harmonic rock off problem of
which the railroad industry has been aware for many years. Under
repeated warp conditions, the vehicle can experience an increase in
side-to-side rocking that may result in wheel climb in curves or center
plate separation on tangents.
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendments. One
commenter questioned the use of the terms ``variation'' and
``difference,'' and recommended the consistent use of one or the other,
but not both.
Final rule: The term ``variation'' only appears in the statement
behind the asterisk inside the track surface table. The term
``variation'' is used because this statement refers to the previous
warp standard for spirals which used the same term. In certain
locations, the prior standard for warp in spirals will be grandfathered
due to physical restrictions and therefore FRA believes the terms
should be consistent. In all other instances in this section, the term
``difference'' is used exclusively. The final rule makes one change in
the track surface table under the parameter described as the difference
in crosslevel between any two points less than 62 feet apart, or
commonly referred to as the ``warp'' parameter. The results of recent
track twist (warp) studies conducted at the Transportation Technology
Center (TTC), where three different vehicle types were tested to
determine their responses to crosslevel and combined crosslevel/
alinement perturbations on tangent and curved test zones, indicate that
a limit for warp of 2\1/4\ inches for Class 2 track would be more
appropriate than the proposed limit of 2\1/2\ inches by RSAC. The
report of the TTC testing was not available to the Track Working Group
when their recommendations were made.

Section 213.101--Scope

Section 213.103--Ballast; General

Section 213.109--Crossties

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to amend this section to include
several recommendations made by the Track Working Group and adopted by
the RSAC. After reviewing FRA's Accident/Incident data base, the Track
Working Group concluded that wide gage resulting from defective
crossties continues to be the single largest causal factor associated
with track-caused reportable derailments.
Gage widening forces applied to the track structure from the
movement of rolling stock tend to increase as track curvature
increases. Therefore, the NPRM proposed to increase the number of
effective crossties required under subsection (c) for turnouts and
curved track with over two degrees of curvature. The purpose of this
proposed requirement was to strengthen the track structure to enable it
to better resist such forces.

[[Page 34007]]

In Class 1 track, the required number of crossties in any 39-foot
segment of track would increase from five to six; in Class 2 track,
from eight to nine; in Class 3 track, from eight to 10; and in Classes
4 and 5 track, from 12 to 14. These changes were proposed to become
effective two years after the effective date of the final rule.
Under subsection (d), the NPRM proposed an optional requirement for
the number and placement of crossties near rail joints in Classes 3
through 5 track. The existing requirement calls for one crosstie within
a specified distance from the rail joint location, while the proposed
optional requirement would allow two crossties, one on each side of the
joint, within a specified distance from the rail joint location. FRA
previously examined both standards under various static loading
conditions. The results indicated that the proposed optional
requirement provides equal or better joint support than the present
requirement.
The NPRM also proposed to add a new subsection (e) to address track
constructed without conventional crossties, such as concrete-slab
track. The existing standards do not address this type of construction
in which the running rails are secured through fixation to another
structural member. The proposed addition addressed this type of track
construction by requiring railroads to maintain gage, surface, and
alinement to the standards specified in subsections (b)(1)(i), (ii),
and (iii).
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendments. One
commenter suggested that the GRMS technology be incorporated into this
section.
Final rule: As discussed earlier in the preamble to this final
rule, a separate task group continues to evaluate GRMS technology for
possible incorporation into the Track Safety Standards.
The final rule includes subsection (c) as it is currently written,
as well as subsection (d) to become effective two years after the
effective date of this final rule.
The section as proposed is adopted in this final rule with
renumbering of the subsections. Subsection (d) in the NPRM appears as
subsection (f) in the final rule, and subsection (e) in the NPRM
appears as subsection (g) in the final rule.

Section 213.113--Defective Rails

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed several substantive changes to
this section which reflect the results of FRA's on-going rail integrity
research program. The results indicate the need to revise the remedial
action tables and specifications to more adequately address the risks
of rail failure, reserving the most restrictive actions on limiting
operating speed for those rail defects which are large enough to
present a risk of service failure.
Because ``zero percent'' entries serve no useful purpose, they
should be dropped from the remedial action tables. Similarly, ``100
percent'' of rail head cross-sectional area is not a meaningful
dividing point for transverse defects. The proposed revisions to the
remedial action table for transverse defects placed a lower limit of
five percent of the rail head cross-sectional area. If a transverse
defect is reported to be less than five percent, no remedial action
would be required under the revised standards. Defects reported less
than five percent are not consistently found during rail breaking
programs and therefore defect determination within this size range is
not always reliable. Furthermore, if the determination is reliable,
defect growth to service failure size within the newly established
testing frequency under Sec. 213.237 is highly unlikely. The proposed
revisions to the remedial action table for transverse defects also
established one or more mid-range defect sizes, between five percent
and 100 percent, each of which would require specific remedial actions.
In the proposed revised remedial action table, all longitudinal
defects were combined within one group subject to identical remedial
actions based on their reported size. These types of longitudinal
defects all share similar growth rates and the same remedial actions
are appropriate to each type. The lower limit of ``0'' inches was
eliminated and the size divisions were revised upward slightly to
reflect FRA's research findings which indicate that this class of rail
defect has a relatively slow growth rate.
The ``0'' inch lower limit was eliminated also for bolt hole cracks
and broken bases. The proposed revision also included minor changes in
the size divisions for bolt hole cracks, as well as changes in the
required remedial action for broken bases less than 6 inches and
damaged rail.
The NPRM also proposed to add ``Flattened Rail'' to the rail defect
table. Although it is not a condition shown to affect the structural
integrity of the rail section, it can result in less-than-desirable
dynamic vehicle responses in the higher speed ranges. The flattened
rail condition is identified in the table, as well as in the definition
portion of subsection (b), as being \3/8\ inches or more in depth and 8
inches or more in length.
The Track Working Group discussed at length a ``break out in rail
head,'' but was unable to agree on a standard definition. The RSAC
therefore recommended that the industry continue to be guided by FRA's
current interpretation that a break out in the rail head consists of a
piece physically separated from the parent rail.
The NPRM also proposed to make several substantive revisions to the
remedial actions specified under ``Notes'' in subsection (a)(2) of this
section. A new note ``A2'' was added to address the mid-range
transverse defect sizes which were added to the table. This remedial
action allows for train operations to continue at a maximum of 10
m.p.h. for up to 24 hours, following a visual inspection by a person
designated under Sec. 213.7.
Note ``B'', which currently does not define a limiting speed, was
changed to limit speed to 30 m.p.h. or the maximum allowable speed
under Sec. 213.9 for the class of track concerned, whichever is lower.
Notes ``C'', ``D'', and ``H'' were revised to limit the operating
speed, following the application of joint bars, to 50 m.p.h. or the
maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class of track
concerned, whichever is lower. Presently, the standards limit speed to
60 m.p.h. or the maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class
of track concerned, whichever is lower.
A second paragraph in Note ``C,'' the remedial action which applies
specifically to detail fractures, engine burn fractures, and defective
welds, proposed a significant change to the current standards. This
revision addressed defects which are discovered in Classes 3 through 5
track during an internal rail inspection required under Sec. 213.237,
and whose size is determined not to be in excess of 25 percent of the
rail head cross-sectional area. For these specific defects, a track
owner may operate for up to four days at a speed limited to 50 m.p.h.
or the maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class of track
concerned, whichever is lower. If the defective rail is not removed or
a permanent repair made within four days of discovery, the speed is
limited to 30 m.p.h. until joint bars are applied.
Under the existing standards, these types of defects, predominant
on heavy utilization trackage, would require a 30 m.p.h. restriction
until joint bars are applied. Practice within the industry today is to
operate the rail test vehicle until the number of defects found exceeds
the railroad's ability to effect immediate repairs. At that time the
rail test vehicle is shut down for the day.

[[Page 34008]]

The purpose of this practice is to reduce speed restrictions which not
only affect the railroad's ability to move trains, but also can produce
undesirable in-train forces that can lead to derailments. However,
prematurely shutting down rail test car operations negate any
possibility of discovering larger and more serious defects that may lie
just ahead.
Furthermore, the results of FRA's research indicate that defects of
this type and size range have a predictable slow growth life. Research
indicates that even on the most heavily utilized trackage in use today,
defects of this type and size are unlikely to grow to service failure
size in four days.
Comments: Comments received generally supported the proposed
amendments to this section. One commenter suggested that definitions
for ``bolt hole crack,'' ``defective weld,'' and ``head-web
separation'' should be added to subsection (b). This commenter also
suggested that remedial actions for certain rail defects, which are
expressed in terms of an ``either/or'' option, could be made less
ambiguous by bracketing those options.
One commenter suggested that a periodic re-examination of
``flattened rails'' should be required so that the severity and growth
rate of this rail defect can be monitored. This commenter also
suggested that ``shelled rail'' should be defined as a rail defect
which would require some specified remedial action.
One commenter argued that when a track owner voluntarily elects to
conduct a continuous search for internal defects on Class 1 and 2 track
where regulatory requirements for inspections of this type are non-
existent, any rail defects found should be subject to the requirements
of only remedial action B, regardless of the defect type or size of the
defect. The commenter argued that such a provision would ensure that
there is not a regulatory disincentive for voluntarily conducting
internal rail inspections on Class 1 and 2 track.
Another commenter suggested that FRA's definition of ``break out in
rail head'' should be more restrictive than the present version. This
commenter also suggested that the final rule should set parameters for
determining ``excessive rail wear'' in a manner similar to the methods
used to measure excessive wheel wear prescribed in the 49 CFR Part 215,
Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards.
Final rule: The Track Working Group discussed at length the issues
associated with ``flattened rail'' (localized collapsed head rail) and
``shelled rail.'' FRA and industry research indicates that these
occurrences are more accurately categorized as rail surface conditions,
not rail defects, as they do not in themselves cause service failure of
the rail.
FRA believes that the risk of detail fractures being masked by
``shelled rail'' conditions was appropriately addressed in the proposed
rule by specifying more restrictive inspection intervals and by
requiring specific remedial actions to be taken when surface conditions
such as ``shelled rail'' prevent a valid inspection for internal
defects. The proposed rule addresses the issue of ``flattened rail'' in
terms of a specified remedial action for those of a certain depth and
length. FRA believes that further monitoring of ``flattened rail''
conditions can be accomplished without prescribing regulations which
mandate inspection procedures beyond which already exist. FRA's rail
integrity research program will continue to study ``shelled rail'' and
``flattened rail'' conditions, and in the event that research indicates
additional regulation is necessary in the future, FRA will not hesitate
to do so.
The Track Working Group was unable to improve FRA's current
definition of a ``break out in rail head.'' The current definition,
when viewed in terms of the remedial action which it requires when met,
has been considered too liberal under certain circumstances, while
conversely, it has also been considered too conservative under other
circumstances. The circumstances primarily dictated by the type and
size of defect, along with the location of the defect in the rail. FRA
believes that under the current remedial action requirement, the
current definition for ``break out in rail head'' is adequate.
The issue of ``excessive rail wear'' continues to be evaluated by
FRA's rail integrity research program. FRA believes that insufficient
data exist at this time which would indicate that parameters for this
condition should be proposed as a minimum safety standard.
FRA believes that the remedial action tables and specifications in
this final rule better address the risks associated with rail failure.
These risks are primarily dependent upon defect type and size and
should not be dependent upon the manner or mechanism which reveals the
existence of the defect. FRA believes that providing special regulatory
relief for defects found during voluntary inspections for internal rail
defects would not be a prudent approach to take. However, in revising
the remedial action table, FRA has sought to provide enhanced
flexibility where warranted by safety considerations.
FRA agrees that additional definitions would be helpful, so this
final rule adds definitions for ``bolt hole crack,'' ``defective
weld,'' and ``head-web separation.'' FRA also agrees that bracketing
certain ``either/or'' remedial actions will clarify the intent of those
requirements.
With the exception of these minor changes, the rule is adopted as
proposed by the Track Working Group and endorsed by the RSAC.

Section 213.115--Rail End Mismatch

Section 213.119--Continuous Welded Rail (CWR); General

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to introduce a requirement for
railroads to establish and place in effect written procedures to
address CWR. These procedures must address the installation,
adjustment, maintenance and inspection of CWR track, and include a
formal training program for the application of these procedures. The
procedures, including a program for training, must be submitted to FRA
within six months following the effective date of this rule. Although
many railroads already have in effect a CWR program, FRA will review
each submitted set of procedures for compliance with the individual
requirements of the proposed regulation.
Within the last decade, through the determined efforts of
researchers from industry and government, along with experience gained
from accident investigators and track maintenance people, the railroad
industry has gained a better comprehension of the mechanics of
laterally unstable CWR track. As a result, the industry has identified
maintenance procedures that are critical to maintaining CWR track
stability.
As proposed, the requirements do not detail how each procedure is
to be carried out. Rather, they identify the basic safety issues and
permit railroads to develop and implement their own procedures to
address those issues, provided the procedures are consistent with
current research results as well as findings from practical experience
documented in recent years. The procedures should be clear, concise,
and

[[Page 34009]]

easy to understand by maintenance-of-way employees. A comprehensive
training program must be in place for the application of these
procedures.
The proposed regulation requires the designation of a ``desired
rail installation temperature range'' for the geographic area in which
the CWR is located. By definition contained in the proposed regulation,
``desired rail installation temperature range'' is the rail temperature
range at which forces in CWR should not cause a track buckle in extreme
heat, or a pull-apart during cold weather. Current general practice
within the industry, based to a large extent on research findings, is
to establish a ``desired rail installation temperature range'' which is
considerably higher than the annual mean temperature for the geographic
area in which the CWR is located. The regulation, as proposed in the
NPRM, provides railroads with flexibility to establish the ``desired
rail installation temperature range'' based on the characteristics of
the specific territory involved and the historical knowledge acquired
through the application of past procedures.
When CWR is installed and anchored/fastened at the ``desired rail
installation temperature range,'' it is considered to be in its initial
``stress-free'' state, where the net longitudinal force is equal to
zero. Research discloses that many factors, some of which are
unavoidable, like dynamics of train operation, the necessary lining and
surfacing of the track structure, and performing rail repairs all
contribute to a gradual lowering over time of the initial rail
installation temperature range which increases the potential for track
buckling. This phenomenon substantiates the need to install and anchor/
fasten CWR at a relatively high rail installation temperature range.
Maintenance of the ``desired rail installation temperature range''
is critical to ensuring CWR stability. Therefore, the procedures for
installation, adjustment, effecting rail repairs, and repairing track
buckles or pull-aparts must compare the existing rail temperature with
the ``desired rail installation temperature range'' for the area
concerned.
The procedures also must address several other topics, such as rail
anchoring, controlling train speed when CWR track has been disturbed,
ballast re-consolidation, inspections, and recordkeeping for the
installation of CWR and rail repairs that do not conform to the
railroad written procedures. A track owner may update or modify CWR
procedures as necessary, upon notification to FRA of those changes.
Development of individual CWR programs could prove burdensome for
many small railroads. As recommended by the Track Working Group, FRA
will work with the ASLRA to develop a generic set of CWR procedures to
apply to low speed/low tonnage Class 2 and Class 3 railroad operations.
Comments: Comments generally supported the proposed amendment. One
commenter questioned the need for certain railroads that only conduct
low speed/low tonnage operations to adopt written procedures addressing
CWR. Another commenter questioned FRA's enforceability of the proposed
new section.
Final rule: The details of these procedures are to be based on
research findings and sound engineering principles. FRA is committed to
working with ASLRA to develop a generic set of CWR procedures with wide
applicability for the spectrum of smaller railroads. FRA believes that
certain requirements contained in the generic procedures, such as a
requirement to operate at reduced speed following maintenance work
which disturbs the track, will not have an impact on a railroad that
normally only operates at 10 m.p.h. Other requirements of this generic
set of procedures would also be less burdensome due to the nature of
most low speed/low tonnage operations.
This new section is enforceable to the extent that CWR procedures
must be developed and implemented, and employees responsible for their
application must be trained on these procedures. In the proper exercise
of its enforcement discretion, the agency is unlikely to take
enforcement action against minor deviations from CWR procedures unless,
together with other violations, they are part of a larger problem.

Section 213.121--Rail Joints

Proposed rule: Under existing subsection (a), the phrase ``proper
design and dimension'' often has been interpreted to prohibit the use
of any joint bar on a rail section for which it was not specifically
designed. This interpretation does not consider the fact that certain
joint bars are interchangeable between different rail sections.
Therefore, the NPRM proposed to change the word ``proper'' to
``structurally sound'' in subsection (a).
In subsection (b), the NPRM proposed to add the modifier
``excessive'' in front of the phrase ``vertical movement.'' The
existing language in this subsection implies that no vertical movement
of either rail could be allowed when all bolts are tight. This
interpretation is too strict. FRA's Enforcement Manual suggests that
FRA inspectors evaluate excessive vertical movement when determining
compliance with this paragraph. This change would make the rule conform
to sound practices.
The NPRM proposed to extend to Class 2 track the prohibition of
torch cutting bolt holes in rail. The reference to joint bars was
removed, the subject to be covered in the proposed new subsection (h)
which restricts the practice of re-configuring joint bars. Joint bars
for older rail sections are becoming increasingly difficult to find and
are no longer being manufactured. Therefore, the new subsection (h)
prohibits the re-configuration of joint bars in Classes 3 through 5
track, but not in Classes 1 and 2 track.
Comments: Comments generally supported the proposed amendments. One
commenter agreed that the term ``structurally sound'' is more
technically correct, but stated that the term provides no additional
guidance as to what joint bars are interchangeable with various rail
sections. Several commenters suggested that the prohibition on
reconfiguring joint bars with a torch should be extended to Class 2
track. Another commenter suggested that the term ``excessive'' should
be quantified.
Final rule: FRA believes the risks in the lower speed track classes
are minimal when a railroad torch cuts bolt holes in joint bars and
reconfigures joint bars with a torch. The most critical of joint bar
failures are those in which the bar cracks or breaks through the middle
two bolt holes. If this were to happen as a result of reconfiguring by
a torch, a regulation already exists which prohibits any cracks or
breaks in this area of the joint bar for any class of track.
FRA believes that the term ``excessive'' in the context of this
section should be left to the discretion of a qualified person based on
that person's evaluation of what risks may be associated with any
particular set of conditions. FRA agrees that additional guidance
should be provided for the interpretation of ``structurally sound''
joint bars and will work with the industry to develop and issue
guidelines in the form of a Technical Bulletin addressing the
interchange ability of joint bars between various rail sections. This
approach is similar to a recent recommendation issued by FRA's
Technical Resolution Committee.
The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.122--Torch Cut Rail

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed this new section to address the
proper

[[Page 34010]]

handling of rails cut by the use of a torch. The practice of torch-
cutting rail at one time was commonplace on railroads, but was
discontinued in higher speed track several years ago when better saws
were developed and railroads discovered that rails that have been
torch-cut have a greater tendency to develop fractures. Today, on track
Classes 3 and above, the practice is used almost exclusively for
temporary emergency repairs, such as quickly returning a track to
service following a derailment or washout. These locations are then
quickly replaced with new rail. The purpose of this section is to
outlaw the practice of torch cutting rails, except for emergency
repairs, on all track in classes above Class 2. Train speed on track
that has been torch cut for emergency repairs made after the effective
date of this rule must be reduced to the maximum allowable speed for
Class 2 until the torch cut rail is replaced.
The proposed section also provides railroads with guidance for
eliminating old torch cut rail in track Classes 3 through 5. The
industry believes no torch cuts exist in Class 6 track. Torch cuts in
Class 5 track must be eliminated within a year of the effective date of
this final rule, while torch cuts in Class 4 track must be removed
within two years. Within one year of the effective date of this final
rule, railroads must inventory existing torch cuts in any Class 3 track
over which regularly scheduled passenger trains operate. Those torch
cuts found and inventoried will be ``grandfathered in.'' Any torch cuts
that are found on such track after the expiration of one year and that
are not inventoried will be limited immediately to Class 2 speed and
removed within 30 days of discovery. If a railroad chooses to upgrade a
segment of track from Classes 1 or 2 to Class 3, and regularly
scheduled passenger trains operate over that track, the railroad must
remove any torch cuts before the speeds can be increased beyond the
maximum allowable for Class 2 track. If a railroad chooses to upgrade a
segment of track from any class of track to Class 4 or 5, it must
remove all torch cuts.
Comments: Comments received generally supported the proposed
amendments. Several commenters suggested that torch cut rail ends be
prohibited in all but Class 1 track. One commenter also suggested that
existing torch cut rail ends be restricted to 10 m.p.h..
Final rule: FRA believes the risks associated with torch cut rail
ends in Class 2 track are minimal based on lower speeds and lower
impact loads. If rail defects were to develop as a result of torch cut
rail ends, requirements already exist which would address them. FRA
also believes that existing torch cut rail ends have survived the early
mortality rate which is associated with rails that fail due to poor
torch cutting practices, and therefore existing torch cuts do not
present a significant risk, given the low frequency of expected failure
and lower accident severity at Class 2 speeds.
The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.123--Tie Plates

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to add a new subsection (b) to
this section which reads, ``In Classes 3 through 5 track, no metal
object which causes a concentrated load by solely supporting a rail
shall be allowed between the base of rail and the bearing surface of
the tie plate.'' The specific reference to ``metal object'' is intended
to include only those items of track material which pose the greatest
potential for broken base rails such as track spikes, rail anchors, and
shoulders of tie plates. The phrase ``causes a concentrated load by
solely supporting a rail'' further clarifies the intent of the
regulation to apply only in those instances where there is clear
physical evidence that the metal object is placing substantial load on
the rail base, as indicated by lack of load on adjacent ties.
Comments: Comments supported the proposed amendment.
Final rule: The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.127--Rail Fastening Systems

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to change the title of this
section from ``Rail fastenings'' to ``Rail fastening systems'' and to
reduce the language of the regulation to one sentence which reads,
``Track shall be fastened by a system of components which effectively
maintains gage within the limits prescribed in Sec. 213.53(b).''
The change to ``rail fastening systems'' more adequately addresses
the many individual components of modern-day elastic fastening systems,
such as pads, insulator clips, and shoulder inserts. The failure of
certain critical components within the system could adversely affect
the ability of the individual fastener to provide adequate gage
restraint. The revised language of the regulation provides for an
evaluation of all components within the system, if necessary, in order
to evaluate whether they are affording effective gage restraint.
The RSAC considered the current reference to qualified Federal or
State track inspectors and the definition of a qualified State track
inspector to be redundant, given the adoption of Part 212. Therefore,
the NPRM proposed to delete the phrase ``qualified Federal or State
track inspector,'' as well as the last sentence of the current section
which contains the definition of a qualified state track inspector.
Comments: Comments supported the proposed amendment. One commenter
suggested that the GRMS technology be incorporated into this section.
Final rule: As discussed earlier in the preamble to this final
rule, a separate task group continues to evaluate GRMS technology for
possible incorporation into the Track Safety Standards. The rule is
adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.133--Turnouts and Track Crossings Generally

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to retain the language of
subsection (a) which reads, ``In turnouts and track crossings, the
fastenings must be intact and maintained so as to keep the components
securely in place.'' The AAR proposed to revise the language to say, ``
* * * the fastenings must be maintained for the safe passage of
trains.'' The AAR contended that turnout and track crossings are
designed with a high degree of redundancy, making it unnecessary for
each fastening to be intact to maintain safety. However, the RSAC
recommended that the regulations allow track inspectors discretion to
evaluate immediate circumstances in determining what level of remedial
action is necessary for loose or missing fastenings. RSAC recommended
that inspectors be provided specific guidance about interpreting this
provision, such as the guidance contained in technical bulletin T-95-09
recently issued by FRA.
The NPRM proposed to change subsection (b) to reflect proposals
presented by the BMWE and by the AAR and FRA. The RSAC recommended that
rail anchoring requirements be extended to include Class 3 trackage and
that ``rail anchors'' be changed to ``rail anchoring `` so that rail
anchoring would include elastic rail fasteners.
Comments: Comments supported the proposed amendments.
Final rule: The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.135--Switches

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to revise subsection (b) to
consider the existence of reinforcing bars or straps on

[[Page 34011]]

switch points where joint bars cannot be applied to certain rail
defects, as required under Sec. 213.113(a)(2), because of the physical
configuration of the switch. In these instances, remedial action B will
govern, and a person designated under Sec. 213.7(a), who has at least
one year of supervisory experience in track maintenance, will limit
train speed to that not exceeding 30 m.p.h. or the maximum allowable
under Sec. 213.9(a) for the appropriate class of track, whichever is
lower. Of course, the person may exercise the options under
Sec. 213.5(a) when appropriate.
The RSAC did not recommend specific dimensions for determining when
switch points are ``unusually chipped or worn,'' as provided for in
subsection (h). FRA stated that its Accident/Incident data base
indicates that worn or broken switch points are the largest single
cause of derailments within the general category of ``Frogs, Switches,
and Appliances.'' However, the AAR contended that developing meaningful
numbers for these measurements would be a difficult task because most
of these derailments are related also to other causal factors such as
wheel flange condition, truck stiffness, and train handling
characteristics. The NPRM, therefore, proposed to retain the current
wording in subsection (h), allowing qualified individuals to evaluate
immediate circumstances to determine when switch points are ``unusually
chipped or worn.''
The NPRM also proposed a new subsection (i) to read, ``Tongue and
plain mate switches, which by design exceed Class 1 and excepted track
maximum gage limits, are permitted in Class 1 and excepted track.''
This new subsection provides an exemption for this item of specialized
track work, primarily used in pavement or street railroads, which by
design does not conform to the maximum gage limits prescribed for Class
1 and excepted track.
Comments: Comments generally supported the proposed amendments. One
commenter suggested that the term ``unusually chipped or worn'' be
quantified.
Final rule: FRA believes that the term ``unusually chipped or
worn'' in the context of this section should be left to the discretion
of a qualified person based on that person's evaluation of what risks
may be associated with any particular set of circumstances. The rule is
adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.137--Frogs

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to add a new subsection (d) to
this section, which reads, ``Where frogs are designed as flange-
bearing, flangeway depth may be less than that shown for Class 1 if
operated at Class 1 speeds.'' This subsection provides an exemption for
an item of specialized track work which by design does not conform to
the minimum flangeway depth requirements prescribed in subsection (a)
of this section.
Comments: Comments received supported the proposed amendment.
Final rule: The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.139--Spring Rail Frogs

Proposed rule: The proposed rule recommended no changes to this
section.
Comments: No comments were received.
Final rule: This final rule inserts the word ``compression'' for
that of the phrase ``a tension'' in subsection (d) to correct a
technical error in wording. In order for the wing rail to be held tight
against the point rail, the spring must be in compression and not in
tension.
Except for this minor change, the rule is adopted as proposed by
the NPRM.

Section 213.141--Self-Guarded Frogs

Section 213.143--Frog Guard Rails and Guard Faces; Gage

Proposed rule: To facilitate an easier understanding of the
requirements contained in this section, the NPRM proposed to add a
diagram to illustrate the method for measuring guard check gage and
guard face gage. The proposal contained no substantive changes to this
section.
Comments: Comments supported the proposed amendment.
Final rule: The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.201--Scope

Section 213.205--Derails

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to add language to this section
designed to ensure that derails are maintained to function properly.
The RSAC recommended these changes as additional safety features for
train crews, as well as railroad employees working on and around
tracks.
Comments: Comments supported the proposed amendments.
Final rule: The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.231--Scope

Section 213.233--Track Inspections

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed several changes to subsection (b).
The five m.p.h. restriction over highway crossings is eliminated to
permit safe operation of vehicles through highway traffic. However, the
subsection would still require an inspector to perform an adequate
inspection, regardless of how the inspector operates over the crossing.
Also, the word ``switch'' is replaced by the word ``turnout'' to
clarify the track device originally intended to be addressed in the
regulation.
The Track Working Group considered advising the RSAC to recommend
specific speed restrictions for inspection vehicles. However, after
several lengthy discussions, the group suggested instead that this
subsection provide the individual inspector with sole discretion in
determining vehicle speed based on track conditions, inspection
requirements, and other circumstances that may vary from day to day and
location to location. The group also suggested the insertion of a
footnote at the end of this section which indicates this discretion is
not limited by any other part of this section, and is extended to
determine sight distance (``visibility remains unobstructed by any
cause'') which is referenced in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section.
The existing language under subsection (b) does not specify how
many tracks may be inspected in one pass of an inspection vehicle in
multiple track territory. FRA has never issued interpretive language
regarding this issue, opting to judge the overall effectiveness of the
inspection program

[[Page 34012]]

rather than the specific manner in which it was conducted. The NPRM
proposed to establish some guidelines for hyrail inspections conducted
in multiple track territory.
As a result, subsection (b), as proposed in the NPRM, contains
additional language specifying the number of additional tracks that can
be inspected, depending on whether one or two qualified individuals are
in the vehicle, and depending on the distance between adjacent tracks
measured between track centerlines. Inspectors may inspect multiple
tracks from hy-rail vehicles only if their view of the tracks inspected
is unobstructed by tunnels, differences in ground level, or any other
circumstance that would prevent an unobstructed inspection of all the
tracks they are inspecting. The revised subsection also requires
railroad to traverse each main track bi-weekly and each siding monthly,
and to so note on the appropriate track inspection records.
With respect to the inspection frequency required in subsection
(c), neither the Track Working Group nor the RSAC could reach agreement
in determining a frequency requirement that would be based on speed,
tonnage, or track usage. Therefore, the NPRM did not propose to change
the language in this subsection.
Comments: Comments generally supported the proposed amendments.
Several commenters suggested that the requirements that address
inspections in multiple track territory should be more restrictive.
Several commenters suggested that a maximum speed limit should be set
when performing inspections for compliance with this part, one of which
suggested a maximum speed of 15 m.p.h..
Final rule: FRA believes that the appropriate vehicle inspection
speed over a particular territory is subject to many variables, i.e.,
track condition, type of track construction, weather conditions, time
of day, as well as many others which may only be apparent to the
individual inspector at that moment in time. With this in mind, FRA
believes that the appropriate vehicle speed for any particular set of
conditions should be determined by the person performing the
inspection, including those performed in multiple track territory. The
final rule provides for the inspector's discretion as it involves
inspection speed and sight distance.
This final rule also changes this section by cross-referencing
excepted track in the Sec. 213.233(c) table for required inspection
frequency.

Section 213.235--Inspection of Switches, Track Crossings, and Lift Rail
Assemblies or Other Transition Devices on Moveable Bridges

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to change subsection (a) by adding
the word ``turnout'' after the word ``switch'' to clarify the track
device and the intent of the requirement which is to inspect the entire
turnout. The word ``switch'' is retained to include switch point
derails or any other device which is not considered a full turnout.
The NPRM proposed a second sentence to be added to subsection (a)
which reads, ``Each switch in Classes 3 through 5 track that is held in
position only by the operating mechanism and one connecting rod shall
be operated to all of its positions during one inspection in every
three-month period.'' The nature of this type of switch requires a
thorough inspection of the critical parts, some of which are non-
redundant. Thorough inspection is best accomplished by operating the
switch mechanism to allow for a better inspection of these components.
The phrase ``all positions'' is intended to cover slip switches and lap
switches.
In subsection (b), the word ``turnout'' is added after the word
``switch'' for the same reasons explained above.
Comments: Comments generally supported the proposed amendments. One
commenter suggested that all switch mechanisms should be operated
during inspections required under this section.
Final rule: FRA believes that a requirement to operate all switch
mechanisms on a monthly basis would be too burdensome on the industry,
especially in some geographical locations that are subject to snow,
ice, and freezing conditions for many months of the year.
The final rule includes several changes to this section. On
November 23, 1996, more than three weeks after the Track Working Group
had submitted its recommendations for revision of the Track Safety
Standards to the RSAC, an Amtrak passenger train derailed on the
moveable bridge over the Hackensack River in Secaucus, New Jersey. This
derailment was the result of a malfunctioning lift rail assembly which
provides the transition from the moveable span to the fixed span on the
bridge. Because of this derailment, FRA believes that transition
devices on moveable bridges should be addressed in the revised Track
Safety Standards.
Therefore, this final rule adds moveable bridge lift rail
assemblies and other transition devices to the inspection requirements
in this section. This section adds only a requirement to visually
inspect on foot; it is not intended to impose additional functional
requirements for bridge lift rail assemblies beyond what is already
required by the Track Safety Standards. However, FRA considers these
assemblies to be no less critical than switches or track crossings, and
they should be subject to monthly on-foot visual inspections by a
person qualified under Sec. 213.7.
In addition, this section is restructured in order to reference the
operation of specified switch operating mechanisms in a separate
subsection (b). This change is designed to emphasize the importance of
these non-redundant mechanisms.

Section 213.237--Inspection of Rail

Proposed rule: Under existing subsection (a), the Track Safety
Standards require Classes 4 and 5 track, as well as Class 3 track over
which passenger trains operate, to be tested annually for internal rail
defects. This requirement was established at a time when main line
freight traffic was considerably lighter than it is today. At the time
the original standards were drafted, test frequencies generally equated
to intervals between 15 and 20 million gross tons (MGTs), although
there existed some track that carried 40 MGTs or more in one year. As a
matter of practice, railroads generally test more often than presently
required under the standards, with intervals between tests typically
ranging from 20 to 30 MGTs. These typical intervals define a good
baseline for generally accepted maintenance practices, and the
industry's rail quality managers consider these limits as points of
departure for adjustment of test schedules to account for the effects
of specific track characteristics, maintenance, traffic, and weather.
The NPRM proposed to leave unchanged the present annual test
requirement for Classes 4 and 5 track and Class 3 track over which
passenger trains operate, based on risk factors associated with freight
train speeds and passenger train operations. However, with the high
utilization trackage that now exists on Class 1 freight railroads, the
original requirement based solely on the passage of time, without
regard to tonnage, is no longer adequate.
Selecting an appropriate frequency of rail testing is a complex and
somewhat controversial task involving many different factors including
temperature differential, curvature, residual stresses, rail sections,
and cumulative tonnage. Taking into consideration all of the above
factors, FRA's research suggests

[[Page 34013]]

that 40 MGTs is the maximum tonnage that can be hauled between rail
tests and still allow a safe window of opportunity for detection of an
internal rail flaw before it propagates in size to service failure. The
NPRM proposed that intervals be set at once per year or 40 MGTs,
whichever is shorter, for Classes 4 and 5 track and for Class 3 track
over which passenger trains operate.
The NPRM also proposed that Class 3 trackage not supporting
passenger traffic be subject to testing for internal rail defects.
FRA's Accident/Incident data point to a need for inclusion of all Class
3 trackage in a railroad's rail testing program. Therefore, the NPRM
proposed to add a requirement that Class 3 track over which passenger
trains do not operate be tested once a year or once very 30 MGTs,
whichever is longer.
The NPRM proposed the limit of once a year or 30 MGTs because a
more frequent testing cycle or a cycle identical to that proposed for
Classes 4 and 5 track would be too burdensome for the industry. The
proposed limits are designed to give short line railroads and low
tonnage branch lines some relief from the introduction of a new
regulatory requirement and still reduce the present risks associated
with not testing Class 3 track at all.
The NPRM also proposed the addition of subsections (d) and (e).
Subsection (d) addresses the case where a valid search for internal
rail defects could not be made because of rail surface conditions.
Several types of technologies are presently employed to continuously
search for internal rail defects, some with varying means of displaying
and monitoring search signals. A continuous search is intended to mean
an uninterrupted search by whatever technology is being used, so that
there are no segments of rail which are not tested. If the test is
interrupted, i.e., as a result of rail surface conditions which inhibit
the transmission or return of the signal, then the test over that
segment of rail may not be valid because it was not continuous.
Therefore, as proposed in the NPRM, a non-test is not defined in
absolute technical terms. Rather, the provision leaves this judgment to
the rail test equipment operator who is uniquely qualified on that
equipment.
As proposed in the NPRM, subsection (e) specifies the options
available to a railroad following a non-test due to rail surface
conditions. These options must be exercised prior to the expiration of
time or tonnage limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Comments: Comments supported the proposed amendments.
Final rule: The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section 213.239--Special Inspections

Proposed rule: The RSAC recommended no change to this section, and
likewise, the NPRM proposed no change to the language in the
regulation. However, the preamble of the NPRM provided an explanation
of agency policy interpreting the section.
Comments: One commenter referred to the Notice of Safety Advisory
97-1, issued by FRA on September 4, 1997. See 62 FR 46793. The
commenter recommended that the provisions contained in the advisory be
adopted as regulations under this section.
Because of a number of fairly recent train derailments caused by
unexpected track damage from moving water, FRA deemed it appropriate to
issue the safety advisory to provide railroads with recommended
procedures that reflect best industry practice for special track
inspections. The procedures include: (1) prompt notification of
dispatchers of expected bad weather; (2) limits on train speed on all
track subject to flood damage, following the issuance of a flash flood
warning, until special inspection can be performed; (3) identification
of bridges carrying Class 4 or higher track which are vulnerable to
flooding and over which passenger trains operate; (4) availability of
information about each bridge, such as identifying marks, for those who
may be called to perform a special inspection; (5) training programs
and refresher training for those who perform special inspections; and
(6) availability of a bridge maintenance or engineering employee to
assist the track inspectors in interpreting the inspectors' findings.
Final rule: The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM, and does
not incorporate the procedures outlined in the Notice of Safety
Advisory 97-1. As it stated in that advisory, FRA believes that this
section is necessarily general in nature, because it is not practical
to specify in a minimum safety standard all the conditions which could
trigger a special inspection, nor the manner in which any particular
special inspection should be conducted. Of course, all such inspections
should be conducted so as to effectively prevent derailments, and the
procedures included in the safety advisory are designed to aid
railroads in performing effective inspections.
Although this section contains a sample list of surprise events
that routinely occur in nature, FRA does not view this provision as
limited to only the occurrences listed or to only natural disasters.
The section addresses the need to inspect after ``other occurrences''
which include such natural phenomena as temperature extremes, as well
as unexpected events that are human-made, e.g., a vehicle that falls on
the tracks from an overhead bridge, a water main break that floods a
track roadbed, or terrorist activity that damages track. This
interpretation is not new; FRA has always viewed this section to
encompass sudden events of all kinds that affect the safety and
integrity of track.

Section 213.241--Inspection Records

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to change the requirement that
railroads retain a record of each track inspection at division
headquarters for at least one year. When this provision in subsection
(b) was first written, railroads maintained many division headquarters
throughout their systems, making it relatively convenient for railroads
to maintain inspection records at these locations. Over the years,
however, railroads consolidated many of their headquarters, often
naming only a few locations as ``division headquarters.'' FRA has
contended that maintaining inspection records in only a few locations
over a system that may include thousands of miles of track was not in
keeping with the spirit of the regulation. Railroads have argued, on
the other hand, that compelling them to maintain headquarters for no
other purpose than to store records was a burdensome requirement.
The NPRM proposed to allow railroads to designate a location within
100 miles of each state where records can be viewed by FRA track
inspectors following 10 days notice by FRA. The provision does not
require the railroads to maintain the records at these designated
locations, only to be able to provide viewing of them at the locations
within 10 days after notification. The proposal stipulates locations
within 100 miles of each state, rather than locations in each state, to
accommodate those railroads whose operations may cross a state's line
by only a few miles. In those cases, the railroad could designate a
location in a neighboring state, provided the location is within 100
miles of that state's border.
A change to subsection (c) requires a track owner to record any
locations where a proper rail inspection cannot be performed because of
rail surface conditions. A new provision at Sec. 213.237(d) specifies
that if rail surface conditions prohibit the railroad from conducting a
proper search for rail defects, a test of that rail does not fulfill
the requirements of Sec. 213.237(a) which requires a search for
internal defects at

[[Page 34014]]

specific intervals. The new language in subsection (c) of this section
requires a recordkeeping of those instances.
The NPRM also proposed to add a provision for maintaining and
retrieving electronic records of track inspections. Patterned after an
experimental program successfully tried by the former Atchison Topeka &
Santa Fe Railroad with oversight by FRA, the provision in subsection
(e) allows each railroad to design its own electronic system as long as
the system meets the specified criteria to safeguard the integrity and
authenticity of each record. The provision also requires that railroads
make available paper copies of electronic records when needed by FRA or
by railroad track inspectors.
Comments: Comments supported the proposed amendments.
Final rule: The rule is adopted as proposed by the NPRM.

Section by Section Analysis--High Speed Track Standards

Section 213.301--Scope of Subpart

Proposed rule: Subpart G applies to track required to support the
passage of passenger and freight equipment in specific speed ranges
higher than those permitted over Class 5 track. For those speeds above
Class 5, the track and the vehicles operated on the track must be
considered as an integral system. Of course, conventional passenger
equipment has been operated for decades by many railroads at speeds up
to 110 m.p.h. and on the Northeast Corridor by Amtrak and its
predecessors at speeds up to 125 m.p.h. This subpart does not apply to
technologies such as magnetic levitation that do not use flanged wheel
equipment.
Comments: No comments were received pertaining to this section.
Final rule: A minor change in this section clarifies that Subpart G
begins at a speed greater than 90 miles per hour (not at 91 miles per
hour) for qualified passenger equipment and a speed greater than 80
miles per hour (not 81 miles per hour) for qualified freight equipment.

Section 213.303--Responsibility for Compliance

Proposed rule: Only two response options are available under this
paragraph. Track owners who know or have notice of non-compliance with
this subpart may either bring the track into compliance with the
subpart or halt operations over that track. This section does not offer
the railroad the option of operating under this subpart with the
supervision of a qualified person, as in the standards for track
Classes 1 through 5. Such an option would permit too much opportunity
for disaster from human error. Under this subpart, if a track does not
comply with the requirements of its class, it must be repaired
immediately or train speeds must be reduced to the maximum speed for
the track class with which the track complies. It may be necessary on
occasion for the track owner to reduce the class of track to Class 5 or
below. When this occurs, the requirements for the lower classes (1-5)
will apply.
Comments: No comments were received pertaining to this section.
Final rule: FRA decided to delete the proposed subsection (d),
which discussed directed service by the Surface Transportation Board,
because this provision is not needed in the high speed context.
FRA decided to add a new subsection (d) of this section to include
in the category of those responsible for compliance with the track
standards those who perform the function of complying with the
standards, not just the track owner. This is consistent with the
counterpart regulation for Classes 1 through 5 track in Sec. 213.5(f).
It conforms to the authority given FRA by the statute. See 49 U.S.C.
21301 and 1 U.S.C. 1.

Section 213.305--Designation of Qualified Individuals; General
Qualifications

Proposed rule: Work on or about a track structure supporting
qualified high speed passenger trains demands the highest awareness of
employees about the need to perform work properly.
A person may be qualified to perform restorations and renewals
under this subpart in three ways. First, the person may combine five or
more years of supervisory experience in track maintenance for track
Class 4 or higher and the successful completion of a course offered by
the employer or by a college level engineering program, supplemented by
special on-the-job training. Second, a person may be qualified by a
combination of at least one year of supervisory experience in track
maintenance of Class 4 or higher, 80 hours of specialized training or
in a college level program, supplemented with on-the-job training.
Under the third option, a railroad employee with at least two years of
experience in maintenance of high speed track can achieve qualification
status by completing 120 hours of specialized training in maintenance
of high speed track, provided by the employer or by a college level
engineering program, supplemented by special on-the-job training.
Similarly, a person may be qualified to perform track inspections
in Classes 6, 7, 8 and 9 by attaining five or more years of experience
in inspection in track Class 4 or higher and by completing a course
taught by the employer or by a college level engineering program,
supplemented by special on-the-job training. Or, the person may be
qualified by attaining a combination of at least one year of experience
in track inspection in Class 4 and higher and by successfully
completing 80 hours of specialized training in the inspection of high
speed track provided by the employer or by a college level engineering
program, supplemented with on-the-job training. Finally, a person may
be qualified by attaining two years of experience in track maintenance
in Class 4 and above and by successfully completing 120 hours of
specialized training in the inspection of high speed track provided by
the employer or by a college level engineering program, supplemented by
special on-the-job training provided by the employer with emphasis on
the inspection of high speed track. The third option is intended to
provide a way for employees with two years of experience in the
maintenance of high speed track to gain the necessary training to be
qualified to inspect track.
For both categories of qualifications, the person must have
experience in Class 4 track or above. To properly maintain and inspect
Class 4 track or higher requires a level of knowledge of track geometry
and track conditions that are not as readily obtained at lower classes.
Persons who are qualified for high speed track must know how to work,
maintain, and measure high quality track. Experience in Class 4 track
is established as a lower limit to provide a pool of candidates, that
may be drawn from freight railroads, who would provide the necessary
experience on well-maintained track.
This section also includes specific requirements for qualifications
of persons charged with maintaining and inspecting CWR. Training of
employees in CWR procedures is essential for high speed operations.
Each person inspecting and maintaining CWR must understand how CWR
behaves and how to prevent track buckles and other adverse track
reactions to thermal and dynamic loading.
Comments: No comments were received pertaining to this section.
Final rule: A minor change to subsection (e) has been made to
clarify that records must be maintained for those employees qualified
to supervise movements over broken rails.

[[Page 34015]]

Section 213.307--Class of Track: Operating Speed Limits

Proposed rule: For several years, passenger service on the
Northeast Corridor has operated at 125 m.p.h. under conditional waivers
granted by FRA. Amtrak has established specific procedures for this
category of speed from which the railroad industry has accumulated
valuable knowledge about track behavior in this speed range. The speed
of 125 m.p.h. is the natural boundary for the maximum allowable
operating speed for Class 7 track. Because trainsets have operated in
this country at speeds up to 160 m.p.h. for periods of several months
under waivers for testing and evaluation, the maximum limit of 160
m.p.h. is established for Class 8. In the next several years, certain
operations may achieve speeds of up to 200 m.p.h. Class 9 track is
established for this possibility. The exceptions for the maximum
allowable operating speeds for each class of track parallels the
standards for the lower classes, except that a speed of 10 m.p.h over
the maximum intended operating speeds is permitted during the
qualification phase per Section 213.345.
Although high speed rail is most often considered in terms of
passenger travel, non-passenger high speed train service (e.g., the
mail trains operated by Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor) is also a
possibility. All equipment, whether used for passenger or freight, must
demonstrate the same vehicle/track performance and be qualified on the
high speed track. Hazardous materials, except for limited and small
quantities, may not move in bulk on trains operated at high speeds. The
limitations noted are similar to those involved in commercial passenger
and freight air travel.
Comments: The Florida Overland eXpress commented that a reference
to that project in the section-by-section analysis of the NPRM may seem
to erroneously suggest that the requirements established for Class 9
track apply to that project.
Final rule: FRA agrees that the language in the preamble to the
NPRM may have been confusing. This analysis clarifies that Subpart G is
not applicable to the Florida Overland eXpress. The proposed rule
itself did not reference that proposed operation, so the language in
the rule remains unchanged for the final rule.
FRA does not presently foresee authorization of mixed passenger and
conventional freight operations above 150 m.p.h. Accordingly, passenger
equipment safety standards, as proposed, address equipment for speeds
only to 150 m.p.h. FRA expects to handle service above 150 m.p.h.
through rules of particular applicability. Nevertheless, standards
contained here are useful benchmarks for future planning with respect
to track/vehicle interaction, track structure, and inspection
requirements.

Section 213.309--Restoration or Renewal of Track Under Traffic
Condition

Proposed rule: This section addresses two elements of concern: (1)
that the stability of the track structure not be significantly degraded
and (2) that roadway worker safety not be compromised. For restoration
under traffic conditions, this section allows only track maintenance
that does not affect the safe passage of trains and involves the
replacement of worn, broken, or missing components or fastenings or
minor levels of spot surfacing.
Comments: No comments were received pertaining to this section.
Final rule: The section as proposed is adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.311--Measuring Track Under Load; section 213.317 Waivers;
section 213.319 Drainage

Proposed rule: Proposed language for these sections is identical to
the similar sections for track Classes 1 to 5 (Secs. 213.13, 213.17,
and 213.33).
Comments: Refer to the corresponding sections in classes 1-5 for
comments.
Final rule: The sections as proposed are adopted in this final
rule, with minor language changes to Sec. 213.317.

Section 213.321--Vegetation

Proposed rule: These sections are identical to the corresponding
sections in the standards for track Classes 1 though 5.
Comments: Refer to the corresponding sections in classes 1-5 for
comments.
Final rule: The section as proposed is adopted in this final rule.

Section 213.323--Track Gage

Proposed rule: This section introduces limits for change in gage.
Analysis has shown that an abrupt change in gage can produce
significant wheel forces at high speeds. The minimum and maximum limits
for gage values Classes 6, 7, 8 and 9 were set to minimize the onset of
truck hunting.
Comments: No comments were received pertaining to this section.
Final rule: With the exception of one minor change, the section as
proposed is adopted in this final rule. The title of the heading in the
fourth column of the gage table was changed from ``the change of gage
in 31 feet'' to ``the change of gage within 31 feet'' to clarify that
the change of gage parameter applies between two points anywhere within
a 31-foot distance along the track, including two points exactly 31
feet apart.

Section 213.327--Alinement

Proposed rule: Uniformity is established by averaging the offset
values for nine points centered around each point along the track at a
spacing specified in the table. Uniformity defined in this way applies
anywhere--curves, tangent segments, and spirals. Analysis has shown
that points in transition areas such as around the ``point-of-spiral-
to-curve'' can be included in this averaging technique. No distinction
is made as to where the uniform calculation takes place. Tangent,
curve, and spiral transitions have historically been difficult to
determine in the field. The use of the uniformity filter obviates the
need to make determinations based on the identification of these
transitions.
This section provides three chord lengths for different types of
vehicle/track interaction modes. Chords of 31-, 62-, and 124-foot
lengths provide control of single and multiple defects in the
wavelength bands most likely to affect vehicle dynamics and ride
quality.
The 62-foot chord was selected because of its proximity to the
truck center spacing of most high speed passenger vehicles. In phase
carbody resonance modes such as bounce, roll and sway are most affected
by track anomalies with a wavelength that is near the truck center
spacing. Control of track geometry limits based on the 62-foot chord
will help reduce the magnitude of such carbody motion. This chord also
is predominantly used for track Classes 1 through 5 and is familiar to
track inspection and maintenance personnel.
The 31-foot chord controls short wavelength defects that can result
in high wheel forces over a short portion of track. These forces may
not produce excessive carbody motion, yet their action on the wheels
and truck may cause derailment. Most foreign high speed railroads use a
10-meter chord which is approximately equal in length to the 31-foot
chord required in this section.
To control longer wavelengths, most foreign high speed railroads
use a 30- or 40-meter chord. The 124-foot chord, which is approximately
equal to a 40-meter chord, provides a means to locate and measure
longer wavelength track anomalies. These long-wavelength

[[Page 34016]]

anomalies provide dynamic input to the high speed rail vehicles and can
excite carbody resonance modes at high speeds. Excessive carbody motion
can lead to poor carbody accelerations and wheel/rail forces, and in
the extreme, may also cause derailment.
Addition of this chord length allows measurement of anomalies with
wavelengths up to 300 feet. The Japanese National Railway adopted a 40-
meter chord after recent speed increases on its Tokaido line. Research
and testing indicated a stronger correlation between carbody motion and
track geometry limits based on 40-meter mid-chord offsets.
Comments: No comments were received pertaining to this section.
Final rule: The final rule includes two changes to limits shown in
the alinement tables. The permissible limit for track Class 9 for a
single alinement deviation for a 124-foot chord is changed from one-
half inch to three-quarters inch, and the Class 9 limit for three or
more non-overlapping deviations for a 124-foot chord is changed from
three-eighths to one-half inch. The limits for these two parameters
shown in the NPRM were overly conservative, based on the
recommendations of the technical experts who worked with the task group
that developed the proposed high speed standards. These recommendations
are contained in the report, ``Track and Vehicle-Track Interaction
Safety Assurance for U.S. High Speed Rail'', July 1997, which is
contained in the public docket for these proceedings.

Section 213.329--Curves, Elevation and Speed Limitations

Proposed rule: The determination of the maximum speed that a
vehicle may operate around a curve is based on the degree of curvature,
actual elevation, and amount of unbalanced elevation where the actual
elevation and curvature are derived by a moving average technique. This
approach is as valid in the high speed regime as in the lower classes.
The moving average technique recognizes the steady state (one or two
second duration) nature of the Vmax formula.
The maximum operating speed for each curve is determined by the
Vmax formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.000

where:

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating speed (miles per hour).
Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail (inches).
Eu = Unbalance elevation or cant deficiency
D = Degree of curvature (degrees).

While the cant deficiency proposed in Classes 1 through 5 is three
or four inches, cant deficiencies proposed for qualified high speed
train are considerably higher. FRA has granted waivers for up to nine
inches for revenue service and up to twelve inches for testing for
qualified equipment. Higher cant deficiencies are allowed for high
speed trains that may include tilting systems. The qualification
testing will ensure that the vehicle will not exceed the vehicle/track
safety performance limits set forth in this subpart when operating at
these higher cant deficiencies.
In order to qualify the vehicle at higher cant deficiencies, the
railroad must provide technical testing information using the same
procedures that have been used in past years for waivers for higher
cant deficiencies. This procedure is commonly called the ``static lean
test'' where the vehicle is elevated on one side and wheel loads are
measured and the roll angle is determined. Based on acceptable testing
information and other technical submissions, FRA will approve the
higher cant deficiencies for the specific vehicle type.
The maximum crosslevel on the outside of a curve is established at
seven inches. Elevation in excess of that amount presents a safety
consideration for freight trains with high centers of gravity,
operating at lower speeds in the curve.
Comments: The Bombardier GEC Alsthom Consortium (Bombardier/GEC)
commented that this section permits FRA to approve a higher of level of
cant deficiency, but the same option does not exist for track classes 1
through 5. Furthermore, Bombardier/GEC urged that the requirements
concerning the roll angle between the floor of the vehicle and the
horizontal should be deleted and explained that this method was not
valid for non-tilting equipment.
Final rule: FRA agrees that the concept of the roll angle would not
apply to non-tilting power cars and has changed paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) to apply the requirements for the roll angle only to passenger-
carrying equipment. FRA has changed Sec. 213.57 in track Classes 1
through 5 to address the commenter's concern.
FRA has deleted footnote 2 from paragraph (f) of this section
because it is no longer necessary. If a waiver previously has been
granted to the railroad to operate at a higher level of cant
deficiency, the railroad or FRA should have the static lean and other
information readily available for consideration of FRA approval
required under this section. This will allow the present waiver,
including conditional requirements not necessarily compatible with
Subpart G, to be replaced with an FRA approval process which
incorporates all necessary requirements under this new subpart.
FRA considered the issue of the difference between a curve that has
been introduced in high speed track as a result of maintenance or
geometry degradation and a curve that was introduced by design. In
either case, superelevation may or may not be present and trains may
experience an unbalanced condition. FRA believes that the deviations
from uniform profile and uniform alinement, as outlined in sections
213.331 and 213.327, will not preclude longer wavelength misalinements
on the order of 200 feet or greater that resemble the characteristics
of a curve, from being treated as a curve for which the unbalance
formula defined in this section will be applied.

Section 213.331--Track Surface

Proposed rule: The chord lengths in the table are selected for the
same reasons discussed in Sec. 213.327 (alinement). The multiple chords
measure different surface anomaly wavelengths.
The surface table addresses both single and multiple events.
Studies have shown that the smaller limits are necessary when surface
anomalies repeat themselves three more times over the specified chord
length. The parameter commonly called ``warp,'' the difference in
crosslevel between any two points, does not require a specific limit
for repeated warp conditions at high speeds.
Comments: Bombardier/GEC and the French Ministere de l'Equipment,
des Transports et du Logement separately expressed concerns that the
limits for track geometry have been extended from the present class 6
standards, permitting more track defects in the high speed track
classes. As an example, Bombardier/GEC said that the proposed rule
would permit a single 1.25 inch mid-ordinate offset on a 62 ft. chord
for a profile condition, compared to the current requirement of 0.5
inch. In addition, Bombardier/GEC questioned why the difference in
crosslevel between two points less than 62 feet apart is lower for
Classes 4 and 5 track than it is for Classes 6 through 9 track.
Bombardier/GEC urged that the values for all the geometry limits be
``verified by industry'' before the rule is

[[Page 34017]]

promulgated. The Bombardier/GEC also pointed out that the titles in the
tables defining surface requirements should not have the ``inches'' in
them since class of track is not defined in inches.
The AAR commented that the NPRM included an inconsistency between
Sec. 213.63 for track Classes 1 to 5 and Sec. 213.331 in regard to
repeated low joints. The AAR suggested that footnote 2 to the warp
parameter (the difference in crosslevel between any two points less
than 62 feet apart) should apply to Sec. 213.331 for track Classes 6
through 9. The AAR notes that a condition which is a defect in track
Classes 1 through 5 should also be a defect in the higher track
classes.
Final rule: FRA has adopted the proposed geometry standards except
for a few changes in the limits for the track profile parameter. The
changes in the profile parameters are based on a recent study conducted
at the VNTSC.
FRA believes it is crucial to revise the standards for Class 6
track. Years of experience by Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor indicate
a lack of correlation between the former Class 6 standards and adverse
vehicle responses. Adverse vehicle response occasionally occurred on
track that was in compliance; on the other hand, track that was not in
compliance sometimes did not contribute to any adverse vehicle
response.
In response to the concern that the ``warp parameter'' permits a
greater difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 62
feet apart for the higher classes than is permitted in the lower
classes, FRA notes that the limit established for Classes 6 through 9
track, one and one-half inches, is the same limit established for Class
5 track. Therefore, FRA does not believe that a discrepancy exists. In
addition, FRA believes the format in the surface tables in this section
does not need modification since it is similar to the surface table in
Sec. 213.63 for the lower classes, a format that has been used in the
track standards for many years.
The geometry standards are based on the recommendations of a panel
of experts who conducted extensive studies, reviewed foreign practice,
and recommended to the RSAC the safety limits shown in the proposed
rule. The recommendations of this panel are contained in a working
paper dated July, 1997, and entitled ``Track and Vehicle Interaction
Safety Assurance for U.S. High Speed Rail.'' The working paper is part
of the docket for this proceeding. The proposed high speed standards
were based on the principle that the high speed track and the equipment
operating on high speed track are an integral system.
Following the publication of the NPRM, the VNTSC completed a report
entitled ``Evaluation of Proposed High Speed Track Surface Geometry
Specification'', dated November 10, 1997, which is in the docket of
these proceedings. The study describes an evaluation of the responses
of different high speed locomotive designs to track profile geometry
variations. The working paper focuses on a comparative analysis of high
speed locomotive designs with carbody-mounted traction motors and
locomotive designs with truck-mounted traction motors. The minimum
amplitudes of track profile variations required to cause excessive
vertical accelerations in the operator's cab and to cause suspension
bottoming are compared with the maximum amplitudes prescribed in the
proposed high speed standards. The analysis shows that a locomotive
design with truck-mounted traction motors requires an approximately 33
percent smaller track profile variation amplitude to cause excessive
vertical accelerations than a locomotive design with carbody-mounted
traction motors. These results indicate that a locomotive with truck-
mounted traction motors may exceed the proposed minimum safety limits
for a single profile event that were proposed in the NPRM for Subpart
G.
In light of those findings, FRA has adopted the proposed surface
limits contained in the NPRM, except that the geometry limits for
profile are reduced, based on the results of the VNTSC study. This
final rule requires that the deviation from uniform profile on either
rail at the midordinate of a 31-foot chord may not exceed one inch for
track Classes 6 and 7. The deviation from uniform profile on either
rail at the midordinate of a 62-foot chord has now been set to one inch
for track Classes 6, 7 and 8 and three-quarters of an inch for track
Class 9. Similarly, for three or more non-overlapping deviations in
track surface, each deviation from uniform profile on either rail at
the midordinate of a 31-foot chord may not exceed three-quarters of an
inch for track Classes 6 and 7. Also, for three or more non-overlapping
deviation in track surface, each deviation from uniform profile on
either rail at the midordinate of a 62-foot chord has been changed to
three-quarters for track Classes 6, 7 and 8 and one-half inch for track
Class 9.
FRA concurs with the comments made by the AAR in regard to repeated
low joints. For consistency with Sec. 213.63, footnote two with a minor
modification has been added to the table in Sec. 213.331(a).

Section 213.333--Automated Vehicle Inspection Systems

Comments were received from Amtrak and from Bombardier/GEC in
regard to the proposed requirements for automated measurement systems.
These systems include the track geometry measurement system, the gage
restraint measurement system, and the systems necessary to monitor
vehicle/track interaction (acceleration and wheel/rail force
requirements). Because of the complexity of these systems and the
technical nature of the comments, the following discussion addresses
each automated measurement system separately in the order of the
paragraphs in the proposed rule.

Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS), Paragraphs (a) Through (g)

Proposed rule: Railroads that operate trains at speeds above 110
m.p.h. universally employ automatic track geometry measuring systems to
generate data to point out train safety hazards in the track structure.
Reliance upon only visual inspections to locate small track
irregularities is difficult. In France, track geometry measuring
vehicles are operated quarterly over high speed lines for the purpose
of collecting track maintenance data.
Comments: Comments were received concerning the track geometry
system.
Final rule: No changes to paragraphs (a) through (g) were made in
the final rule.

Gage Restraint Measurement System, Paragraphs (h) and (i)

Proposed rule: The GRMS is primarily used on timber-tied track of
certain freight railroads, to evaluate the effectiveness, on a
continuous basis, of rail/tie fastening systems. This section requires
the use of GRMS in Classes 8 and 9 to measure the gage restraint of the
track, including the strength of the ties and the ability of the
fastenings to maintain gage. Specified safety limits were established
after testing on the Northeast Corridor where the track is
predominately concrete-tied with timber tie turnouts. GRMS on concrete
ties is effective in identifying defective ties and conditions with
missing fasteners or a relaxation of toe load of gage-side rail
fasteners. GRMS is required in Classes 8 and 9 to measure the
resistance of the track to forces generated by wheel flanging in the
gaging space. The use of the GRMS is necessary to insure sufficient
gage restraint at the gage limits set to control truck hunting.
Comments: Bombardier/GEC commented that the GRMS requirements are
unnecessary. It stated

[[Page 34018]]

that the GRMS could be a beneficial tool when used to inspect lower
classes of track built with wooden ties, and any requirement for
regular GRMS inspection should be limited to lower track classes and
tracks with wooden ties where a cost/safety benefit can be shown.
Final rule: FRA does not agree with the recommendation that the
GRMS be restricted to timber-tied track. While most of the industry's
GRMS experience has been on timber-tied track, FRA and Amtrak jointly
conducted a program to evaluate the performance of FRA's GRMS on the
Northeast Corridor, a route with large numbers of concrete ties. This
joint evaluation program indicated that the GRMS is an important safety
tool for the measurement of gage restraint in concrete ties, as well as
timber ties. The evaluation program also concluded that the optimum
GRMS safety criterion for concrete ties is the gage-widening ratio
(GWR) which is based on the unloaded track gage, loaded track gage and
actual lateral load applied.
The GWR limit to the high speed standards is a completely different
concept than the application of the GRMS technology discussed for the
lower track classes. This preamble describes various proposals for
implementation of GRMS technology for lower track classes, such as the
use of a GRMS to supplant certain crosstie and fastener requirements in
the track safety standards. While the GRMS is new to the high speed
environment, FRA concludes that GRMS inspections in the higher classes
is important to confirm the safety of crossties and fasteners. The GRMS
is an important tool which has been proven to identify missing
fasteners and help locate other conditions that can affect the ability
of both timber and concrete crossties to maintain track gage.
Paragraphs (h) and (i) are unchanged from the proposed rule with
two exceptions. Since there is no requirement to calculate Projected
Loaded Gage (PLG24) in Classes 8 and 9, the reference to PLG 24 has
been removed from the final rule. Several other minor word changes have
been made in the language of the rule text to agree with the current
language being proposed by the GRMS Task Group.

Vehicle/Track Safety Measurement Systems, Paragraph (j)

Proposed rule: The proposed rule required functional carbody and
truck frame accelerometers on at least two vehicles of every train in
track Classes 8 and 9. The track owner would be required to have in
effect written procedures when these devices indicate a possible track-
related condition.
Comments: Both Amtrak and Bombardier/GEC in separate comments state
that the requirements in paragraph (j) are unnecessary. Both commenters
objected to the requirement for accelerometers on every train, except
for lateral truck frame accelerometers, and also objected to the
requirement for written procedures for the notification of track
personnel. The commenters argued that such a requirement would likely
create significant availability problems for various operators due to
the reliability of such permanently installed equipment.
In its comments to the docket, Amtrak re-evaluated an earlier
endorsement of a requirement for carbody accelerometers on every train
and now recommends that this paragraph be replaced with a requirement
for written procedures when on-board crews report indication of a
possible track-related condition. Amtrak said that it had earlier
assumed that these monitoring systems would be autonomous ``black
boxes'' that would be on each train and report exception to the
engineer or directly to the dispatcher. Amtrak said that further
investigation into the application of this requirement raised doubts
about the necessity for the frequency of the monitoring as well as the
ability of an operator to ensure compliance with that frequency because
``track deterioration is a slow process occurring over long periods of
time.'' In addition, Amtrak stated that it has had in place for years a
process by which engineers report rough track when they encounter it.
Final rule: FRA has received widely differing opinions about the
use of accelerometers on daily trains. Some experts point out that
accelerometers on every train would be extremely useful to locate track
conditions that may need correction. Other experts have differing
opinions. The French National Railway (SNCF), for example, employs
lateral truck-mounted accelerometers to address truck hunting on every
train, but uses vertical and lateral carbody accelerometers only on a
vehicle which inspects about twice each month. Those who advocate
accelerometers on two cars in every train believe that they may
indicate a track-caused response if both vehicles exhibit similar
readings. On the other hand, if only one vehicle shows a high
acceleration, the cause may be attributed to the dynamics of that
vehicle only, not the track. Some experts believe that a requirement to
equip every train with carbody and truck frame accelerometers would be
costly to implement and would have questionable safety benefits.
However, many experts believe that a requirement for carbody and
truck frame accelerometers on one train per day would accomplish
several important safety goals that can not be achieved with a periodic
program such as the one on the SNCF. The principal advantage is that
conditions such as a culvert this is settling would be identified
before the next periodic inspection.
While FRA agrees with the commenters that lateral and vertical
accelerometers on every train would be unnecessary and that track does
generally deteriorate slowly, FRA believes that some undesirable track
geometry conditions may occur between periodic inspections for geometry
and vehicle/track safety. The engineer's subjective perception of rough
track conditions would be enhanced with available technology. FRA
concludes that a requirement for functioning carbody and truck-mounted
accelerometers on at least one train per day is needed to address those
conditions that may occur on a daily basis, such as a culvert which has
settled or a track condition that may be inadvertently introduced
during track repair. These conditions may not be noticeable to a
locomotive engineer.
The final rule is changed to require that at least one vehicle in
one train per day operating in Classes 8 and 9 shall be equipped with
functioning on-board truck frame and carbody accelerometers. Each track
owner shall have in effect written procedures for the notification of
track personnel when on-board accelerometers on trains in Classes 8 and
9 indicate a possible track-related condition. The implementation of
this requirement and the extent of human involvement in the process and
the specific acceleration levels that would trigger notification of
track personnel is being left up to the railroad.

Paragraph (k)

Proposed rule: In paragraph (k), the proposed rule requires that
for track Classes 7, 8 and 9, an instrumented car having dynamic
response characteristics representative of other equipment assigned to
service, or a portable device that monitors on-board instrumentation on
trains, shall be operated over the track at the revenue speed profile
at least twice within 60 days with not less than 15 days between
inspections. The instrumented car or the portable device shall monitor
vertically and laterally oriented accelerometers on the vehicle's floor
level and lateral truck-mounted accelerometers. If the carbody lateral,
carbody vertical, or truck frame lateral safety limits in this section
are

[[Page 34019]]

exceeded, speeds will be reduced until these safety limits are not
exceeded.
Comments: Both Amtrak and Bombardier/GEC were generally supportive
of this paragraph which requires periodic measurements of truck frame
and carbody accelerations. Amtrak recommended that two vehicles be
used, rather than one, and Bombardier/GEC questioned the requirement
that the accelerometers be mounted above the axle where they would be
subjected to damage from snow, ballast, and debris. Bombardier/GEC also
stated that the rule should make clear what the remedial action should
be taken when these limits are exceeded.
Final rule: FRA agrees with the comments regarding the placement of
the accelerometers and has revised the paragraph to clarify the
remedial action that must be taken when these safety limits are
exceeded. Paragraph (k) is changed to remove the requirement that the
accelerometers on the truck frame shall be mounted ``directly above the
axle.'' Instead the accelerometers must be mounted on the truck frame.
While Amtrak's recommendation that two vehicles be equipped with the
accelerometers, FRA concludes that one inspection vehicle when combined
with the daily monitoring of accelerometers and the other inspection
requirements in the rule, will provide the necessary level of safety.
For clarification, the rule is changed to require that ``if the carbody
lateral, carbody vertical or truck frame lateral safety limits in the
following table of vehicle/track interaction safety limits are
exceeded, speeds will be reduced until these safety limits are not
exceeded.'' These changes clearly indicate that when the vehicle/track
interaction safety limits are exceeded on the inspection vehicle, the
speeds of all trains, not just the test train, shall be reduced until
the source of the exception is corrected, whether track or vehicle-
related.

Paragraph (l)

Proposed rule: In this proposed section, paragraph (l) would
require, for track Classes 8 and 9, a car equipped with instrumented
wheelsets to be operated annually to ensure that the wheel/rail force
safety limits are not exceeded.
Comments: Bombardier/GEC stated that the rule as proposed is not
clear about whether the requirement for an annual measurement of wheel/
rail forces using instrumented wheelsets is intended to ``re-qualify
the rolling stock, or verify the quality of the track.'' Bombardier/GEC
stated that, based on the practices of all operators of high speed
equipment around the world, there is no reason to re-qualify a vehicle
design once it has been properly qualified. Bombardier/GEC also
commented that if the intent of the measurement is to verify the
condition of the track, it will be less effective as an indicator than
information obtained from the other requirements in the rule that are
specifically included for that purpose and which are conducted more
frequently. Bombardier/GEC also recommended a few technical changes to
the table of vehicle/track interaction safety limits.
Final rule: The commenter recommends that the measurement of wheel/
rail forces is only necessary during the qualification period and is
not necessary to be employed for periodic inspections. The SNCF relies
on accelerometers for the purpose of confirming the safety of its high
speed system; however, other high speed railroads use instrumented
wheelsets on a regular basis to monitor wheel/rail forces. The final
rule establishes safety criteria for both accelerometers and wheel/rail
forces that must be monitored during the life of the system. FRA does
not agree with the comment that accelerometer measurements alone will
ensure safety.
The vehicle/track interaction safety limits are the cornerstone of
the high speed standards. Vehicle/track interaction has critical
consequences in railroad safety, and so establishing safe parameters
and developing a measurement system to adhere to those parameters is
highly important for any track safety program. There are several
hazardous and unacceptable vehicle/track interaction events that are
well-known in railroad engineering, and for the most part, may occur on
existing high speed operations, including wheel climb, rail roll-over,
vehicle overturning, gage widening, and track panel shift.
The safety limits contained in the Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety
Limits table are derived from technical literature, years of research,
experience by foreign railroads, and computer simulation and
validation. They must not be exceeded either during the qualification
phase required under Sec. 213.345 or in the periodic measurement of
accelerations and wheel/rail forces required in this section.
The minimum vertical wheel load safety limit is 10 percent of the
static vertical wheel load. The static vertical wheel load is defined
as the load that the wheel would carry while stationary on level track.
These safety criteria assure that no excessive wheel unloading is
experienced by any wheel on the operating vehicle. Significant wheel
unloading greatly increases the risk of derailment in the dynamic
environment of a vehicle traveling at high speed.
The ratio of the lateral force that any wheel exerts on an
individual rail to the vertical force exerted by the same wheel on the
rail (L/V ratio) is limited by the Nadal formula. The limit on any
wheel's L/V ratio ensures that the risk of a wheel climb derailment is
minimized. The wheel flange angle () referenced in the formula
should correspond to actual measurements of wheel flange angle as
provided by the requirements of the vehicle qualification testing
specified in Sec. 213.345.
The net axle lateral force exerted by any axle on the track should
not exceed 50 percent of the static vertical load exerted by the same
axle. This safety criterion ensures that no excessive track panel shift
or misalinement is produced by the moving vehicle. For vehicles
operating at high speeds, track panel shift can produce unsafe carbody
and/or truck motion and, in the extreme, can cause derailment.
The ratio of the lateral forces that the wheels on one side of any
truck exert on an individual rail to the vertical forces exerted by the
same wheels on that rail must not exceed 0.60. This limit ensures that
the risk of a rail rollover derailment is minimized.
The lateral carbody peak-to-peak acceleration (defined by the
algebraic difference between the two extreme values of measured
acceleration within a one-second duration) is limited to 0.5 g. Carbody
lateral accelerations above this limit reflect a very poor ride quality
and a degraded track and/or vehicle condition.
The vertical carbody peak-to-peak acceleration (defined by the
algebraic difference between the two extreme values of measured
acceleration within a one-second duration) is limited to 0.6 g. Carbody
vertical accelerations above this limit also reflect a poor ride
quality and a degraded track and/or vehicle condition.
The Root Mean Square (RMS) of the lateral truck acceleration for
any two-second duration is limited to 0.4 g. This safety limit ensures
that no sustained truck hunting is experienced by the moving vehicle.
Sustained truck hunting produces undesirable ride quality and
significantly increases the risk of derailment. The RMS of the lateral
truck acceleration must be calculated over a two-second window from
which the mean value of the acceleration has been removed. The vertical
truck zero-to-peak acceleration

[[Page 34020]]

is limited to 5.0 g. Exceeding this safety limit can indicate
undesirable short wavelength track anomalies.
Ultimately, vehicle/track interaction safety is assured by
controlling wheel/rail forces to safe limits. Appropriate limits for
track geometry and vehicle response acceleration provide strong
indications of the likely wheel/forces which would be produced by
operating trains. Use of an instrumented wheelset also provides a level
of safety assurance for new and unusual vehicle designs that differ
from the conventional vehicle dynamic models that were used to develop
the track geometry and vehicle/track interaction limits.
FRA believes that an annual inspection using functioning
instrumented wheelsets must be implemented as part of a high speed
inspection strategy that includes visual inspections, geometry car
inspections, periodic carbody and truck-mounted accelerometer
measurements, and other inspections deemed necessary.
The measurement of wheel/rail forces and accelerations is necessary
to confirm that the vehicle/track system is performing within safe
limits. The Japanese National Railway, for example, employs
instrumented wheelsets to measure wheel/rail forces at a frequency of
approximately every three months. The purpose of the periodic
measurement of wheel/rail forces required in this paragraph is to
monitor, or in a sense ``requalify,'' the vehicle/track system, not to
``requalify'' only the track or only the vehicle design. Neither the
track nor the vehicles on the high speed track can be considered in
isolation; they must be monitored together as a system.
The final rule contains a few changes to the table of vehicle/track
interaction safety limits. A 25 Hz filter is specified so that
important high speed events will not be filtered from the data and the
location of truck frame accelerometers is changed in Footnote 3.

Paragraph (m)

Proposed: Paragraph (m) requires the track owner to maintain a copy
of the most recent exception printouts for the inspection required
under paragraphs (k) and (l) of this section.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this paragraph.
Final rule: The paragraph as proposed is adopted in this final
rule.

Section 213.335--Crossties

Proposed rule: Various types of crossties may be installed in high
speed track provided that the ties maintain the proper gage, surface
and alinement. Slab track (track imbedded in concrete) or other
construction may also be used if the construction complies with the
requirements of this section. Because of the wide use of concrete ties
in high speed track throughout the world, this section establishes
safety requirements for concrete ties.
The requirements for crossties in this subpart differ from those in
the corresponding section for crossties in Classes 1 through 5. For
non-concrete-tied construction, the requirements for ties parallel
those of the lower standards except that permissive lateral movement of
tie plates is set at \3/8\ inch instead of \1/2\ inch and a requirement
for rail holding spikes is added.
For concrete-tied track, effective ties must not exhibit the known
failure modes listed. These failure modes were derived largely from
experience in the Northeast Corridor. The number and distribution
requirements of both non-concrete ties and concrete ties is more
stringent than the requirements for the lower classes. For example, 14
effective concrete crossties are required in Class 6, and 16 effective
concrete ties are required in Classes 7, 8 and 9 in each 39-foot
segment of track. For both concrete and timber construction, a minimum
number of non-defective ties is specified on each side of a defective
tie.
Comments: The AAR commented that a discrepancy exists in that
paragraph (e) is inconsistent with the required location of crossties
at rail joint locations for lower speed operations covered by
Sec. 213.109.
Final rule: Review of this section also reveled a typographical
mistake which is being corrected; in paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)(6),
``Able'' is changed to ``So unable.'' The discrepancy was inadvertent
and has been corrected. The measurement is changed from 25 inches to 24
inches in paragraph (e) to make this subsection consistent with the
requirements for the lower track classes.

Section 213.337--Defective Rails

Proposed rule: The requirements for the identification of rail
flaws and appropriate remedial action are valid in high speed track
classes as well as the lower track classes. This section is unchanged
from the standards for the lower classes except that language
references to specific lower classes are deleted as unnecessary.
Surface conditions such as corrugation, shelling, spalling and checking
are not included in the high speed rail defect table since these
conditions, if they were to progress to a severe level, would
contribute to dynamic loading conditions that are addressed by the
requirements for vehicle/track interaction in Sec. 213.333. The
flattened rail head is especially important to identify in high speed
track because of the adverse effect on track geometry caused by this
short anomaly in the surface of the rail head.
Comments: No comments were received pertaining to this section.
Final rule: To improve clarity, definitions were added and a small
change was made to include brackets around some items in the rail flaw
table so that this section is identical to the corresponding section in
the lower track classes.

Section 213.339--Inspection of Rail in Service

Proposed rule: A continuous search for internal rail defects must
be made of all rail in track in track Classes 6, 7, 8 and 9 at a
frequency of twice per year. This requirement is consistent with the
frequency used on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (essentially, Class 6 and
7) and as well as the approach used in France which inspects rails
twice a year.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this section.
Final rule: The final rule for this section is unchanged from the
proposed rule.

Section 213.341--Initial Inspection of New Rail and Welds

Proposed rule: This section provides for the initial inspection of
new rail, either at the mill or within 90 days after installation, and
for the initial inspection of new welds made in new or used rail. It
also provides for alternatives for these inspections. Compliance with
the initial inspection of new rail and welds may be demonstrated by in-
service inspection, mill inspections, welding plant inspections, and
inspections of field welds.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this section.
Final rule: The final rule for this section is unchanged from the
proposed rule.

Section 213.343--Continuous Welded Rail (CWR)

Proposed rule: As with CWR for the lower classes of track, FRA will
review the railroad's written procedures for the installation,
adjustment, maintenance and inspection of CWR, and training for the
application of these procedures.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this section.
Final rule: The final rule is unchanged from the proposed rule for
this section.

[[Page 34021]]

Section 213.345--Vehicle Qualification Testing

Proposed rule: All rolling stock, both passenger and freight, must
be qualified for operation for its intended class. This section
``grandfathers'' equipment that has already operated in the specified
classes. Rolling stock operating in Class 6 within one year prior to
the promulgation of this rule shall be considered as qualified.
Vehicles operating at Class 7 speeds under conditional waivers prior to
the promulgation of the rule are qualified for Class 7 at the current
level of cant deficiency. This includes equipment that is presently
operating on the Northeast Corridor at Class 7 speeds.
The qualification testing will ensure that the equipment will not
exceed the vehicle/track performance limits specified in Sec. 213.333
at any speed less than 10 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum operating
speed. Testing at a maximum speed at least 10 m.p.h. above the proposed
operating speed is required. The test report must include the design
flange angle of the equipment that will be used for the determination
of the lateral to vertical wheel load safety limit for the vehicle/
track performance measurements required in Sec. 213.333(k).
Subsection (d) requires the operator to submit an analysis and
description of the signal system and operating practices to govern
operations in Classes 7, 8 and 9. This submission will include a
statement of sufficiency in these areas for the class of operation
intended. Based on test results and submissions, FRA will approve a
maximum train speed and value of cant deficiency for revenue service.
Comments: Bombardier/GEC stated that this part of the proposed rule
is intended to be followed to qualify equipment types for their
intended operation on a specific route, not to determine the operating
limits of the equipment and track, as stated. Bombardier/GEC said that
to achieve this, it is recommended that the words ``* * * and conduct a
test program sufficient to evaluate the operating limits of the track
and equipment'' be replaced with ``* * * and conduct a test program
sufficient to evaluate the safe operation of the equipment for the
intended service.''
Bombardier/GEC said that it is not practical to include a
requirement to suspend the vehicle qualification tests at the speed
where any of the vehicle/track performance limits in Sec. 213.333 are
exceeded. The qualification tests, according to Bombardier/GEC, should
be completed to determine the safe operational limits for the equipment
throughout the route. In addition, the specific location of all
violations should be recorded and the condition of the track in those
locations should be checked to determine if the non-compliance is
related track or equipment.
Final rule: FRA believes that it is important not to emphasize the
vehicle component in the qualification testing. The purpose of this
section is not to conduct a test program to evaluate the safe operation
of the equipment, but to qualify the vehicle/track system. The
consideration of the high speed track and the vehicles together as an
integral system is fundamental to the approach adopted in this final
rule. To evaluate the system, a test program shall demonstrate vehicle
dynamic response as speeds are incrementally increased from acceptable
Class 6 limits to the target maximum test speeds.
The commenter believes that the tests should not be suspended when
the safety limits are reached. However, these safety limits are set at
levels where continued operation could result in a derailment. FRA does
not believe it would be prudent to continue the testing on that portion
of track if these safety limits are reached. However, the rule is not
intended to imply that all testing must be stopped. It can continue,
but the locations where the limits are reached must be identified and
test speeds may not be increased at those locations until corrective
action is taken. This action may be an adjustment in the track, in the
vehicle, or in both of these system components.
FRA has considered the consistency of this final rule with the
proposed Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, Federal Register,
September 23, 1997, and has changed Sec. 213.345(b) to state that the
testing will not exceed the wheel/rail force safety limits and the
truck lateral accelerations specified in Sec. 213.333 and the vertical
and lateral carbody acceleration levels listed in (b)(1), (2), and (3).
FRA believes the tighter ride quality limits in the proposed Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards are more appropriate for a new system.
However, as the equipment and track wear, those tighter ride quality
limits which were used at the time of system qualification should be
used to establish long-term maintenance levels, and the limits
contained in Sec. 213.333, which are minimum safety levels, should be
used during the life of the system to monitor safety.
A small change has been added to Sec. 213.345(a) which now states
that all rolling stock types which operate at Class 6 and above speeds
shall be qualified. This change emphasizes that trains which operate at
Class 5 speeds or lower on the high speed line do not need to be
qualified to operate on the high speed track.
The rule in Sec. 213.345(e) requires the railroad to submit an
analysis and description of the signal system and operating practices
to govern operations in Classes 7, 8 and 9. FRA has modified
Sec. 213.345(f) to make it clear that trains shall not operate in
revenue service until FRA has approved a maximum train speed and value
of cant deficiency based on FRA's review of the test results and the
other submissions by the track owner.

Section 213.347--Automotive or Railroad Crossings at Grade and Moveable
Bridges

Proposed rule: There are no highway or railroad grade crossings on
the Amtrak route between Washington, D.C. and New York City. Much of
this line is operated by revenue passenger trains at 125 m.p.h. (Class
7 speeds). Highway crossings and railroad crossings at grade (diamonds)
may not be present in Class 8 and 9 track.
Technology currently is being developed that would prevent
inappropriate intrusion of vehicles onto the railroad rights-of-way.
This technology involves the use of barrier systems with intrusion
detection and train stop, as well as advance warning systems. Because
the technology is under development, it would be premature to include
specific requirements for barrier systems and related technology in
this section. However, the railroad is required to submit for approval
a description of the crossing warning system for each crossing.
Comments: No comments were received for this section.
Final rule: A minor addition was added to paragraph (b) to make it
clear that trains shall not operate at Class 7 speeds unless an FRA-
approved warning/barrier system exists on the track segment and all
elements of that warning/barrier system are functioning.
The rule precludes the presence of highway grade crossings and
rail-to-rail crossings for the highest speed operations, track Classes
8 and 9. Presently no highway-rail crossings exist on Class 6 track (on
Amtrak and commuter railroads), although highway-rail crossings existed
for several years on Class 6 track on the Northeast Corridor. FRA
believes highway/grade crossings should be limited in the high speed
regime. Where highway/rail crossings exist at higher speeds, the

[[Page 34022]]

railroad should install the most advance warning/barrier systems
available.
FRA is continuing to conduct risk analysis related to treatments
for high-speed crossings. To date, the analysis demonstrates that risk
to a motorist is not likely to increase with increasing train speeds
above 110 m.p.h. On average, collision frequency should not rise
(although sight distance may be an issue in individual situations).
Accident severity in the range of 80 m.p.h. is already so high that no
further increase in the likelihood of fatal injury in the motor vehicle
should result from increases in train speed.
However, FRA does not believe that sufficiently refined analytical
techniques currently exist to predict the effect of increased speeds on
damage to the passenger train through the initial collision, possible
derailment, and possible secondary collisions-- including interaction
among the units in the consist. Collisions with heavy trucks,
construction equipment and agricultural equipment are an issue of
particular concern. FRA believes it is prudent to take the safe course
and ensure against collisions by the most secure means possible, rather
than risk the occurrence of a catastrophic event involving multiple
fatalities to crew members and passengers.

Section 213.349--Rail End Mismatch

Proposed rule: Vertical or horizontal mismatch of rails at joints
must be less than one-eighth of an inch for Classes 6 through 9. A more
restrictive criterion is not necessary and would be impractical.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this section.
Final rule: The final rule for this section is unchanged from the
proposed rule.

Section 213.351--Rail Joints

Proposed rule: This section is less permissive than its counterpart
for the lower speed classes. Fracture mechanics tests and analyses
demonstrate that there is no place in the high speed train operating
regime for defective joint bars. The propagation rate of a crack large
enough to be visible in a joint bar is unpredictable. Once a joint bar
has ruptured, its companion joint bar is immediately in danger of
overload. Upon discovery of a defective joint bar, the track owner must
reduce the track class at the location of the defective bar and proceed
according to the requirements of Subpart D.
Comments: No comments were received for this section.
Final rule: The final rule for this section is unchanged from the
proposed rule.

Section 213.352--Torch Cut Rail

Proposed rule: This section mirrors the corresponding section
(Sec. 213.122) track Classes 3 through 5. This provision prohibits
future torch cutting of rails in high speed track, except for emergency
situations. When a rail end is torch cut in an emergency situation,
speed over the rail must not exceed the maximum allowable for Class 2
track.
For existing torch cut rails in Class 6 track, all torch cut rails
must be removed within six months of the issuance of the final rule of
this proceeding. If after six months from the issuance of the final
rule of this proceeding any torch cut rail is discovered in Classes 6
through 9 track, it must be removed within 30 days, and speed over that
rail must not exceed the maximum allowable speed for Class 2 track
until it is removed.
Comments: No comments were received for this section.
Final rule: After further review, FRA determined that the proposed
requirement in Sec. 213.352(a)(2) requiring speeds in existing Class 7,
8 and 9 track to be reduced to Class 6 until a torch cut rail is
replaced is unnecessary and has been deleted. For existing torch cut
rail ends in Class 6 track, all torch cut rail ends, if any, must be
removed within six months of this rule. Following the six-month period,
if torch cut rail ends are discovered, train speeds over that rail must
be reduced to the maximum allowable for Class 2 track until removed.

Section 213.353--Turnouts, Crossovers and Lift Rail Assemblies or Other
Transition Devices on Moveable Bridges

Proposed rule: The requirements in this section are similar to
those in the lower classes. Fastenings must be intact and maintained so
as to keep the components securely in place. Each switch, frog, and
guard rail must be free of obstructions that may interfere with the
passage of wheels. Rail anchoring is required to restrain rail movement
affecting the position of switch points and frogs.
Experience in this country with the maintenance of turnouts and
crossovers in high speed territories is limited. The use of
conventional switch and frog components in present-day 125 m.p.h. track
can produce harsh vehicle response which, while not necessarily unsafe,
is likely to be less and less welcome in the future, particularly at
train speeds above 125 m.p.h.
Worldwide, the trend for turnouts and crossovers in high speed
lines is toward reliance on long switch points and moveable point
frogs. Amtrak has some limited experience with these features at fairly
high train speeds, and the western coal railroads have a great deal of
experience, especially with moveable point frogs, with turnout
component performance in low speed, cumulative tonnage conditions. This
section requires that the track owner, intending to operate trains at
high speeds, to develop a turnout and inspection handbook for the
instruction of employees involved in this work. Requirements for
switches, frogs, and spring frogs that are present in the standards for
the lower classes are not specifically listed, but will be addressed in
the railroad's Guidebook.
The purpose of such a document is to encourage formal consideration
of problems associated with inspection and maintenance of these track
features and to establish a consistent system approach to the
performance of related work.
Comments: No comments were received for this section.
Final rule: FRA has added a requirement for the inspection and
maintenance of lift rail assemblies and other transition devices on
moveable bridges. By introducing this requirement, FRA is not
encouraging high speeds over moveable bridges. Currently, the highest
speed over a moveable bridge is 70 m.p.h. However, in view of the 1997
accident over a lift rail assembly in New Jersey, FRA believes it
necessary to introduce a requirement to inspect these transition
devices in the high speed standards to address the potential that lift
rail technology may change.

Section 213.355--Frog Guard Rails and Guard Faces; Gage

Proposed rule: The most restrictive practical measurements for
these important parameters are included. The limits for guard check and
guard face gage are set at a limit that permits minimal wear.
Comments: No comments were received for this section.
Final rule: The final rule for this section is unchanged from the
proposed rule.

Section 213.357--Derails

Proposed rule: Because it is essential that railroad rolling stock
be prevented from fouling the track in front of a high speed train,
this section presents strict requirements for derails to be fully
functional and linked to the signal systems.
Comments: A railroad supplier commenting on the NPRM suggested that
derails also serve to prevent encroachment of main tracks by

[[Page 34023]]

locomotives, trains or maintenance-of-way equipment under power, and
should not be excepted only because of grade characteristics. The
commenter suggested that a better approach would be to permit this
exception only where grade characteristics are favorable (significant
ascent toward the main track) and where trains are not permitted to
clear the main track. The commenter said that turnouts or crossings
connecting to yard leads or branch tracks should not be excepted.
The commenter also recommended that the term ``sidetrack'' be
better defined or described to make it clear that the term does not
apply to other main tracks, sidings, or rail-to-rail crossings. The
commenter was concerned that certain types of derails may be
ineffective and described an accident that occurred several years ago
when a train moving at over 50 mph passed over a derail. The commenter
recommended that the rule include a definition of the term ``derail''
and suggested that turnouts, wheel stops, bollards, etc. may be equally
effective in comparison to a conventional block or split point derail.
The commenter expressed a concern that gates, chocks, skates, wire
ropes, wood ties, etc., do not assure the same type of arresting
action. The commenter asked for FRA's position on the removal of a
length of rail, a pile of ballast or a bumper post.
The commenter said that the proposed requirement for each derail to
be ``interlocked'' with the signal system should be modified and
included in 49 CFR Part 236 which establishes requirements for hand-
operated switches in ABS and TCS territory. The commenter said that the
addition of circuit controllers to independent hand-operated derails in
ABS will be costly and that such a requirement would tend to discourage
voluntary installation of sidetrack derails on Classes 2 to 6 trackage.
The commenter also recommended that the term ``interlocked'' be
replaced with the term ``interconnected'' and suggested that the
phrases ``interlocked'', ``maximally restrictive'', ``deployed'', and
``completely functional'' are unfamiliar terms and invite confusion and
disagreement. The commenter said that there would be little sacrifice
of safety in allowing display of a ``proceed at restricted speed''
aspect on the main train when a sidetrack derail is not in the
derailing position. Finally, the commenter suggested that this section
be moved to the signal regulations at 49 CFR Part 236 because
applicable sections in that part already apply to derails. For example,
Sec. 236.205(c) sets forth requirements for an independently operated
fouling point derail equipped with switch circuit controller which is
not in the derailing position.
Final rule: FRA does not believe it is necessary to move the entire
section on derails to the signal rules at 49 CFR Part 236, because the
subject of derails is appropriate for the track standards. However, FRA
may wish to consider changes in Part 236 at a later date. FRA agrees
with many of commenters recommendations.
The terms ``industrial'' and ``sidetrack'' as proposed may lead to
confusion. FRA, therefore, has modified the rule to remove these terms
and use terminology which is more common to the industry. Paragraph (a)
now requires that each track, other than a main track, which connects
with a Classes 7, 8 and 9 main track shall be equipped with a
functioning derail of the correct size and type. The term ``main
track'' has a familiar meaning in the railroad industry and is defined,
for example in Sec. 236.831(a) and Sec. 240.7.
FRA believes the exception to the requirement for derails at
locations ``where railroad equipment, because of grade characteristics,
cannot move to foul the main track'' is reasonable. FRA believes it is
not necessary to go beyond this exception to address every conceivable
circumstance. FRA points out that Sec. 213.361 requires the railroad to
submit a right-of-way plan'' for FRA approval. This plan must contain
provision for the intrusion of vehicles from adjacent tracks.
The final rule under Sec. 213.357(b) explains that a derail is a
device which will physically stop or divert movement of railroad
rolling stock or other railroad on-track equipment past the location of
the device. Ineffective piles of ballast, wire ropes, chains, or
similar methods are not sufficient. Other methods may be as effective
as conventional derails in accomplishing the goal of preventing the
railroad equipment from moving into the clearance envelope of the high
speed main track.
Paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section mirror the derail
requirements for the lower track classes in Sec. 213.205. FRA agrees
with the commenter's concern about the term ``interlocked'' because it
refers to a particular arrangement of signals. FRA concurs with the
commenter's concern that a requirement for derails to be connected to
the signal system in Class 6 track would be costly and tend to
discourage voluntary installation of derails. To address these
concerns, paragraph (g) is changed to read that ``each derail on a
track connected to a Class 7, 8 or 9 main track shall be interconnected
with the signal system.'' The term ``interconnected'' is consistent
with the signal rules in Sec. 235.205, which requires, in part, that
circuits shall be installed so that each signal governing train
movements into a block will display its most restrictive aspect ``when
an independently operated fouling point derail equipped with a switch
circuit controller is not in derailing position.''

Section 213.359--Track Stiffness

Proposed rule: Track must have sufficient vertical strength and
lateral strength to withstand the maximum loads generated at maximum
permissible train speeds, cant deficiency and lateral or vertical
defects so that the track will return to a configuration in compliance
with the track performance and geometry requirements of this subpart.
It is imperative that the track structure is structurally qualified to
accept the loads without unacceptable deformation.
The track's resistance to track panel shift is difficult to
quantify. However, FRA believes that at a future date, it may be
possible, based on ongoing research addressing track panel shift, to
further refine the safety limit for the Net Axle L/V Ratio in the table
of vehicle/track interaction safety limits in Sec. 213.333. The present
limit of 0.5 is based on an extrapolation of the Prud'homme limit and
experimental data. An FRA sponsored research program is currently in
place addressing the development of criteria and possible safety limits
for track shift mitigation which are driven by the proposition that
lateral loads generated by vehicles operating under maximum speed, cant
deficiency, thermal loads, and initial line defect conditions should
not cause the exception of an allowable deflection limit. Depending
upon the specific track conditions and vehicle characteristics,
permissible net axle lateral to vertical load ratios for an allowable
deflection limit can be in the range of 0.4 to 0.6. Key influencing
parameters are the track lateral resistance characteristics, tie/
ballast friction coefficients, vehicle vertical axle loads, track
curvature, thermal loads, and constant versus variable lateral axle
loads.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this section.
Final rule: This section is unchanged from the proposed rule.

Section 213.361--Right-of-Way

Proposed rule: This section requires that the track owner to submit
a barrier plan, termed a ``right-of-way plan,'' to FRA for approval.
The plan will include, at a minimum, provisions in

[[Page 34024]]

areas of demonstrated need to address the prevention of vandalism by
trespassers and intrusion of vehicles from adjacent rights of way. A
particular form of vandalism, the launching of objects from overhead
bridges or structures, is specifically listed.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this section.
Final rule: The final rule is unchanged from the proposed rule for
this section.

Section 213.365--Visual Inspections

Proposed rule: Visual inspections are considered to be an important
component of the railroad's overall inspection program. The section
largely parallels the requirements for the lower classes. The
inspection requirements are twice weekly for Classes 6, 7 and 8 and
three times per week for Class 9. Turnouts and crossovers must be
inspected in accordance with the Guidebook required under Sec. 213.353.
The practice in France of operating a train at reduced speeds following
a period with no train traffic is adopted in this section.
Comments: Bombardier/GEC said that the basis to limit the speed of
trains in paragraph (f) to 100 m.p.h. after a traffic interruption of
eight hours is not clear. Equipment currently is permitted to run at
speeds of 110 m.p.h. on Class 6 track, and up to 125 m.p.h. on the
Northeast Corridor on the first run of the day. The proposed rule would
limit the speed of these trains to 100 m.p.h. after the track is
upgraded to Class 8 or Class 9, if the disruption was greater than
eight hours. Bombardier/GEC recommended that the rule require the speed
to be reduced to Class 7 speeds if an eight-hour disruption in service
occurs on Class 8 track.
Final rule: FRA believes the commenter may be misinterpreting the
rule which requires that if no train traffic operates for a period of
eight hours in track Classes 8 or 9, a train shall be operated at less
than 100 m.p.h. before the resumption of the maximum authorized speed.
FRA believes the requirement for one train to operate over the track is
not burdensome and follows the practice on the SNCF lines for an early
morning pilot train. The rule is unchanged from the proposed rule for
this section.

Section 213.367--Special Inspections

Proposed rule: The requirements of this section are the same as
those for the lower track classes except that the occurrence of
temperature extremes is specifically listed as an event that requires a
track inspection.
Comments: No comments were received concerning this section.
Final rule: The final rule for this section is unchanged from the
proposed rule.

Section 213.369--Inspection Records

Proposed rule: The requirements of this section are the same as
those for the lower track classes.
Comments: No comments were received for this section.
Final rule: FRA has made one small change in paragraph (f). The
phrase ``Each Track/vehicle Performance record'' has been changed to
``Each Vehicle/track interaction safety record.'' This change
corresponds to the change in the title for the table of vehicle/track
interaction safety limits in Sec. 213.333.

Appendix A

Proposed rule: The NPRM proposed to add a curving speed chart based
on four inches unbalance. For many years, the track standards included
a curving speed chart based only on three inches unbalance. However,
the NPRM proposed to allow qualified equipment to operate at curving
speeds based on four inches of unbalance, making an additional chart
necessary.
Comments: FRA received no comments on the new chart.
Final rule: FRA decided that inclusion of the new chart in Appendix
A is necessary to accommodate the provision in the final rule which
allows qualified equipment to operate at curving speeds based on four
inches of unbalance.

Appendix B

Proposed rule: The NPRM stated that FRA would revise the schedule
for civil penalty assessment as it found necessary. At the very least,
the schedule would have to be revised to include civil penalties for
the new subsections added to the Track Safety Standards. These would
include penalties for Secs. 213.4(e)(4) and (f) (Excepted track),
Sec. 213.119 (Continuous welded rail), Sec. 213.122 (Torch cut rails),
and most of the subsections in Subpart G.
Comments: FRA received no comments about the penalty schedule.
Final rule: Under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub.
L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373), FRA is required to adjust civil
penalties it administers to incorporate the effects of inflation. See
28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
FRA added penalties to the Schedule of Civil Penalties to
accommodate the new subsections of the final rule. The amounts for the
new penalties were chosen based on penalties that have been used in the
enforcement of the Track Safety Standards for years. For instance,
penalties for violations of most of the substantive subsections of the
track standards are either $2,500 or $5,000, the higher penalty being
reserved for the more serious violations. For those subsections under
Subpart G that have counterparts in Subparts A through F, the new
penalties are the same as those for their counterparts. After some
consideration, FRA decided not to include generally higher penalties
for high speed rail because there are currently few track owners to
which Subpart G will apply. However, FRA will reconsider this decision
in the future if experience demonstrates the need to assess higher
penalties for Subpart G.

Regulatory Impact, Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures

This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures. The final rule revising the Track Safety
Standards is considered to be significant under both Executive Order
12866 and DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979)
because of substantial public interest and safety implications. FRA has
prepared and placed in the docket a regulatory analysis addressing the
economic impact of the rule. Document inspection and copying facilities
are available at 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Seventh Floor, Washington,
D.C. Photocopies may also be obtained by submitting a written request
to the FRA Docket Clerk at the Office Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Mail Stop 10, Washington,
D.C. 20590.
Ordinarily, in conducting an analysis of the costs and benefits of
a proposed or final rule, FRA gathers more extensive economic data than
was made available in this proceeding. However, in light of the
consensus in the Track Working Group and the majority vote of the RSAC
members, FRA does not believe more data is necessary. FRA has relied
principally on the recommendations and experience of the railroad
industry and labor representatives who, through the RSAC process,
helped develop this rule. The working group members provided valuable
non-quantitative data on their preferences. Thus, their unanimous
consensus on the contents of the rule allows FRA to conclude that the
rule is cost beneficial. Although rail labor subsequently withdrew its
support for this rulemaking, their objection to the rule did not relate
to the finding that the rule is cost beneficial. Furthermore, the
railroads, who will bear the burden of

[[Page 34025]]

the costs imposed by the rule, have continued to support the rule. In
its conclusion, FRA finds that the net effect of the changes to the
existing rule is an increase in safety and an increase in the burden on
the railroads, but that the burden on the railroads from the changes is
not likely to be as great as the benefit, although there was no way to
quantify the magnitude on the net benefit.
The Track Working Group formed, reached a consensus on internal
working procedures, and addressed the issues. Several issues were
delegated to task groups, which are subgroups of the working group. The
procedure remained the same. The task groups could make no
recommendations until they had a consensus. The working group would not
adopt any recommendation, even if a result of a consensus in the task
group, until there was a consensus in the working group. The full RSAC
would make no recommendation to the Administrator until there was a
majority consensus in the full RSAC, even if there was a consensus in
the working group.
An implication of this is that no entity represented would accept a
consensus agreement, unless the entity he or she represented would be
at least as well off after the agreement as it had been before. This
analysis therefore uses as a fundamental assumption that there are no
provisions which will impose drastic costs on any segment represented
by members of the working group, and Pareto superiority of the revised
rule over the current rules. Pareto superiority implies that no party
would be willing to pay to return to the current standards, although
some party might be indifferent between the current standards and the
revised standard. There is no implication that this rule is Pareto
optimal, although Pareto optimality has not been excluded. Were the
rule Pareto optimal, there would not exist another possible set of
rules which at least one party would be willing to pay to adopt, and
the amount that party would be willing to pay would be sufficient, were
it given to other parties, to induce them to agree to the set of rules.
Nor is the final rule assumed to be optimal. Were it optimal the total
net benefit would be maximized.
The guidance in E.O. 12866 is that we should select the rule with
the maximum net benefit. We believe we have done that here, because no
party who is burdened by the rule objected in comments to the docket
following publication of the NPRM. What we know is that the revised
rule is closer to the optimum than the current rules. The guidance in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act is that we should adopt rules that are
flexible, that fit in with how businesses actually conduct operations,
and that are sensitive to the concerns of small businesses. Clearly the
RSAC process does this. Had we adopted the suggestions of labor
organizations objecting to the proposed rule in the full RSAC and in
their comments to the docket, then we would have produced a rule with
greater benefits and greater costs, which the FRA believes would have
substantially lower net benefits than the proposed rule or this final
rule.

Estimated Benefit of Changes to the Track Standards

In 1995, there were 827 reported train accidents from track-related
causes, which caused about $62 million in damage to railroad property.
These accidents also caused 17 injuries and the evacuation of
approximately 1,000 people. See Tables 22, 65, and 27, Accident/
Incident Bulletin 164, Calendar Year 1995, FRA 1996. If each accident
resulted in $20,000 in miscellaneous costs, such as rerailing trains,
providing emergency response, and legal costs, then the total
miscellaneous cost would have been about $16 million.¹ If
each injury cost $10,000, then the total injury cost would be about
$170,000.² If each evacuation cost $1,000, then the total
evacuation cost would have been about $1 million.³ These
costs are further documented in FRA's economic analysis, available in
the public docket. The total for all of these costs would have been
about $80 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Internal FRA estimates show that it would cost about $2,000
to rerail a single car, and that it costs about $10,000,
conservatively, for an emergency response to a small derailment, and
about $8,000 for about 80 hours of legal time at $100 per hour,
which is also conservative as a measure of the resources used in
response to a derailment.
\2\ Based on an injury between AIS 1, minor, and AIS 2,
moderate, on the Accidental Injury Severity scale, the society would
be willing to pay between $5,400 and $41,850 to avoid the injury.
\3\ Based on about $200 to relocate, house and feed an evacuee
for one night, plus other costs to society, such as business, school
and road closures, which come to about four times the individual
evacuation cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FRA believes it is conservative to estimate that these costs
will be reduced by five percent, as the revision addresses virtually
every accident cause found in the bulletin. That would provide an
estimated benefit of about $4 million per year, or about $40 million in
net present value over 20 years. This value may be significantly
higher, as the average cost of accidents in certain categories targeted
in the rule tends to be above average. For instance, broken rail
derailments on main lines (internal rail flaw detection provisions) and
accidents caused by buckled track (CWR provisions) tend to be higher-
speed accidents with large railroad damage totals and greater potential
for third-party impacts, such as evacuations and disruptions in
adjacent transportation corridors.
Using reasonably conservative assumptions, it appears that the net
burden on railroads will be less than $2 million per year, a very small
number when compared to total rail revenues ($37.6 billion in 1995 for
Class 1 railroads only). Railroads will receive a benefit in the form
of greater certainty over the future of track safety standards as a
result of their active participation in the RSAC process which provided
the framework for the revised rule. They will also receive some benefit
where existing provisions have been made less stringent.
It is not clear whether that benefit exceeds the burden, although
it appears from the willingness of railroads to consent to the Track
Working Group proposal that they would receive a net benefit. Of
course, the railroads would be even better off if the provisions which
burden them were removed and those which benefit them remained. Other
members of the Track Working Group did not accept that proposal. In
their comments, railroads agreed that they would rather have FRA
implement the proposed rule as a whole than continue with the current
standards, although they would prefer that the proposed rule changed
certain provisions.

Federalism Implications

This final rule has been analyzed according to the principles of
Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism''). It has been determined that
these amendments to Part 213 do not have federalism implications. As
noted previously, the U.S. Supreme Court, in CSX v. Easterwood, upheld
Federal preemption of any state or local attempts to regulate train
speed. Nothing in this notice proposes to change that relationship.
Likewise, the addition to Part 213's requirement for vegetation
maintenance near grade crossings is not intended to preempt any similar
existing state or local requirements. The provisions that require
railroads seeking to operate in Classes 8 and 9 to have a program
addressing vandalism and trespassing are directed only to the
railroads, and not to state or local governments. If a railroad is
unable to provide an adequate program to address these issues, it will
not be allowed to operate at Classes 8 and 9 speeds. For these reasons,
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

[[Page 34026]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This notice contains a summary of a regulatory flexibility analysis
(RFA) as required by the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
at 5 U.S.C. 601-612. FRA completed a RFA as part of an economic
analysis of costs and benefits, and placed of copy of the RFA in the
docket for this proceeding.
1. Why action by the agency is being considered:
The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992, Public Law 102-
365, 106 Stat. 972 (September 3, 1992), later amended by the Federal
Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-440, 108
Stat. 4615 (November 2, 1994), requires FRA to revise the track safety
regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 213. Now codified at 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 20142, the amended statute requires:

(a) Review of Existing Regulations.--Not later than March 3,
1993, the Secretary of Transportation shall begin a review of
Department of Transportation regulations related to track safety
standards. The review at least shall include an evaluation of--
(1) Procedures associated with maintaining and installing
continuous welded rail and its attendant structure, including cold
weather installation procedures;
(2) The need for revisions to regulations on track excepted from
track safety standards; and
(3) Employee safety.
(b) Revision of Regulations.--Not later than September 1, 1995,
the Secretary shall prescribe regulations and issue orders to revise
track safety standards, considering safety information presented
during the review under subsection (a) of this section and the
report of the Comptroller General submitted under subsection ``(c)''
of this section.
* * * * *
(d) Identification of Internal Rail Defects.--In carrying out
subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall consider whether or not
to prescribe regulations and issue orders concerning--
(1) Inspection procedures to identify internal rail defects,
before they reach imminent failure size, in rail that has
significant shelling; and
(2) Any specific actions that should be taken when a rail
surface condition, such as shelling, prevents the identification of
internal defects.

The reasons for the actual provisions of the action considered by the
agency are explained in the body of the analysis.
2. The objectives and legal basis for the rule:
The objective of the rule is to enhance the safety of rail
transportation, protecting both those traveling and working on the
system, and those off the system who might be adversely affected by a
rail incident. The legal basis is reflected in the response to ``1.''
above and in the preamble.
3. A description of and an estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule would apply:
The rule would apply to railroads. Small entities among affected
railroads would all be short line railroads. There are approximately
700 short line railroads in the United Sates, but many of them are not
small entities, either because they are large enterprises as railroads,
or because they are operations of large entities in other industries.
4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record:
See the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis.
5. Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
rule:
None.

Significant Alternatives

In their comments to the NPRM, labor organizations suggested
certain enhancements. However, the FRA does not believe that their
suggestions would have made the rule more flexible; rather, they would
have increased the burden on small entities significantly with
relatively little commensurate benefit.
1. Differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables
which take into account the resources available to small entities:
In the two sections most likely to affect small entities,
Sec. 213.4 Excepted Track and Sec. 213.109 Crossties, the final rule
includes a two year phase-in period.
2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities:
Although their needs were considered at every step of the process,
there was no way to reduce the burden on small entities that did not
apply as well to larger entities.
3. Use of performance, rather than design standards:
Where possible, especially in the geometry standards, the standards
were tied to performance. Although they were expressed as
specifications, the underlying performance model ensures that they will
have the same effect as a performance standard would. In the high speed
standards, vehicle qualification is expressed strictly as a performance
standard.
4. Exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities:
There was no practicable way to exclude small entities. Further,
the low volume operations of the largest railroads often serve shippers
which are small entities, and any additional burden on the low volume
lines of large railroads would likely have adverse impacts on those
small shippers.

Definition of Small Entity

SBREFA incorporates the definition for ``small entity'' that is
established by existing law (5 U.S.C. 601, 15 U.S.C. 632, 13 CFR Part
121) for those businesses to be covered by agency policies. Generally,
a small entity is a business concern that is independently owned and
operated, and is not dominant in its field of operation. Also, ``small
governmental jurisdictions'' that serve populations of 50,000 or less
are small entities. (Commuter railroads are governmental jurisdictions,
and some may fit within this statutory delineation for small
governmental jurisdictions, or small entities.) An agency may establish
one or more other definitions for this term, in consultation with the
SBA and after opportunity for public comment, that are appropriate to
the agency's activities.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) promulgated regulations that clarify the term
``small entity'' by industry, using number of employees or annual
income as criteria. See 13 CFR 121.101-108 and 201. In the SBA
regulations, main line railroads with 1,500 or fewer employees, and
switching or terminal establishments with 500 or fewer employees
constitute small entities. The SBA regulations do not address hazardous
material shippers in the railroad industry.
Prior to the SBA regulations establishing size categories, the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) developed a classification system
for freight railroads as Class I, II, or III, based on annual operating
revenue. (The detailed, qualifying criteria for these classifications
are set forth in 49 CFR part 1201.) The Department of Transportation's
Surface Transportation Board, which succeeded the ICC, has not changed
these classifications. The ICC classification system has been used
pervasively by FRA and the railroad industry to identify entities by
size. The SBA recognized this classification system as a sound one, and
concurs with FRA's decision to continue using it, provided the public
has notice of the classification system in use for any particular
proceeding and an opportunity to comment on it.
As explained in detail in the ``Interim Policy Statement Concerning
Small

[[Page 34027]]

Entities Subject to the Railroad Safety Laws,'' published August 11,
1997 at 62 Fed. Reg. 43024, FRA has decided to define ``small entity,''
on an interim basis, to include only those entities whose revenues
would bring them within the Class III definition. This definition is
the basis of the small business analysis for this proceeding.

Effect of This Rule on Small Businesses

All of the small entities directly affected by this rule are short
line railroads. They are represented by the ASLRA who participated in
the Track Working Group. The ASLRA was not, of course, involved in
developing those standards which would not apply to any of their
members, for example, the high speed track standards. The ASLRA
supported the NPRM as drafted by the Track Working Group and
recommended by the RSAC. All of the individual short line railroads
that participated directly in the Track Working Group agreed to the
proposal as well. In addition, the ASLRA and several short line
railroads participated in all of the workshops hosted by FRA in 1993
following the publication of the ANPRM in this proceeding.
Almost every change in this final rule will enhance safety. Some
provisions serve to reduce burdens, but in most cases, the burden is
increased, particularly for the railroads. However, the Track Working
Group considered the impact on small entities at every step, and
introduced phase-in periods to mitigate the effect on small entities by
the crosstie standard and the new gage standard for excepted track.
While there is no clear way to measure the net effect of the final
rule, it is likely the net benefit will be positive. The RSAC process
was intended to take rulemaking into areas where data is sparse, and
the end product, as might be expected, is difficult to quantify.
FRA did not quantify the estimated annual cost to the average firm,
nor compare it to average annual revenue or profits, because the
relative impact of the final rule varies more by condition of the track
owned by a railroad than by the size of the railroad. Railroads with
better, safer track will face proportionally much smaller effects from
the final rule. The average annual total cost is likely to be less than
$2 million per year for the entire railroad industry, with more than
half of the cost borne by large railroads. The average burden per small
railroad is likely therefore to be less than $1,500 per year. The
burden will be greater on railroads with more track, and lower on
railroads with less.
No provision included in this final rule will have a very adverse
impact on the affected firms. A proposal which would have a large
beneficial impact is the GRMS as an alternative to the crosstie
standard. (See previous discussion in the preamble to this notice.)
Some provisions which at first impression seem to have a significant
impact, such as an increase in the number of required crossties, in
fact will have little impact.
For example, this final rule includes an increase in the number of
crossties required on curved track. In a worst case, about 30 percent
of the Class 1 track of a very small entity might not comply with the
requirement for six ties per 39-foot section of rail. Of this, 80
percent would not comply with geometry standards or standards affecting
effective distribution of ties, which likely would be fixed by adding
enough ties comply or exceed the standard. The remaining track, about
six percent of all track, would not have sufficient ties to meet the
revised standard. Some of this track would not meet the current
standard. One tie per section for six percent of the track would be
slightly more than eight ties per mile. At a cost of $40 per tie
installed, this would mean a cost of about $320 per mile, for a worst
case. A railroad with track this poor would have presented a serious
safety hazard in the first place, and would not be representative. Most
small railroads currently exceed the revised standard. A more detailed
description of the impact is contained in the complete IRFA, found in
the docket for this proceeding.
Throughout the discussions of the Track Working Group, and in the
NPRM for this proceeding, FRA asked for additional information on
benefits and costs. On occasion, participants shared such data with
FRA. For example, the ASLRA which conducted a survey of its members to
analyze the potential impact of increasing the number of crossties
required in a 39-foot segment of track. At other times, data were not
shared with FRA, and the agency was unable to determine whether the
information was withheld for proprietary reasons or whether it simply
was not available. However, by voting in the Track Working Group and in
the RSAC to accept a provision in the proposed rule, often as part of a
compromise with other interested parties, the parties' acceptance of a
package of compromises revealed that they preferred the compromise
position to a position of no compromise (the existing rule with the
possibility of some other rulemaking activity). This implies that the
burdens which rail management representatives accepted likely were not
significant. Details of provisions that will have little or no impact
may be found in the complete IRFA, found in the docket for this
proceeding.

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 FRA has analyzed the existing burden, and the burden under the
final rule analyzed here. According to this analysis, the total annual
burden increases from about $42,000,000 to about $53,000,000. However,
the overwhelming majority of this apparent increase is due to a change
in FRA's assumption regarding wages. In an earlier analysis under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, the FRA had assumed a wage of $22 per hour for
recording track inspections, but in the analysis of this final rule,
the FRA used an assumed wage of $30 per hour. In addition, the number
of railroads calculated by FRA to be covered by the regulations
increased from 500 to 680. The sections that contain the new
information collection requirements and the estimated time to fulfill
each requirement are as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per response Total annual burden annual
hours burden cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213.4--Excepted Track:
--Designation of track as 160 railroads......... 32 designations......... 15 minutes........................ 8 hours.............. $240
excepted.
--Notification to FRA 160 railroads......... 40 notifications........ 10 minutes........................ 7 hours.............. 210
about removal of excepted
track.
213.5--Responsibility of track 620 railroads......... 16 notifications........ 8 hours........................... 120 hours............ 3,600
owners.
213.7--Designation of
qualified persons to
supervise certain renewals
and inspect track:

[[Page 34028]]

--Designations (fully 620 railroads......... 1,500 names............. 10 minutes........................ 250 hours............ 7,500
qualified).
--Designations (partially 31 railroads.......... 300 names............... 10 minutes........................ 50 hours............. 1,500
qualified).
--Notification and N/A................... N/A..................... Usual and customary procedure..... N/A.................. N/A
dispatched to location.
213.17--Waivers............... 620 railroads......... 4 petitions............. 24 hours.......................... 96 hours............. 2,880
213.57--Curves, elevation and
speed limitations:
--Request to FRA for 620 railroads......... 3 requests.............. 40 hours.......................... 120 hours............ 3,600
approval.
--Notification to FRA with 620 railroads......... 2 notifications......... 45 minutes........................ 1.5 hours............ 45
written consent of other
affected track owners.
--Test plan............... 1 railroad............ 6 plans................. 16 hours.......................... 96 hours............. 2,880
213.119--Continuous welded
rail (CWR), general:
--Written procedures...... 110 railroads......... 110 procedures.......... 40 hrs. Class I RRs............... 2,000 hours.......... 60,000
--Training program........ 110 railroads......... 110 programs............ 16 hrs. Class II RRs.............. 1,200 hours.......... 36,000
--Recordkeeping........... 110 railroads......... 4,500 records........... 40 hrs Class I RRs................ 750 hours............ 22,500
8 hrs Class II RRs................
10 minutes........................
213.122--Torch cut rail....... 20 railroads.......... 2,000 records........... 5 minutes......................... 167 hours............ 5,010
213.233--Track inspections.... 620 railroads......... 2,500 inspections....... 1 minute.......................... 41.5 hours........... 1,079
213.237--Inspection of rail... N/A................... N/A..................... Usual and customary procedure..... N/A.................. N/A
213.241--Inspection records... 620 railroads......... Varies.................. Varies............................ 1,763,991 hours...... 52,919,730
213.303--Responsibility for 2 railroads........... 1 petition.............. 8 hours........................... 8 hours.............. 240
Compliance.
213.305--Designation of
qualified individuals;
general qualifications:
--Designations (fully 2 railroads........... 150 qualifications...... 10 minutes........................ 25 hours............. 750
qualified).
--Designations (partially 2 railroads........... 15 qualifications....... 10 minutes........................ 2.5 hours............ 75
qualified).
213.317--Waivers.............. 2 railroads........... 1 petition.............. 24 hours.......................... 24 hours............. 720
213.329--Curves, elevation and
speed limitations:
--FRA approval of 2 railroads........... 1 notification.......... 40 hours.......................... 40 hours............. 1,200
qualified equipment and
higher curving speeds.
--Written notification to 2 railroads........... 1 notification.......... 45 minutes........................ 45 minutes........... 22.50
FRA with written consent
of other affected track
owners.
213.333--Automated Vehicle
Inspection System
--Track Geometry 3 railroads........... 18 reports.............. 20 hours.......................... 360 hours............ 9,360
Measurement System.
--Track/Vehicle ...................... ........................ .................................. ..................... ...........
Performance Measurement
System.
--Written procedures...... 1 railroad............ 1 program............... 8 hours........................... 8 hours.............. 240
--Copies of most recent 2 railroads........... 13 printouts............ 20 hours.......................... 260 hours............ 7,800
exception printouts.
213.339--Inspection of rail in N/A................... N/A..................... Usual and customary procedure..... N/A.................. N/A
service.
213.341--Initial inspection of
new rail and welds
--Mill inspection......... 2 railroads........... 1 report................ 8 hours........................... 8 hours.............. 240
--Welding plant inspection 2 railroads........... 2 reports............... 8 hours........................... 16 hours............. 480
--Inspection of field 2 railroads........... 200 records............. 20 minutes........................ 67 hours............. 2,010
welds.
--Marking of defective N/A................... N/A..................... Usual and customary procedure..... N/A.................. N/A
rail.
213.343--Continuous welded
rail (CWR):
--Written procedures...... 2 railroads........... 2 procedures............ 40 hours.......................... 80 hours............. 2,400
--Training program........ 2 railroads........... 2 programs.............. 40 hours.......................... 80 hours............. 2,400
--Recordkeeping........... 2 railroads........... 200 records............. 10 minutes........................ 33 hours............. 990
213.345--Vehicle qualification 1 railroad............ 1 report................ 16 hours.......................... 16 hours............. 480
testing.
213.347--Automotive or
railroad crossings at grade
--Protection plans........ 1 railroad............ 2 plans................. 8 hours........................... 16 hours............. 480
213.353--Turnouts and 1 railroad............ 1 guidebook............. 40 hours.......................... 40 hours............. 1,200
crossovers, generally.
213.361--Right of Way......... 1 railroad............ 1 plan.................. 40 hours.......................... 40 hours............. 1,200
213.369--Inspection records:
--Record of inspection.... 2 railroads........... 500 records............. 1 minute.......................... 8 hours.............. 208
--Designation of location 2 railroads........... 2 designations.......... 15 minutes........................ 30 minutes........... 15
where record should be
maintained.

[[Page 34029]]

--Internal defect 2 railroads........... 50 records.............. 5 minutes......................... 4 hours.............. 104
inspections 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. For information or a copy of the
paperwork package submitted to OMB contact Mark Weihofen at 202-632-
3303.
FRA cannot impose a penalty on persons for violating information
collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control
number, if required. The information collection requirements contained
in this rule have been approved under OMB control number 2130-0010.

Environmental Impact

FRA has evaluated these track safety regulations in accordance with
its procedures for ensuring full consideration of the potential
environmental impacts of FRA actions, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and related
directives. These regulations and this statement of policy meet the
criteria that establish this as a non-major action for environmental
purposes.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Final Rule

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA revises part 213, title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 213--TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS

Subpart A--General

Sec.
213.1 Scope of part.
213.2 Preemptive effect.
213.3 Application.
6213.4 Excepted track.
213.5 Responsibility for compliance.
213.7 Designation of qualified persons to supervise certain
renewals and inspect track.
213.9 Classes of track: operating speed limits.
213.11 Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions.
213.13 Measuring track not under load.
213.15 Penalties.
213.17 Waivers.
213.19 Information collection.

Subpart B--Roadbed

213.31 Scope.
213.33 Drainage.
213.37 Vegetation.

Subpart C--Track Geometry

213.51 Scope.
213.53 Gage.
213.55 Alinement.
213.57 Curves; elevation and speed limitations.
213.59 Elevation of curved track; runoff.
213.63 Track surface.

Subpart D--Track Structure

213.101 Scope.
213.103 Ballast; general.
213.109 Crossties.
213.113 Defective rails.
213.115 Rail end mismatch.
213.119 Continuous welded rail (CWR); general.
213.121 Rail joints.
213.122 Torch cut rail.
213.123 Tie plates.
213.127 Rail fastening systems.
213.133 Turnouts and track crossings generally.
213.135 Switches.
213.137 Frogs.
213.139 Spring rail frogs.
213.141 Self-guarded frogs.
213.143 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage.

Subpart E--Track Appliances and Track-Related Devices

213.201 Scope.
213.205 Derails

Subpart F--Inspection

213.231 Scope.
213.233 Track inspections.
213.235 Inspection of switches, track crossings, and lift rail
assemblies or other transition devices on moveable bridges.
213.237 Inspection of rail.
213.239 Special inspections.
213.241 Inspection records.

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

213.301 Scope of subpart.
213.303 Responsibility for compliance.
213.305 Designation of qualified individuals; general
qualifications.
213.307 Class of track; operating speed limits.
213.309 Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions.
213.311 Measuring track not under load.
213.317 Waivers.
213.319 Drainage.
213.321 Vegetation.
213.323 Track gage.
213.327 Alinement.
213.329 Curves, elevation and speed limitations.
213.331 Track surface.
213.333 Automated vehicle inspection systems.
213.334 Ballast; general.
213.335 Crossties.
213.337 Defective rails.
213.339 Inspection of rail in service.
213.341 Initial inspection of new rail and welds.
213.343 Continuous welded rail (CWR).
213.345 Vehicle qualification testing.
213.347 Automotive or railroad crossings at grade.
213.349 Rail end mismatch.
213.351 Rail joints.
213.352 Torch cut rail.
213.353 Turnouts, crossovers, and lift rail assemblies or other
transition devices on moveable bridges.
213.355 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage.
213.357 Derails.
213.359 Track stiffness.
213.361 Right of way.
213.365 Visual inspections.
213.367 Special inspections.
213.369 Inspection records.
Appendix A to Part 213--Maximum Allowable Curving Speeds
Appendix B to Part 213--Schedule of Civil Penalties

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461; and
49 CFR 1.49(m).

Subpart A--General

Sec. 213.1 Scope of part.

(a) This part prescribes minimum safety requirements for railroad
track that is part of the general railroad system of transportation.
The requirements prescribed in this part apply to specific track
conditions existing in isolation. Therefore, a combination of track
conditions, none of which individually amounts to a deviation from the
requirements in this part, may require remedial action to provide for
safe operations over that track. This part does not restrict a railroad
from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements
not inconsistent with this part.
(b) Subparts A through F apply to track Classes 1 through 5.
Subpart G and 213.2, 213.3, and 213.15 apply to track over which trains
are operated at speeds in excess of those permitted over Class 5 track.

Sec. 213.2 Preemptive effect.

Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of these regulations preempts any
State law, regulation, or order covering the

[[Page 34030]]

same subject matter, except an additional or more stringent law,
regulation, or order that is necessary to eliminate or reduce an
essentially local safety hazard; is not incompatible with a law,
regulation, or order of the United States Government; and that does not
impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Sec. 213.3 Application.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
applies to all standard gage track in the general railroad system of
transportation.
(b) This part does not apply to track--
(1) Located inside an installation which is not part of the general
railroad system of transportation; or
(2) Used exclusively for rapid transit operations in an urban area
that are not connected with the general railroad system of
transportation.

Sec. 213.4 Excepted track.

A track owner may designate a segment of track as excepted track
provided that--
(a) The segment is identified in the timetable, special
instructions, general order, or other appropriate records which are
available for inspection during regular business hours;
(b) The identified segment is not located within 30 feet of an
adjacent track which can be subjected to simultaneous use at speeds in
excess of 10 miles per hour;
(c) The identified segment is inspected in accordance with
213.233(c) and 213.235 at the frequency specified for Class 1 track;
(d) The identified segment of track is not located on a bridge
including the track approaching the bridge for 100 feet on either side,
or located on a public street or highway, if railroad cars containing
commodities required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (49 CFR part 172), are moved over the track; and
(e) The railroad conducts operations on the identified segment
under the following conditions:
(1) No train shall be operated at speeds in excess of 10 miles per
hour;
(2) No occupied passenger train shall be operated;
(3) No freight train shall be operated that contains more than five
cars required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(49 CFR part 172); and
(4) The gage on excepted track shall not be more than 4 feet 10\1/
4\ inches. This paragraph (e)(4) is applicable September 21, 1999.
(f) A track owner shall advise the appropriate FRA Regional Office
at least 10 days prior to removal of a segment of track from excepted
status.

Sec. 213.5 Responsibility for compliance.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any owner
of track to which this part applies who knows or has notice that the
track does not comply with the requirements of this part, shall--
(1) Bring the track into compliance;
(2) Halt operations over that track; or
(3) Operate under authority of a person designated under
Sec. 213.7(a), who has at least one year of supervisory experience in
railroad track maintenance, subject to conditions set forth in this
part.
(b) If an owner of track to which this part applies designates a
segment of track as ``excepted track'' under the provisions of
Sec. 213.4, operations may continue over that track without complying
with the provisions of subparts B, C, D, and E of this part, unless
otherwise expressly stated.
(c) If an owner of track to which this part applies assigns
responsibility for the track to another person (by lease or otherwise),
written notification of the assignment shall be provided to the
appropriate FRA Regional Office at least 30 days in advance of the
assignment. The notification may be made by any party to that
assignment, but shall be in writing and include the following--
(1) The name and address of the track owner;
(2) The name and address of the person to whom responsibility is
assigned (assignee);
(3) A statement of the exact relationship between the track owner
and the assignee;
(4) A precise identification of the track;
(5) A statement as to the competence and ability of the assignee to
carry out the duties of the track owner under this part; and
(6) A statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the assignment
to him of responsibility for purposes of compliance with this part.
(d) The Administrator may hold the track owner or the assignee or
both responsible for compliance with this part and subject to penalties
under Sec. 213.15.
(e) A common carrier by railroad which is directed by the Surface
Transportation Board to provide service over the track of another
railroad under 49 U.S.C. 11123 is considered the owner of that track
for the purposes of the application of this part during the period the
directed service order remains in effect.
(f) When any person, including a contractor for a railroad or track
owner, performs any function required by this part, that person is
required to perform that function in accordance with this part.

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

(a) Each track owner to which this part applies shall designate
qualified persons to supervise restorations and renewals of track under
traffic conditions. Each person designated shall have--
(1) At least--
(i) 1 year of supervisory experience in railroad track maintenance;
or
(ii) A combination of supervisory experience in track maintenance
and training from a course in track maintenance or from a college level
educational program related to track maintenance;
(2) Demonstrated to the owner that he or she--
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of this part;
(ii) Can detect deviations from those requirements; and
(iii) Can prescribe appropriate remedial action to correct or
safely compensate for those deviations; and
(3) Written authorization from the track owner to prescribe
remedial actions to correct or safely compensate for deviations from
the requirements in this part.
(b) Each track owner to which this part applies shall designate
qualified persons to inspect track for defects. Each person designated
shall have--
(1) At least--
(i) 1 year of experience in railroad track inspection; or
(ii) A combination of experience in track inspection and training
from a course in track inspection or from a college level educational
program related to track inspection;
(2) Demonstrated to the owner that he or she--
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of this part;
(ii) Can detect deviations from those requirements; and
(iii) Can prescribe appropriate remedial action to correct or
safely compensate for those deviations; and
(3) Written authorization from the track owner to prescribe
remedial actions to correct or safely compensate for deviations from
the requirements of this part, pending review by a qualified person
designated under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Persons not fully qualified to supervise certain renewals and
inspect track as outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
but with at least one

[[Page 34031]]

year of maintenance-of-way or signal experience, may pass trains over
broken rails and pull aparts provided that--
(1) The track owner determines the person to be qualified and, as
part of doing so, trains, examines, and re-examines the person
periodically within two years after each prior examination on the
following topics as they relate to the safe passage of trains over
broken rails or pull aparts: rail defect identification, crosstie
condition, track surface and alinement, gage restraint, rail end
mismatch, joint bars, and maximum distance between rail ends over which
trains may be allowed to pass. The sole purpose of the examination is
to ascertain the person's ability to effectively apply these
requirements and the examination may not be used to disqualify the
person from other duties. A minimum of four hours training is adequate
for initial training;
(2) The person deems it safe and train speeds are limited to a
maximum of 10 m.p.h. over the broken rail or pull apart;
(3) The person shall watch all movements over the broken rail or
pull apart and be prepared to stop the train if necessary; and
(4) Person(s) fully qualified under Sec. 213.7 of this part are
notified and dispatched to the location promptly for the purpose of
authorizing movements and effecting temporary or permanent repairs.
(d) With respect to designations under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this section, each track owner shall maintain written records of--
(1) Each designation in effect;
(2) The basis for each designation; and
(3) Track inspections made by each designated qualified person as
required by Sec. 213.241. These records shall be kept available for
inspection or copying by the Federal Railroad Administration during
regular business hours.

Sec. 213.9 Classes of track: operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and
Secs. 213.57(b), 213.59(a), 213.113(a), and 213.137(b) and (c), the
following maximum allowable operating speeds apply--

[In miles per hour]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum The maximum
Over track that meets all of the allowable allowable
requirements prescribed in this operating speed operating speed
part for-- for freight for passenger
trains is-- trains is--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excepted track.................... 10 N/A
Class 1 track..................... 10 15
Class 2 track..................... 25 30
Class 3 track..................... 40 60
Class 4 track..................... 60 80
Class 5 track..................... 80 90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) If a segment of track does not meet all of the requirements for
its intended class, it is reclassified to the next lowest class of
track for which it does meet all of the requirements of this part.
However, if the segment of track does not at least meet the
requirements for Class 1 track, operations may continue at Class 1
speeds for a period of not more than 30 days without bringing the track
into compliance, under the authority of a person designated under
Sec. 213.7(a), who has at least one year of supervisory experience in
railroad track maintenance, after that person determines that
operations may safely continue and subject to any limiting conditions
specified by such person.

Sec. 213.11 Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions.

If during a period of restoration or renewal, track is under
traffic conditions and does not meet all of the requirements prescribed
in this part, the work on the track shall be under the continuous
supervision of a person designated under Sec. 213.7(a) who has at least
one year of supervisory experience in railroad track maintenance, and
subject to any limiting conditions specified by such person. The term
``continuous supervision'' as used in this section means the physical
presence of that person at a job site. However, since the work may be
performed over a large area, it is not necessary that each phase of the
work be done under the visual supervision of that person.

Sec. 213.13 Measuring track not under load.

When unloaded track is measured to determine compliance with
requirements of this part, the amount of rail movement, if any, that
occurs while the track is loaded must be added to the measurements of
the unloaded track.

Sec. 213.15 Penalties.

(a) Any person who violates any requirement of this part or causes
the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of
at least $500 and not more than $11,000 per violation, except that:
Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful
violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of
repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury
to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed
$22,000 per violation may be assessed. ``Person'' means an entity of
any type covered under 1 U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the
following: a railroad; a manager, supervisor, official, or other
employee or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or
lessee of railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any independent
contractor providing goods or services to a railroad; any employee of
such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor;
and anyone held by the Federal Railroad Administrator to be responsible
under Sec. 213.5(d) or Sec. 213.303(c). Each day a violation continues
shall constitute a separate offense. See appendix B to this part for a
statement of agency civil penalty policy.
(b) Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or
report required by this part may be subject to criminal penalties under
49 U.S.C. 21311.

Sec. 213.17 Waivers.

(a) Any owner of track to which this part applies, or other person
subject to this part, may petition the Federal Railroad Administrator
for a waiver from any or all requirements prescribed in this part. The
filing of such a petition does not affect that person's responsibility
for compliance with that requirement while the petition is being
considered.
(b) Each petition for a waiver under this section shall be filed in
the manner and contain the information required by part 211 of this
chapter.

[[Page 34032]]

(c) If the Administrator finds that a waiver is in the public
interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the Administrator may
grant the exemption subject to any conditions the Administrator deems
necessary. Where a waiver is granted, the Administrator publishes a
notice containing the reasons for granting the waiver.

213.19 Information collection.

(a) The information collection requirements of this part were
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and are
assigned OMB control number 2130-0010.
(b) The information collection requirements are found in the
following sections: Secs. 213.4, 213.5, 213.7, 213.17, 213.57, 213.119,
213.122, 213.233, 213.237, 213.241, 213.303, 213.305, 213.317, 213.329,
213.333, 213.339, 213.341, 213.343, 213.345, 213.353, 213.361, 213.369.

Subpart B--Roadbed

Sec. 213.31 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for roadbed and areas
immediately adjacent to roadbed.

Sec. 213.33 Drainage.

Each drainage or other water carrying facility under or immediately
adjacent to the roadbed shall be maintained and kept free of
obstruction, to accommodate expected water flow for the area concerned.

Sec. 213.37 Vegetation.

Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent
to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not--
(a) Become a fire hazard to track-carrying structures;
(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals:
(1) Along the right-of-way, and
(2) At highway-rail crossings; (This paragraph (b)(2) is applicable
September 21, 1999.)
(c) Interfere with railroad employees performing normal trackside
duties;
(d) Prevent proper functioning of signal and communication lines;
or
(e) Prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting moving
equipment from their normal duty stations.

Subpart C--Track Geometry

Sec. 213.51 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for the gage, alinement, and
surface of track, and the elevation of outer rails and speed
limitations for curved track.

Sec. 213.53 Gage.

(a) Gage is measured between the heads of the rails at right-angles
to the rails in a plane five-eighths of an inch below the top of the
rail head.
(b) Gage shall be within the limits prescribed in the following
table--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track The gage must be at least-- But not more than--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excepted track.......................... N/A............................ 4'10\1/4\''.
Class 1 track........................... 4'8''.......................... 4'10''.
Class 2 and 3 track..................... 4'8''.......................... 4'9\3/4\''.
Class 4 and 5 track..................... 4'8''.......................... 4'9\1/2\''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 213.55 Alinement.

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 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.

Sec. 213.57 Curves; elevation and speed limitations.

(a) The maximum crosslevel on the outside rail of a curve may not
be more than 8 inches on track Classes 1 and 2 and 7 inches on Classes
3 through 5. Except as provided in Sec. 213.63, the outside rail of a
curve may not be lower than the inside rail. (The first sentence of
paragraph (a) is applicable September 21, 1999.)
(b)(1) The maximum allowable operating speed for each curve is
determined by the following formula--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.001

Where--

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating speed (miles per hour).
Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail (inches).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Actual elevation for each 155 foot track segment in the body
of the curve is determined by averaging the elevation for 10 points
through the segment at 15.5 foot spacing. If the curve length is
less than 155 feet, average the points through the full length of
the body of the curve .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D = Degree of curvature (degrees).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Degree of curvature is determined by averaging the degree of
curvature over the same track segment as the elevation.

(2) Table 1 of Appendix A is a table of maximum allowable operating
speed computed in accordance with this formula for various elevations
and degrees of curvature.
(c)(1) For rolling stock meeting the requirements specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, the maximum operating speed for each
curve may be determined by the following formula--

[[Page 34033]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.002

Where--

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating speed (miles per hour).
Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail (inches).\1\
D = Degree of curvature (degrees).\2\

(2) Table 2 of Appendix A is a table of maximum allowable operating
speed computed in accordance with this formula for various elevations
and degrees of curvature.
(d) Qualified equipment may be operated at curving speeds
determined by the formula in paragraph (c) of this section, provided
each specific class of equipment is approved for operation by the
Federal Railroad Administration and the railroad demonstrates that:
(1) When positioned on a track with a uniform 4-inch
superelevation, the roll angle between the floor of the equipment and
the horizontal does not exceed 5.7 degrees; and
(2) When positioned on a track with a uniform 6 inch
superelevation, no wheel of the equipment unloads to a value of 60
percent of its static value on perfectly level track, and the roll
angle between the floor of the equipment and the horizontal does not
exceed 8.6 degrees.
(3) The track owner shall notify the Federal Railroad Administrator
no less than 30 calendar days prior to the proposed implementation of
the higher curving speeds allowed under the formula in paragraph (c) of
this section. The notification shall be in writing and shall contain,
at a minimum, the following information--
(i) A complete description of the class of equipment involved,
including schematic diagrams of the suspension systems and the location
of the center of gravity above top of rail;
(ii) A complete description of the test procedure \3\ and
instrumentation used to qualify the equipment and the maximum values
for wheel unloading and roll angles which were observed during testing;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The test procedure may be conducted in a test facility
whereby all the wheels on one side (right or left) of the equipment
are alternately raised and lowered by 4 and 6 inches and the
vertical wheel loads under each wheel are measured and a level is
used to record the angle through which the floor of the equipment
has been rotated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Procedures or standards in effect which relate to the
maintenance of the suspension system for the particular class of
equipment; and
(iv) Identification of line segment on which the higher curving
speeds are proposed to be implemented.
(e) A track owner, or an operator of a passenger or commuter
service, who provides passenger or commuter service over trackage of
more than one track owner with the same class of equipment may provide
written notification to the Federal Railroad Administrator with the
written consent of the other affected track owners.
(f) Equipment presently operating at curving speeds allowed under
the formula in paragraph (c) of this section, by reason of conditional
waivers granted by the Federal Railroad Administration, shall be
considered to have successfully complied with the requirements of
paragraph (d) of this section.
(g) A track owner or a railroad operating above Class 5 speeds, may
request approval from the Federal Railroad Administrator to operate
specified equipment at a level of cant deficiency greater than four
inches in accordance with Sec. 213.329(c) and (d) on curves in Class 1
through 5 track which are contiguous to the high speed track provided
that--
(1) The track owner or railroad submits a test plan to the Federal
Railroad Administrator for approval no less than thirty calendar days
prior to any proposed implementation of the higher curving speeds. The
test plan shall include an analysis and determination of carbody
acceleration safety limits for each vehicle type which indicate wheel
unloading of 60 percent in a steady state condition and 80 percent in a
transient (point by point) condition. Accelerometers shall be
laterally-oriented and floor-mounted near the end of a representative
vehicle of each type;
(2) Upon FRA approval of a test plan, the track owner or railroad
conducts incrementally increasing train speed test runs over the curves
in the identified track segment(s) to demonstrate that wheel unloading
is within the limits prescribed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section;
(3) Upon FRA approval of a cant deficiency level, the track owner
or railroad inspects the curves in the identified track segment with a
Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) qualified in accordance with
Sec. 213.333 (b) through (g) at an inspection frequency of at least
twice annually with not less than 120 days interval between
inspections; and
(4) The track owner or railroad operates an instrumented car having
dynamic response characteristics that are representative of other
equipment assigned to service or a portable device that monitors on-
board instrumentation on trains over the curves in the identified track
segment at the revenue speed profile at a frequency of at least once
every 90 days with not less than 30 days interval between inspections.
The instrumented car or the portable device shall monitor a laterally-
oriented accelerometer placed near the end of the vehicle at the floor
level. If the carbody lateral acceleration measurement exceeds the
safety limits prescribed in paragraph (g)(1), the railroad shall
operate trains at curving speeds in accordance with paragraph (b) or
(c) of this section; and
(5) The track owner or railroad shall maintain a copy of the most
recent exception printouts for the inspections required under
paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) of this section.

Sec. 213.59 Elevation of curved track; runoff.

(a) If a curve is elevated, the full elevation shall be provided
throughout the curve, unless physical conditions do not permit. If
elevation runoff occurs in a curve, the actual minimum elevation shall
be used in computing the maximum allowable operating speed for that
curve under Sec. 213.57(b).
(b) Elevation runoff shall be at a uniform rate, within the limits
of track surface deviation prescribed in Sec. 213.63, and it shall
extend at least the full length of the spirals. If physical conditions
do not permit a spiral long enough to accommodate the minimum length of
runoff, part of the runoff may be on tangent track.

Sec. 213.63 Track surface.

Each owner of the track to which this part applies shall maintain
the surface of its track within the limits prescribed in the following
table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track
------------------------------------------------------
Track surface 1 2 3 4 5
(inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The runoff in any 31 feet of rail at the end of a raise
may not be more than.................................... 3\1/2\ 3 2 1\1/2\ 1
The deviation from uniform profile on either rail at the
mid-ordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be more than.... 3 2\3/4\ 2\1/4\ 2 1\1/4\

[[Page 34034]]

The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point on
tangent or reverse crosslevel elevation on curves may
not be more than........................................ 3 2 1\3/4\ 1\1/4\ 1
The difference in crosslevel between any two points less
than 62 feet apart may not be more than* ^{1, ^{2.......... 3 2\1/4\ 2 1\3/4\ 1\1/2\
* Where determined by engineering decision prior to the
promulgation of this rule, due to physical restrictions
on spiral length and operating practices and experience,
the variation in crosslevel on spirals per 31 feet may
not be more than........................................ 2 1\3/4\ 1\1/4\ 1 \3/4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. (Footnote 1 is applicable December 21, 1999.)
\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 7 low
joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet shall not be considered as having staggered joints.
Joints within the 7 low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be considered as joints for
purposes of this footnote. (Footnote 2 is applicable September 21, 1999.)

Subpart D--Track Structure

Sec. 213.101 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for ballast,
crossties, track assembly fittings, and the physical conditions of
rails.

Sec. 213.103 Ballast; general.

Unless it is otherwise structurally supported, all track shall be
supported by material which will --
(a) Transmit and distribute the load of the track and railroad
rolling equipment to the subgrade;
(b) Restrain the track laterally, longitudinally, and vertically
under dynamic loads imposed by railroad rolling equipment and thermal
stress exerted by the rails;
(c) Provide adequate drainage for the track; and
(d) Maintain proper track crosslevel, surface, and alinement.

Sec. 213.109 Crossties.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnouts
Tangent and
track and curved
Class of track curves 2 over 2
degrees degrees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 track.................................. 5 6
Class 2 track.................................. 8 9
Class 3 track.................................. 8 10
Class 4 and 5 track............................ 12 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) Crossties counted to satisfy the requirements set forth in the
table in paragraph (d) of this section shall not be--
(1) Broken through;
(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the extent the crossties will
allow the ballast to work through, or will not hold spikes or rail
fasteners;
(3) So deteriorated that the tie plate or base of rail can move
laterally \1/2\ inch relative to the crossties; or
(4) Cut by the tie plate through more than 40 percent of a
crosstie's thickness this paragraph (e) is applicable September 21,
2000.
(f) Class 1 and Class 2 track shall have one crosstie whose
centerline is within 24 inches of each rail joint location, and Classes
3 through 5 track shall have one crosstie whose centerline is within 18
inches of each rail joint location or, two crossties whose centerlines
are within 24 inches either side of each rail joint location. The
relative position of these ties is described in the following diagrams:

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

[[Page 34035]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.003

Each rail joins in Classes 1 and 2 track shall be supported by at least
one crosstie specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section whose
centerline is within 48'' shown above.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.004

Each rail joins in Classes 3 through 5 track shall be supported by
either at least one crosstie specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section whose centerline is within 36'' shown above, or:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.005

Two crossties, one on each side of the rail joint, whose centerlines
are within 24'' of the rail joint location shown above.

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C
(g) For track constructed without crossties, such as slab track,
track connected directly to bridge structural components and track over
servicing pits, the track structure shall meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section.

Sec. 213.113 Defective rails.

(a) When an owner of track to which this part applies learns,
through inspection or otherwise, that a rail in that track contains any
of the defects listed in the following table, a person designated under
Sec. 213.7 shall determine whether or not the track may continue in
use. If he determines that the track may continue in use, operation
over the defective rail is not permitted until--
(1) The rail is replaced; or
(2) The remedial action prescribed in the table is initiated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length of defect (inch) Percent of rail head cross-
----------------------------------------------------------- sectional area weakened by
defect If defective rail is not
Defect ---------------------------- replaced, take the remedial
More than But not more than But not less action prescribed in note
Less than than
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transverse fissure............... ............................ ........................... 70 5 B.
100 70 A2.
100 A.
Compound fissure................. ............................ ........................... 70 5 B.
100 70 A2.
100 A.
Detail fracture.................. ............................ ........................... 25 5 C.
Engine burn fracture............. ............................ ........................... 80 25 D.

[[Page 34036]]

Defective weld................... ............................ ........................... 100 80 [A2] or [ E and H].
100 [A] or [E and H].
Horizontal split head............ 1........................... 2.......................... ............ ............ H and F.
Vertical split head.............. 2........................... 4.......................... ............ ............ I and G.
Split web........................ 4........................... ........................... ............ ............ B.
Piped rail....................... ^{(1)......................... ^{(1)........................ ^{(1) ^{............ A.
Head web separation ............................ ........................... ............ ............ ..............................
\1/2\...................... 1.......................... ............ ............ H and F.
Bolt hole crack.................. 1........................... 1\1/2\..................... ............ ............ H and G.
1\1/2\...................... ........................... ............ ............ B.
^{(1)......................... ^{(1)........................ ^{(1) ^{............ A.
Broken base...................... 1........................... 6.......................... ............ ............ D.
6........................... ........................... ............ ............ [A] or [E and I].
Ordinary break................... ............................ ........................... ............ ............ A or E.
Damaged rail..................... ............................ ........................... ............ ............ D.
Flattened rail................... Depth \3/8\ and ........................... ............ ............ H.
Length 8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Break out in rail head.

Notes

A. Assign person designated under Sec. 213.7 to visually
supervise each operation over defective rail.
A2. Assign person designated under Sec. 213.7 to make visual
inspection. After a visual inspection, that person may authorize
operation to continue without continuous visual supervision at a
maximum of 10 m.p.h. for up to 24 hours prior to another such visual
inspection or replacement or repair of the rail.
B. Limit operating speed over defective rail to that as
authorized by a person designated under Sec. 213.7(a), who has at
least one year of supervisory experience in railroad track
maintenance. The operating speed cannot be over 30 m.p.h. or the
maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class of track
concerned, whichever is lower.
C. Apply joint bars bolted only through the outermost holes to
defect within 20 days after it is determined to continue the track
in use. In the case of Classes 3 through 5 track, limit operating
speed over defective rail to 30 m.p.h. until joint bars are applied;
thereafter, limit speed to 50 m.p.h. or the maximum allowable speed
under Sec. 213.9 for the class of track concerned, whichever is
lower. When a search for internal rail defects is conducted under
Sec. 213.237, and defects are discovered in Classes 3 through 5
which require remedial action C, the operating speed shall be
limited to 50 m.p.h., or the maximum allowable speed under
Sec. 213.9 for the class of track concerned, whichever is lower, for
a period not to exceed 4 days. If the defective rail has not been
removed from the track or a permanent repair made within 4 days of
the discovery, limit operating speed over the defective rail to 30
m.p.h. until joint bars are applied; thereafter, limit speed to 50
m.p.h. or the maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class
of track concerned, whichever is lower.
D. Apply joint bars bolted only through the outermost holes to
defect within 10 days after it is determined to continue the track
in use. In the case of Classes 3 through 5 track, limit operating
speed over the defective rail to 30 m.p.h. or less as authorized by
a person designated under Sec. 213.7(a), who has at least one year
of supervisory experience in railroad track maintenance, until joint
bars are applied; thereafter, limit speed to 50 m.p.h. or the
maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class of track
concerned, whichever is lower.
E. Apply joint bars to defect and bolt in accordance with
Sec. 213.121(d) and (e).
F. Inspect rail 90 days after it is determined to continue the
track in use.
G. Inspect rail 30 days after it is determined to continue the
track in use.
H. Limit operating speed over defective rail to 50 m.p.h. or the
maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class of track
concerned, whichever is lower.
I. Limit operating speed over defective rail to 30 m.p.h. or the
maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class of track
concerned, whichever is lower.

(b) As used in this section--
(1) Transverse fissure means a progressive crosswise fracture
starting from a crystalline center or nucleus inside the head from
which it spreads outward as a smooth, bright, or dark, round or oval
surface substantially at a right angle to the length of the rail. The
distinguishing features of a transverse fissure from other types of
fractures or defects are the crystalline center or nucleus and the
nearly smooth surface of the development which surrounds it.
(2) Compound fissure means a progressive fracture originating in a
horizontal split head which turns up or down in the head of the rail as
a smooth, bright, or dark surface progressing until substantially at a
right angle to the length of the rail. Compound fissures require
examination of both faces of the fracture to locate the horizontal
split head from which they originate.
(3) Horizontal split head means a horizontal progressive defect
originating inside of the rail head, usually one-quarter inch or more
below the running surface and progressing horizontally in all
directions, and generally accompanied by a flat spot on the running
surface. The defect appears as a crack lengthwise of the rail when it
reaches the side of the rail head.
(4) Vertical split head means a vertical split through or near the
middle of the head, and extending into or through it. A crack or rust
streak may show under the head close to the web or pieces may be split
off the side of the head.
(5) Split web means a lengthwise crack along the side of the web
and extending into or through it.
(6) Piped rail means a vertical split in a rail, usually in the
web, due to failure of the shrinkage cavity in the ingot to unite in
rolling.
(7) Broken base means any break in the base of the rail.
(8) Detail fracture means a progressive fracture originating at or
near the surface of the rail head. These fractures should not be
confused with transverse fissures, compound fissures, or other defects
which have internal origins. Detail fractures may arise from shelly
spots, head checks, or flaking.
(9) Engine burn fracture means a progressive fracture originating
in spots where driving wheels have slipped on top of the rail head. In
developing downward they frequently resemble the compound or even
transverse fissures with which they should not be confused or
classified.
(10) Ordinary break means a partial or complete break in which
there is no sign

[[Page 34037]]

of a fissure, and in which none of the other defects described in this
paragraph (b) are found.
(11) Damaged rail means any rail broken or injured by wrecks,
broken, flat, or unbalanced wheels, slipping, or similar causes.
(12) Flattened rail means a short length of rail, not at a joint,
which has flattened out across the width of the rail head to a depth of
\3/8\ inch or more below the rest of the rail. Flattened rail
occurrences have no repetitive regularity and thus do not include
corrugations, and have no apparent localized cause such as a weld or
engine burn. Their individual length is relatively short, as compared
to a condition such as head flow on the low rail of curves.
(13) Bolt hole crack means a crack across the web, originating from
a bolt hole, and progressing on a path either inclined upward toward
the rail head or inclined downward toward the base. Fully developed
bolt hole cracks may continue horizontally along the head/web or base/
web fillet, or they may progress into and through the head or base to
separate a piece of the rail end from the rail. Multiple cracks
occurring in one rail end are considered to be a single defect.
However, bolt hole cracks occurring in adjacent rail ends within the
same joint must be reported as separate defects.
(14) Defective weld means a field or plant weld containing any
discontinuities or pockets, exceeding 5 percent of the rail head area
individually or 10 percent in the aggregate, oriented in or near the
transverse plane, due to incomplete penetration of the weld metal
between the rail ends, lack of fusion between weld and rail end metal,
entrainment of slag or sand, under-bead or other shrinkage cracking, or
fatigue cracking. Weld defects may originate in the rail head, web, or
base, and in some cases, cracks may progress from the defect into
either or both adjoining rail ends.
(15) Head and web separation means a progressive fracture,
longitudinally separating the head from the web of the rail at the head
fillet area.

Sec. 213.115 Rail end mismatch.

Any mismatch of rails at joints may not be more than that
prescribed by the following table--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any mismatch of rails at joints may
not be more than the following--
-------------------------------------
Class of track On the tread of On the gage side
the rail ends of the rail ends
(inch) (inch)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 track..................... \1/4\ \1/4\
Class 2 track..................... \1/4\ \3/16\
Class 3 track..................... \3/16\ \3/16\
Class 4 and 5 track............... \1/8\ \1/8\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 213.119 Continuous welded rail (CWR); general.

Each track owner with track constructed of CWR shall have in effect
and comply with written procedures which address the installation,
adjustment, maintenance and inspection of CWR, and a training program
for the application of those procedures, which shall be submitted to
the Federal Railroad Administration by December 21, 1998. FRA reviews
each plan for compliance with the following--
(a) Procedures for the installation and adjustment of CWR which
include--
(1) Designation of a desired rail installation temperature range
for the geographic area in which the CWR is located; and
(2) De-stressing procedures/methods which address proper attainment
of the desired rail installation temperature range when adjusting CWR.
(b) Rail anchoring or fastening requirements that will provide
sufficient restraint to limit longitudinal rail and crosstie movement
to the extent practical, and specifically addressing CWR rail anchoring
or fastening patterns on bridges, bridge approaches, and at other
locations where possible longitudinal rail and crosstie movement
associated with normally expected train-induced forces, is restricted.
(c) Procedures which specifically address maintaining a desired
rail installation temperature range when cutting CWR including rail
repairs, in-track welding, and in conjunction with adjustments made in
the area of tight track, a track buckle, or a pull-apart. Rail repair
practices shall take into consideration existing rail temperature so
that--
(1) When rail is removed, the length installed shall be determined
by taking into consideration the existing rail temperature and the
desired rail installation temperature range; and
(2) Under no circumstances should rail be added when the rail
temperature is below that designated by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, without provisions for later adjustment.
(d) Procedures which address the monitoring of CWR in curved track
for inward shifts of alinement toward the center of the curve as a
result of disturbed track.
(e) Procedures which control train speed on CWR track when--
(1) Maintenance work, track rehabilitation, track construction, or
any other event occurs which disturbs the roadbed or ballast section
and reduces the lateral or longitudinal resistance of the track; and
(2) In formulating the procedures under this paragraph (e), the
track owner shall--
(i) Determine the speed required, and the duration and subsequent
removal of any speed restriction based on the restoration of the
ballast, along with sufficient ballast re-consolidation to stabilize
the track to a level that can accommodate expected train-induced
forces. Ballast re-consolidation can be achieved through either the
passage of train tonnage or mechanical stabilization procedures, or
both; and
(ii) Take into consideration the type of crossties used.
(f) Procedures which prescribe when physical track inspections are
to be performed to detect buckling prone conditions in CWR track. At a
minimum, these procedures shall address inspecting track to identify--
(1) Locations where tight or kinky rail conditions are likely to
occur;
(2) Locations where track work of the nature described in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section have recently been performed; and
(3) In formulating the procedures under this paragraph (f), the
track owner shall--
(i) Specify the timing of the inspection; and

[[Page 34038]]

(ii) Specify the appropriate remedial actions to be taken when
buckling prone conditions are found.
(g) The track owner shall have in effect a comprehensive training
program for the application of these written CWR procedures, with
provisions for periodic re-training, for those individuals designated
under Sec. 213.7 of this part as qualified to supervise the
installation, adjustment, and maintenance of CWR track and to perform
inspections of CWR track.
(h) The track owner shall prescribe recordkeeping requirements
necessary to provide an adequate history of track constructed with CWR.
At a minimum, these records must include:
(1) Rail temperature, location and date of CWR installations. This
record shall be retained for at least one year; and
(2) A record of any CWR installation or maintenance work that does
not conform with the written procedures. Such record shall include the
location of the rail and be maintained until the CWR is brought into
conformance with such procedures.
(i) As used in this section--
(1) Adjusting/de-stressing means the procedure by which a rail's
temperature is re-adjusted to the desired value. It typically consists
of cutting the rail and removing rail anchoring devices, which provides
for the necessary expansion and contraction, and then re-assembling the
track.
(2) Buckling incident means the formation of a lateral mis-
alinement sufficient in magnitude to constitute a deviation from the
Class 1 requirements specified in Sec. 213.55 of this part. These
normally occur when rail temperatures are relatively high and are
caused by high longitudinal compressive forces.
(3) Continuous welded rail (CWR) means rail that has been welded
together into lengths exceeding 400 feet.
(4) Desired rail installation temperature range means the rail
temperature range, within a specific geographical area, at which forces
in CWR should not cause a buckling incident in extreme heat, or a pull-
apart during extreme cold weather.
(5) Disturbed track means the disturbance of the roadbed or ballast
section, as a result of track maintenance or any other event, which
reduces the lateral or longitudinal resistance of the track, or both.
(6) Mechanical stabilization means a type of procedure used to
restore track resistance to disturbed track following certain
maintenance operations. This procedure may incorporate dynamic track
stabilizers or ballast consolidators, which are units of work equipment
that are used as a substitute for the stabilization action provided by
the passage of tonnage trains.
(7) Rail anchors means those devices which are attached to the rail
and bear against the side of the crosstie to control longitudinal rail
movement. Certain types of rail fasteners also act as rail anchors and
control longitudinal rail movement by exerting a downward clamping
force on the upper surface of the rail base.
(8) Rail temperature means the temperature of the rail, measured
with a rail thermometer.
(9) Tight/kinky rail means CWR which exhibits minute alinement
irregularities which indicate that the rail is in a considerable amount
of compression.
(10) Train-induced forces means the vertical, longitudinal, and
lateral dynamic forces which are generated during train movement and
which can contribute to the buckling potential.
(11) Track lateral resistance means the resistance provided to the
rail/crosstie structure against lateral displacement.
(12) Track longitudinal resistance means the resistance provided by
the rail anchors/rail fasteners and the ballast section to the rail/
crosstie structure against longitudinal displacement.

Sec. 213.121 Rail joints.

(a) Each rail joint, insulated joint, and compromise joint shall be
of a structurally sound design and dimensions for the rail on which it
is applied.
(b) If a joint bar on Classes 3 through 5 track is cracked, broken,
or because of wear allows excessive vertical movement of either rail
when all bolts are tight, it shall be replaced.
(c) If a joint bar is cracked or broken between the middle two bolt
holes it shall be replaced.
(d) In the case of conventional jointed track, each rail shall be
bolted with at least two bolts at each joint in Classes 2 through 5
track, and with at least one bolt in Class 1 track.
(e) In the case of continuous welded rail track, each rail shall be
bolted with at least two bolts at each joint.
(f) Each joint bar shall be held in position by track bolts
tightened to allow the joint bar to firmly support the abutting rail
ends and to allow longitudinal movement of the rail in the joint to
accommodate expansion and contraction due to temperature variations.
When no-slip, joint-to-rail contact exists by design, the requirements
of this paragraph do not apply. Those locations when over 400 feet in
length, are considered to be continuous welded rail track and shall
meet all the requirements for continuous welded rail track prescribed
in this part.
(g) No rail shall have a bolt hole which is torch cut or burned in
Classes 2 through 5 track. For Class 2 track, this paragraph (g) is
applicable September 21, 1999.
(h) No joint bar shall be reconfigured by torch cutting in Classes
3 through 5 track.

Sec. 213.122 Torch cut rail.

(a) Except as a temporary repair in emergency situations no rail
having a torch cut end shall be used in Classes 3 through 5 track. When
a rail end is torch cut in emergency situations, train speed over that
rail end shall not exceed the maximum allowable for Class 2 track. For
existing torch cut rail ends in Classes 3 through 5 track the following
shall apply--
(1) Within one year of September 21, 1998, all torch cut rail ends
in Class 5 track shall be removed;
(2) Within two years of September 21, 1998, all torch cut rail ends
in Class 4 track shall be removed; and
(3) Within one year of September 21, 1998, all torch cut rail ends
in Class 3 track over which regularly scheduled passenger trains
operate, shall be inventoried by the track owner.
(b) Following the expiration of the time limits specified in
paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, any torch cut rail end
not removed from Classes 4 and 5 track, or any torch cut rail end not
inventoried in Class 3 track over which regularly scheduled passenger
trains operate, shall be removed within 30 days of discovery. Train
speed over that rail end shall not exceed the maximum allowable for
Class 2 track until removed.

Sec. 213.123 Tie plates.

(a) In Classes 3 through 5 track where timber crossties are in use
there shall be tie plates under the running rails on at least eight of
any 10 consecutive ties.
(b) In Classes 3 through 5 track no metal object which causes a
concentrated load by solely supporting a rail shall be allowed between
the base of the rail and the bearing surface of the tie plate. This
paragraph (b) is applicable September 21, 1999.)

Sec. 213.127 Rail fastening systems.

Track shall be fastened by a system of components which effectively
maintains gage within the limits prescribed in Sec. 213.53(b). Each
component of each such system shall be evaluated to determine whether
gage is effectively being maintained.

[[Page 34039]]

Sec. 213.133 Turnouts and track crossings generally.

(a) In turnouts and track crossings, the fastenings shall be intact
and maintained so as to keep the components securely in place. Also,
each switch, frog, and guard rail shall be kept free of obstructions
that may interfere with the passage of wheels.
(b) Classes 3 through 5 track shall be equipped with rail anchoring
through and on each side of track crossings and turnouts, to restrain
rail movement affecting the position of switch points and frogs. For
Class 3 track, this paragraph (b) is applicable September 21, 1999.)
(c) Each flangeway at turnouts and track crossings shall be at
least 1\1/2\ inches wide.

Sec. 213.135 Switches.

(a) Each stock rail must be securely seated in switch plates, but
care shall be used to avoid canting the rail by overtightening the rail
braces.
(b) Each switch point shall fit its stock rail properly, with the
switch stand in either of its closed positions to allow wheels to pass
the switch point. Lateral and vertical movement of a stock rail in the
switch plates or of a switch plate on a tie shall not adversely affect
the fit of the switch point to the stock rail. Broken or cracked switch
point rails will be subject to the requirements of Sec. 213.113, except
that where remedial actions C, D, or E require the use of joint bars,
and joint bars cannot be placed due to the physical configuration of
the switch, remedial action B will govern, taking into account any
added safety provided by the presence of reinforcing bars on the switch
points.
(c) Each switch shall be maintained so that the outer edge of the
wheel tread cannot contact the gage side of the stock rail.
(d) The heel of each switch rail shall be secure and the bolts in
each heel shall be kept tight.
(e) Each switch stand and connecting rod shall be securely fastened
and operable without excessive lost motion.
(f) Each throw lever shall be maintained so that it cannot be
operated with the lock or keeper in place.
(g) Each switch position indicator shall be clearly visible at all
times.
(h) Unusually chipped or worn switch points shall be repaired or
replaced. Metal flow shall be removed to insure proper closure.
(i) Tongue & Plain Mate switches, which by design exceed Class 1
and excepted track maximum gage limits, are permitted in Class 1 and
excepted track.

Sec. 213.137 Frogs.

(a) The flangeway depth measured from a plane across the wheel-
bearing area of a frog on Class 1 track shall not be less than 1\3/8\
inches, or less than 1\1/2\ inches on Classes 2 through 5 track.
(b) If a frog point is chipped, broken, or worn more than five-
eighths inch down and 6 inches back, operating speed over the frog
shall not be more than 10 m.p.h..
(c) If the tread portion of a frog casting is worn down more than
three-eighths inch below the original contour, operating speed over
that frog shall not be more than 10 m.p.h..
(d) Where frogs are designed as flange-bearing, flangeway depth may
be less than that shown for Class 1 if operated at Class 1 speeds.

Sec. 213.139 Spring rail frogs.

(a) The outer edge of a wheel tread shall not contact the gage side
of a spring wing rail.
(b) The toe of each wing rail shall be solidly tamped and fully and
tightly bolted.
(c) Each frog with a bolt hole defect or head-web separation shall
be replaced.
(d) Each spring shall have compression sufficient to hold the wing
rail against the point rail.
(e) The clearance between the holddown housing and the horn shall
not be more than one-fourth of an inch.

Sec. 213.141 Self-guarded frogs.

(a) The raised guard on a self-guarded frog shall not be worn more
than three-eighths of an inch.
(b) If repairs are made to a self-guarded frog without removing it
from service, the guarding face shall be restored before rebuilding the
point.

Sec. 213.143 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage.

The guard check and guard face gages in frogs shall be within the
limits prescribed in the following table--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guard check gage The distance
between the gage line of a frog
to the guard line \1\ of its Guard face gage The distance between
Class of track guard rail or guarding face, guard lines \1\, measured across the
measured across the track at track at right angles to the gage
right angles to the gage line line \2\, may not be more than--
\2\, may not be less than--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 track........................... 4' 6\1/8\''.................... 4' 5\1/4\''
Class 2 track........................... 4' 6\1/4\''.................... 4' 5\1/8\''
Class 3 and 4 track..................... 4' 6\3/8\''.................... 4' 5\1/8\''
Class 5 track........................... 4' 6\1/2\''.................... 4' 5''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A line along that side of the flangeway which is nearer to the center of the track and at the same elevation
as the gage line.
\2\ A line \5/8\ inch below the top of the center line of the head of the running rail, or corresponding
location of the tread portion of the track structure.

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

[[Page 34040]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.007

BILLING CODE 4910-06-C

Subpart E--Track Appliances and Track-Related Devices

Sec. 213.201 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for certain track
appliances and track-related devices.

Sec. 213.205 Derails.

(a) Each derail shall be clearly visible.
(b) When in a locked position, a derail shall be free of lost
motion which would prevent it from performing its intended function.
(c) Each derail shall be maintained to function as intended.
(d) Each derail shall be properly installed for the rail to which
it is applied. (This paragraph (d) is applicable September 21, 1999.)

Subpart F--Inspection

Sec. 213.231 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for the frequency and manner
of inspecting track to detect deviations from the standards prescribed
in this part.

Sec. 213.233 Track inspections.

(a) All track shall be inspected in accordance with the schedule
prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section by a person designated
under Sec. 213.7.
(b) Each inspection shall be made on foot or by riding over the
track in a vehicle at a speed that allows the person making the
inspection to visually inspect the track structure for compliance with
this part. However, mechanical, electrical, and other track inspection
devices may be used to supplement visual inspection. If a vehicle is
used for visual inspection, the speed of the vehicle may not be more
than 5 miles per hour when passing over track crossings and turnouts,
otherwise, the inspection vehicle speed shall be at the sole discretion
of the inspector, based on track conditions and inspection
requirements. When riding over the track in a vehicle, the inspection
will be subject to the following conditions--
(1) One inspector in a vehicle may inspect up to two tracks at one
time provided that the inspector's visibility remains unobstructed by
any cause and that the second track is not centered more than 30 feet
from the track upon which the inspector is riding;
(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may inspect up to four tracks at
a time provided that the inspectors' visibility remains unobstructed by
any cause and that each track being inspected is centered within 39
feet from the track upon which the inspectors are riding;
(3) Each main track is actually traversed by the vehicle or
inspected on foot at least once every two weeks, and each siding is
actually traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot at least once
every month. On high density commuter railroad lines where track time
does not permit an on track vehicle inspection, and where track centers
are 15 foot or less, the requirements of this paragraph (b)(3) will not
apply; and
(4) Track inspection records shall indicate which track(s) are
traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot as outlined in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section.
(c) Each track inspection shall be made in accordance with the
following schedule--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track Type of track Required frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excepted track and Class 1, 2, and Main track and sidings..... Weekly with at least 3 calendar days interval
3 track. between inspections, or before use, if the
track is used less than once a week, or twice
weekly with at least 1 calendar day interval
between inspections, if the track carries
passenger trains or more than 10 million
gross tons of traffic during the preceding
calendar year.
Excepted track and Class 1, 2, and Other than main track and Monthly with at least 20 calendar days
3 track. sidings. interval between inspections.

[[Page 34041]]

Class 4 and 5 track................ ........................... Twice weekly with at least 1 calendar day
interval between inspections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) If the person making the inspection finds a deviation from the
requirements of this part, the inspector shall immediately initiate
remedial action.

Note to Sec. 213.233: Except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, no part of this section will in any way be construed
to limit the inspector's discretion as it involves inspection speed
and sight distance.

Sec. 213.235 Inspection of switches, track crossings, and lift rail
assemblies or other transition devices on moveable bridges.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each
switch, turnout, track crossing, and moveable bridge lift rail assembly
or other transition device shall be inspected on foot at least monthly.
(b) Each switch in Classes 3 through 5 track that is held in
position only by the operating mechanism and one connecting rod shall
be operated to all of its positions during one inspection in every 3
month period.
(c) In the case of track that is used less than once a month, each
switch, turnout, track crossing, and moveable bridge lift rail assembly
or other transition device shall be inspected on foot before it is
used.

Sec. 213.237 Inspection of rail.

(a) In addition to the track inspections required by Sec. 213.233,
a continuous search for internal defects shall be made of all rail in
Classes 4 through 5 track, and Class 3 track over which passenger
trains operate, at least once every 40 million gross tons (mgt) or once
a year, whichever interval is shorter. On Class 3 track over which
passenger trains do not operate such a search shall be made at least
once every 30 mgt or once a year, whichever interval is longer. (This
paragraph (a) is applicable January 1, 1999.
(b) Inspection equipment shall be capable of detecting defects
between joint bars, in the area enclosed by joint bars.
(c) Each defective rail shall be marked with a highly visible
marking on both sides of the web and base.
(d) If the person assigned to operate the rail defect detection
equipment being used determines that, due to rail surface conditions, a
valid search for internal defects could not be made over a particular
length of track, the test on that particular length of track cannot be
considered as a search for internal defects under paragraph (a) of this
section. (This paragraph (d) is not retroactive to tests performed
prior to September 21, 1998.
(e) If a valid search for internal defects cannot be conducted for
reasons described in paragraph (d) of this section, the track owner
shall, before the expiration of time or tonnage limits--
(1) Conduct a valid search for internal defects;
(2) Reduce operating speed to a maximum of 25 miles per hour until
such time as a valid search for internal defects can be made; or
(3) Remove the rail from service.

Sec. 213.239 Special inspections.

In the event of fire, flood, severe storm, or other occurrence
which might have damaged track structure, a special inspection shall be
made of the track involved as soon as possible after the occurrence
and, if possible, before the operation of any train over that track.

Sec. 213.241 Inspection records.

(a) Each owner of track to which this part applies shall keep a
record of each inspection required to be performed on that track under
this subpart.
(b) Each record of an inspection under Secs. 213.4, 213.233, and
213.235 shall be prepared on the day the inspection is made and signed
by the person making the inspection. Records shall specify the track
inspected, date of inspection, location and nature of any deviation
from the requirements of this part, and the remedial action taken by
the person making the inspection. The owner shall designate the
location(s) where each original record shall be maintained for at least
one year after the inspection covered by the record. The owner shall
also designate one location, within 100 miles of each state in which
they conduct operations, where copies of records which apply to those
operations are either maintained or can be viewed following 10 days
notice by the Federal Railroad Administration.
(c) Rail inspection records shall specify the date of inspection,
the location and nature of any internal defects found, the remedial
action taken and the date thereof, and the location of any intervals of
track not tested per Sec. 213.237(d). The owner shall retain a rail
inspection record for at least two years after the inspection and for
one year after remedial action is taken.
(d) Each owner required to keep inspection records under this
section shall make those records available for inspection and copying
by the Federal Railroad Administration.
(e) For purposes of compliance with the requirements of this
section, an owner of track may maintain and transfer records through
electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval provided that--
(1) The electronic system be designed so that the integrity of each
record is maintained through appropriate levels of security such as
recognition of an electronic signature, or other means, which uniquely
identify the initiating person as the author of that record. No two
persons shall have the same electronic identity;
(2) The electronic storage of each record shall be initiated by the
person making the inspection within 24 hours following the completion
of that inspection;
(3) The electronic system shall ensure that each record cannot be
modified in any way, or replaced, once the record is transmitted and
stored;
(4) Any amendment to a record shall be electronically stored apart
from the record which it amends. Each amendment to a record shall be
uniquely identified as to the person making the amendment;
(5) The electronic system shall provide for the maintenance of
inspection records as originally submitted without corruption or loss
of data;
(6) Paper copies of electronic records and amendments to those
records, that may be necessary to document compliance with this part
shall be made available for inspection and copying by the Federal
Railroad Administration at the locations specified in paragraph (b) of
this section; and
(7) Track inspection records shall be kept available to persons who
performed the inspections and to persons performing subsequent
inspections.

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

Sec. 213.301 Scope of subpart.

This subpart applies to all track used for the operation of trains
at a speed greater than 90 m.p.h. for passenger equipment and greater
than 80 m.p.h. for freight equipment.

[[Page 34042]]

Sec. 213.303 Responsibility for compliance.

(a) Any owner of track to which this subpart applies who knows or
has notice that the track does not comply with the requirements of this
subpart, shall--
(1) Bring the track into compliance; or
(2) Halt operations over that track.
(b) If an owner of track to which this subpart applies assigns
responsibility for the track to another person (by lease or otherwise),
notification of the assignment shall be provided to the appropriate FRA
Regional Office at least 30 days in advance of the assignment. The
notification may be made by any party to that assignment, but shall be
in writing and include the following--
(1) The name and address of the track owner;
(2) The name and address of the person to whom responsibility is
assigned (assignee);
(3) A statement of the exact relationship between the track owner
and the assignee;
(4) A precise identification of the track;
(5) A statement as to the competence and ability of the assignee to
carry out the duties of the track owner under this subpart;
(6) A statement signed by the assignee acknowledging the assignment
to that person of responsibility for purposes of compliance with this
subpart.
(c) The Administrator may hold the track owner or the assignee or
both responsible for compliance with this subpart and subject to the
penalties under Sec. 213.15.
(d) When any person, including a contractor for a railroad or track
owner, performs any function required by this part, that person is
required to perform that function in accordance with this part.

Sec. 213.305 Designation of qualified individuals; general
qualifications.

Each track owner to which this subpart applies shall designate
qualified individuals responsible for the maintenance and inspection of
track in compliance with the safety requirements prescribed in this
subpart. Each individual, including a contractor or an employee of a
contractor who is not a railroad employee, designated to:
(a) Supervise restorations and renewals of track shall meet the
following minimum requirements:
(1) At least;
(i) Five years of responsible supervisory experience in railroad
track maintenance in track Class 4 or higher and the successful
completion of a course offered by the employer or by a college level
engineering program, supplemented by special on the job training
emphasizing the techniques to be employed in the supervision,
restoration, and renewal of high speed track; or
(ii) A combination of at least one year of responsible supervisory
experience in track maintenance in Class 4 or higher and the successful
completion of a minimum of 80 hours of specialized training in the
maintenance of high speed track provided by the employer or by a
college level engineering program, supplemented by special on the job
training provided by the employer with emphasis on the maintenance of
high speed track; or
(iii) A combination of at least two years of experience in track
maintenance in track Class 4 or higher and the successful completion of
a minimum of 120 hours of specialized training in the maintenance of
high speed track provided by the employer or by a college level
engineering program supplemented by special on the job training
provided by the employer with emphasis on the maintenance of high speed
track.
(2) Demonstrate to the track owner that the individual:
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of this subpart;
(ii) Can detect deviations from those requirements; and
(iii) Can prescribe appropriate remedial action to correct or
safely compensate for those deviations; and
(3) Be authorized in writing by the track owner to prescribe
remedial actions to correct or safely compensate for deviations from
the requirements of this subpart and successful completion of a
recorded examination on this subpart as part of the qualification
process.
(b) Inspect track for defects shall meet the following minimum
qualifications:
(1) At least:
(i) Five years of responsible experience inspecting track in Class
4 or above and the successful completion of a course offered by the
employer or by a college level engineering program, supplemented by
special on the job training emphasizing the techniques to be employed
in the inspection of high speed track; or
(ii) A combination of at least one year of responsible experience
in track inspection in Class 4 or above and the successful completion
of a minimum of 80 hours of specialized training in the inspection of
high speed track provided by the employer or by a college level
engineering program, supplemented by special on the job training
provided by the employer with emphasis on the inspection of high speed
track.
(iii) A combination of at least two years of experience in track
maintenance in Class 4 or above and the successful completion of a
minimum of 120 hours of specialized training in the inspection of high
speed track provided by the employer or from a college level
engineering program, supplemented by special on the job training
provided by the employer with emphasis on the inspection of high speed
track.
(2) Demonstrate to the track owner that the individual:
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of this subpart;
(ii) Can detect deviations from those requirements; and
(iii) Can prescribe appropriate remedial action to correct or
safely compensate for those deviations; and
(3) Be authorized in writing by the track owner to prescribe
remedial actions to correct or safely compensate for deviations from
the requirements in this subpart and successful completion of a
recorded examination on this subpart as part of the qualification
process.
(c) Individuals designated under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this
section that inspect continuous welded rail (CWR) track or supervise
the installation, adjustment, and maintenance of CWR in accordance with
the written procedures established by the track owner shall have:
(1) Current qualifications under either paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section;
(2) Successfully completed a training course of at least eight
hours duration specifically developed for the application of written
CWR procedures issued by the track owner; and
(3) Demonstrated to the track owner that the individual:
(i) Knows and understands the requirements of those written CWR
procedures;
(ii) Can detect deviations from those requirements; and
(iii) Can prescribe appropriate remedial action to correct or
safely compensate for those deviations; and
(4) Written authorization from the track owner to prescribe
remedial actions to correct or safely compensate for deviations from
the requirements in those procedures and successful completion of a
recorded examination on those procedures as part of the qualification
process. The recorded examination may be written, or it may be a
computer file with the results of an interactive training course.
(d) Persons not fully qualified to supervise certain renewals and
inspect track as outlined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this
section, but with at least one year of maintenance of way or

[[Page 34043]]

signal experience, may pass trains over broken rails and pull aparts
provided that--
(1) The track owner determines the person to be qualified and, as
part of doing so, trains, examines, and re-examines the person
periodically within two years after each prior examination on the
following topics as they relate to the safe passage of trains over
broken rails or pull aparts: rail defect identification, crosstie
condition, track surface and alinement, gage restraint, rail end
mismatch, joint bars, and maximum distance between rail ends over which
trains may be allowed to pass. The sole purpose of the examination is
to ascertain the person's ability to effectively apply these
requirements and the examination may not be used to disqualify the
person from other duties. A minimum of four hours training is adequate
for initial training;
(2) The person deems it safe, and train speeds are limited to a
maximum of 10 m.p.h. over the broken rail or pull apart;
(3) The person shall watch all movements over the broken rail or
pull apart and be prepared to stop the train if necessary; and
(4) Person(s) fully qualified under Sec. 213.305 of this subpart
are notified and dispatched to the location as soon as practicable for
the purpose of authorizing movements and effectuating temporary or
permanent repairs.
(e) With respect to designations under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and
(d) of this section, each track owner shall maintain written records
of:
(1) Each designation in effect;
(2) The basis for each designation, including but not limited to:
(i) The exact nature of any training courses attended and the dates
thereof;
(ii) The manner in which the track owner has determined a
successful completion of that training course, including test scores or
other qualifying results;
(3) Track inspections made by each individual as required by
Sec. 213.369. These records shall be made available for inspection and
copying by the Federal Railroad Administration during regular business
hours.

Sec. 213.307 Class of track: operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and
Secs. 213.329, 213.337(a) and 213.345(c), the following maximum
allowable operating speeds apply:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over track that meets all of the The maximum allowable
requirements prescribed in this subpart operating speed for trains ^{1
for-- is--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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............................ 200 m.p.h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{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 Sections
213.345 and 213.329(d) of this subpart.
(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 operating at
the same maximum speed.
(3) No carrier may accept or transport a hazardous material, as defined
at 49 CFR 171.8, except as provided in Column 9A of the Hazardous
Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) for movement in the same train as a
passenger-carrying vehicle or in Column 9B of the Table for movement
in a train with no passenger-carrying vehicles.
^{2 Operating speeds in excess of 150 m.p.h. are authorized by this part
only in conjunction with a rule of particular applicability addressing
other safety issues presented by the system.

(b) If a segment of track does not meet all of the requirements for
its intended class, it is to be reclassified to the next lower class of
track for which it does meet all of the requirements of this subpart.
If a segment does not meet all of the requirements for Class 6, the
requirements for Classes 1 through 5 apply.

Sec. 213.309 Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions.

(a) Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions is
limited to the replacement of worn, broken, or missing components or
fastenings that do not affect the safe passage of trains.
(b) The following activities are expressly prohibited under traffic
conditions:
(1) Any work that interrupts rail continuity, e.g., as in joint bar
replacement or rail replacement;
(2) Any work that adversely affects the lateral or vertical
stability of the track with the exception of spot tamping an isolated
condition where not more than 15 lineal feet of track are involved at
any one time and the ambient air temperature is not above 95 degrees
Fahrenheit; and
(3) Removal and replacement of the rail fastenings on more than one
tie at a time within 15 feet.

Sec. 213.311 Measuring track not under load.

When unloaded track is measured to determine compliance with
requirements of this subpart, evidence of rail movement, if any, that
occurs while the track is loaded shall be added to the measurements of
the unloaded track.

Sec. 213.317 Waivers.

(a) Any owner of track to which this subpart applies may petition
the Federal Railroad Administrator for a waiver from any or all
requirements prescribed in this subpart.
(b) Each petition for a waiver under this section shall be filed in
the manner and contain the information required by Secs. 211.7 and
211.9 of this chapter.
(c) If the Administrator finds that a waiver is in the public
interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the Administrator may
grant the waiver subject to any conditions the Administrator deems
necessary. Where a waiver is granted, the Administrator publishes a
notice containing the reasons for granting the waiver.

Sec. 213.319 Drainage.

Sec. 213.321 Vegetation.

Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent
to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not --
(a) Become a fire hazard to track-carrying structures;
(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals:
(1) Along the right of way, and
(2) At highway-rail crossings;
(c) Interfere with railroad employees performing normal trackside
duties;
(d) Prevent proper functioning of signal and communication lines;
or
(e) Prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting moving
equipment from their normal duty stations.

Sec. 213.323 Track gage.

[[Page 34044]]

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

Sec. 213327 Alinement.

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

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

(b) For a single deviation, alinement may not deviate from
uniformity more than the amount prescribed in the following table:

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

(c) 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 owner of the track to which this subpart applies
shall maintain the alinement of the track within the limits prescribed
for each deviation:

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

Sec. 213.329 Curves, elevation and speed limitations.

(a) The maximum crosslevel on the outside rail of a curve may not
be more than 7 inches. The outside rail of a curve may not be more than
\1/2\ inch lower than the inside rail.
(b) (1) The maximum allowable operating speed for each curve is
determined by the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.008

Where--

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating speed (miles per hour).
Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail (inches) \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Actual elevation for each 155 foot track segment in the body
of the curve is determined by averaging the elevation for 10 points
through the segment at 15.5 foot spacing. If the curve length is
less than 155 feet, average the points through the full length of
the body of the curve. If Eu exceeds 4 inches, the Vmax
formula applies to the spirals on both ends of the curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D = Degree of curvature (degrees) \5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Degree of curvature is determined by averaging the degree of
curvature over the same track segment as the elevation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 = 3 inches of unbalance.

(2) Appendix A includes tables showing maximum allowable operating
speeds computed in accordance with this formula for various elevations
and degrees of curvature for track speeds greater than 90 m.p.h.
(c) For rolling stock meeting the requirements specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, the maximum operating speed for each
curve may be determined by the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.009

Where--

Vmax = Maximum allowable operating speed (miles per hour).
Ea = Actual elevation of the outside rail (inches) \4\.
D = Degree of curvature (degrees) \5\.
Eu = Unbalanced elevation (inches).

(d) Qualified equipment may be operated at curving speeds
determined by the formula in paragraph (c) of this section, provided
each specific class of equipment is approved for operation by

[[Page 34045]]

the Federal Railroad Administration and the railroad demonstrates
that--
(1) When positioned on a track with uniform superelevation,
Ea, reflecting the intended target cant deficiency,
Eu, no wheel of the equipment unloads to a value of 60
percent or less of its static value on perfectly level track and, for
passenger-carrying equipment, the roll angle between the floor of the
vehicle and the horizontal does not exceed 5.7 degrees.
(2) When positioned on a track with a uniform 7-inch
superelevation, no wheel unloads to a value less than 60% of its static
value on perfectly level track and, for passenger-carrying equipment,
the angle, measured about the roll axis, between the floor of the
vehicle and the horizontal does not exceed 8.6 degrees.
(e) The track owner shall notify the Federal Railroad Administrator
no less than thirty calendar days prior to any proposed implementation
of the higher curving speeds allowed when the ``Eu'' term,
above, will exceed three inches. This notification shall be in writing
and shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) A complete description of the class of equipment involved,
including schematic diagrams of the suspension system and the location
of the center of gravity above top of rail;
(2) A complete description of the test procedure \6\ and
instrumentation used to qualify the equipment and the maximum values
for wheel unloading and roll angles which were observed during testing;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The test procedure may be conducted in a test facility
whereby all wheels on one side (right or left) of the equipment are
raised or lowered by six and then seven inches, 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) Procedures or standards in effect which relate to the
maintenance of the suspension system for the particular class of
equipment;
(4) Identification of line segment on which the higher curving
speeds are proposed to be implemented.
(f) A track owner, or an operator of a passenger or commuter
service, who provides passenger or commuter service over trackage of
more than one track owner with the same class of equipment, may provide
written notification to the Federal Railroad Administrator with the
written consent of the other affected track owners.

Sec. 213.331 Track surface.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track
-------------------------------------------
Track surface 6 7 8 9
(inches) (inches) (inches) (inches)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation from uniform
\1\ profile on either rail
at the midordinate of a 31-
foot chord may not be more
than....................... 1 1 \3/4\ \1/2\
The deviation from uniform
profile on either rail at
the midordinate of a 62-
foot chord may not be more
than....................... 1 1 1 \3/4\
The deviation from uniform
profile on either rail at
the midordinate of a 124-
foot chord may not be more
than....................... 1\3/4\ 1\1/2\ 1\1/4\ 1\1/4\
The difference in crosslevel
between any two points less
than 62 feet apart may not
be more than \2\........... 1\1/2\ 1\1/2\ 1\1/2\ 1\1/2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Uniformity for profile is established by placing the midpoint of the
specified chord at the point of maximum measurement.
\2\ However, to control harmonics on jointed track with staggered
joints, the crosslevel differences shall not exceed 1\1/4\ inches in
all of six consecutive pairs of joints, as created by 7 joints. Track
with joints staggered less than 10 feet shall not be considered as
having staggered joints. Joints within the 7 low joints outside of the
regular joint spacing shall not be considered as joints for purposes
of this footnote.

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

Sec. 213.333 Automated vehicle inspection systems.

(a) For track Class 7, a qualifying Track Geometry Measurement
System (TGMS) vehicle shall be operated at least twice within 120
calendar days with not less than 30 days between inspections. For track
Classes 8 and 9, it shall be operated at least twice within 60 days
with not less than 15 days between inspections.
(b) A qualifying TGMS shall meet or exceed minimum design
requirements which specify that--
(1) Track geometry measurements shall be taken no more than 3 feet
away from the contact point of wheels carrying a vertical load of no
less than 10,000 pounds per wheel;
(2) Track geometry measurements shall be taken and recorded on a
distance-based sampling interval which shall not exceed 2 feet; and
(3) Calibration procedures and parameters are assigned to the
system which assure that measured and recorded values accurately
represent track conditions. Track geometry measurements recorded by the
system shall not differ on repeated runs at the same site at the same
speed more than 1/8 inch.
(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be capable of measuring and processing
the necessary track geometry parameters, at an interval of no more than
every 2 feet,

[[Page 34046]]

which enables the system to determine compliance with: Sec. 213.323,
Track gage; Sec. 213.327, Alinement; Sec. 213.329, Curves; elevation
and speed limitations; and Sec. 213.331, Track surface.
(d) A qualifying TGMS shall be capable of producing, within 24
hours of the inspection, output reports that --
(1) Provide a continuous plot, on a constant-distance axis, of all
measured track geometry parameters required in paragraph (c) of this
section;
(2) Provide an exception report containing a systematic listing of
all track geometry conditions which constitute an exception to the
class of track over the segment surveyed.
(e) The output reports required under paragraph (c) of this section
shall contain sufficient location identification information which
enable field forces to easily locate indicated exceptions.
(f) Following a track inspection performed by a qualifying TGMS,
the track owner shall, within two days after the inspection, field
verify and institute remedial action for all exceptions to the class of
track.
(g) The track owner shall maintain for a period of one year
following an inspection performed by a qualifying TGMS, copy of the
plot and the exception printout for the track segment involved, and
additional records which:
(1) Specify the date the inspection was made and the track segment
involved; and
(2) Specify the location, remedial action taken, and the date
thereof, for all listed exceptions to the class.
(h) For track Classes 8 and 9, a qualifying Gage Restraint
Measurement System (GRMS) shall be operated at least once annually with
at least 180 days between inspections to continuously compare loaded
track gage to unloaded gage under a known loading condition. The
lateral capacity of the track structure shall not permit a gage
widening ratio (GWR) greater than 0.5 inches.
(i) A GRMS shall meet or exceed minimum design requirements which
specify that--
(1) Gage restraint shall be measured between the heads of the
rail--
(i) At an interval not exceeding 16 inches;
(ii) Under an applied vertical load of no less than 10,000 pounds
per rail;
(iii) Under an applied lateral load which provides for lateral/
vertical load ratio of between 0.5 and 1.25 \7\, and a load severity
greater than 3,000 pounds but less than 8,000 pounds per rail. Load
severity is defined by the formula--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ GRMS equipment using load combinations developing L/V ratios
which exceed 0.8 shall be operated with caution to protect against
the risk of wheel climb by the test wheelset.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S = L -cV

where:

S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load applied to the fastener
system (pounds).
L = Actual lateral load applied (pounds).
c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie which is assigned a
nominal value of (0.4).
V = Actual vertical load applied (pounds).

(2) The measured gage value shall be converted to a gage widening
ratio (GWR) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN98.010

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 the point of
application of the lateral load.
L=Actual lateral load applied (pounds).
(j) At least one vehicle in one train per day operating in Classes
8 and 9 shall be equipped with functioning on-board truck frame and
carbody accelerometers. Each track owner shall have in effect written
procedures for the notification of track personnel when on-board
accelerometers on trains in Classes 8 and 9 indicate a possible track-
related condition.
(k) For track Classes 7 , 8 and 9, an instrumented car having
dynamic response characteristics that are representative of other
equipment assigned to service or a portable device that monitors on-
board instrumentation on trains shall be operated over the track at the
revenue speed profile at a frequency of at least twice within 60 days
with not less than 15 days between inspections. The instrumented car or
the portable device shall monitor vertically and laterally oriented
accelerometers placed near the end of the vehicle at the floor level.
In addition, accelerometers shall be mounted on the truck frame. If the
carbody lateral, carbody vertical, or truck frame lateral safety limits
in the following table of vehicle/track interaction safety limits are
exceeded, speeds will be reduced until these safety limits are not
exceeded.
(l) For track Classes 8 and 9, an instrumented car having dynamic
response characteristics that are representative of other equipment
assigned to service shall be operated over the track at the revenue
speed profile annually with not less than 180 days between inspections.
The instrumented car shall be equipped with functioning instrumented
wheelsets to measure wheel/rail forces. If the wheel/rail force limits
in the following table of vehicle/track interaction safety limits are
exceeded, speeds will be reduced until these safety limits are not
exceeded.
(m) The track owner shall maintain a copy of the most recent
exception printouts for the inspections required under paragraphs (k)
and (l) of this section.

Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Safety limit Filter/window Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheel/Rail Forces \1\
Single Wheel Vertical Load 0.1............... 5 ft................... No wheel of the
Ratio. equipment shall be
permitted to unload to
less than 10% of the
static vertical wheel
load. The static
vertical wheel load is
defined as the load
that the wheel would
carry when stationary
on level track. The
vertical wheel load
limit shall be
increased by the
amount of measurement
error.
Single Wheel L/V Ratio......... tan--.5 5 ft................... The ratio of the
1 + .5tan. lateral force that any
wheel exerts on an
individual rail to the
vertical force exerted
by the same wheel on
the rail shall be less
than the safety limit
calculated for the
wheel's flange angle
().

[[Page 34047]]

Net Axle L/V Ratio............. 0.5.............. 5 ft................... The net lateral force
exerted by any axle on
the track shall not
exceed 50% of the
static vertical load
that the axle exerts
on the track.
Truck Side L/V Ratio........... 0.6.............. 5 ft................... The ratio of the
lateral forces that
the wheels on one side
of any truck exert on
an individual rail to
the vertical forces
exerted by the same
wheels on that rail
shall be less than
0.6.
Accelerations
Carbody Lateral \2\............ 0.5 g peak-to- 10 Hz 1 sec window..... The peak-to-peak
peak. accelerations,
measured as the
algebraic difference
between the two
extreme values of
measured acceleration
in a one second time
period, shall not
exceed 0.5 g.
Carbody Vertical \2\........... 0.6 g peak-to- 10 Hz 1 sec window..... The peak-to-peak
peak. accelerations,
measured as the
algebraic difference
between the two
extreme values of
measured acceleration
in a one-second time
period, shall not
exceed 0.6 g.
Truck Lateral \3\ ............. 0.4 g RMS mean- 10 Hz 2 sec window..... Truck hunting \4\ shall
removed. not develop below the
maximum authorized
speed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The lateral and vertical wheel forces shall be measured with instrumented wheelsets with the measurements
processed through a low pass filter with a minimum cut-off frequency of 25 Hz. The sample rate for wheel force
data shall be at least 250 samples/sec.
\2\ Carbody lateral and vertical accelerations shall be measured near the car ends at the floor level.
\3\ Truck accelerations in the lateral direction shall be measured on the truck frame. The measurements shall be
processed through a filter having a pass band of 0.5 to 10 Hz.
\4\ Truck hunting is defined as a sustained cyclic oscillation of the truck which is evidenced by lateral
accelerations in excess of 0.4 g root mean square (mean-removed) for 2 seconds.

Sec. 213.334 Ballast; general.

Unless it is otherwise structurally supported, all track shall be
supported by material which will--
(a) Transmit and distribute the load of the track and railroad
rolling equipment to the subgrade;
(b) Restrain the track laterally, longitudinally, and vertically
under dynamic loads imposed by railroad rolling equipment and thermal
stress exerted by the rails;
(c) Provide adequate drainage for the track; and
(d) Maintain proper track crosslevel, surface, and alinement.

Sec. 213.335 Crossties.

(a) Crossties shall be made of a material to which rail can be
securely fastened.
(b) Each 39 foot segment of track shall have--
(1) A sufficient number of crossties which in combination provide
effective support that will--
(i) Hold gage within the limits prescribed in Sec. 213.323(b);
(ii) Maintain surface within the limits prescribed in Sec. 213.331;
and
(iii) Maintain alinement within the limits prescribed in
Sec. 213.327.
(2) The minimum number and type of crossties specified in paragraph
(c) of this section effectively distributed to support the entire
segment; and
(3) Crossties of the type specified in paragraph (c) of this
section that are(is) located at a joint location as specified in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(c) For non-concrete tie construction, each 39 foot segment of
Class 6 track shall have fourteen crossties; Classes 7, 8 and 9 shall
have 18 crossties which are not--
(1) Broken through;
(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the extent the crossties will
allow the ballast to work through, or will not hold spikes or rail
fasteners;
(3) So deteriorated that the tie plate or base of rail can move
laterally \3/8\ inch relative to the crossties;
(4) Cut by the tie plate through more than 40 percent of a
crosstie's thickness;
(5) Configured with less than 2 rail holding spikes or fasteners
per tie plate; or
(6) So unable, due to insufficient fastener toeload, to maintain
longitudinal restraint and maintain rail hold down and gage.
(d) For concrete tie construction, each 39 foot segment of Class 6
track shall have fourteen crossties, Classes 7, 8 and 9 shall have 16
crossties which are not--
(1) So deteriorated that the prestress strands are ineffective or
withdrawn into the tie at one end and the tie exhibits structural
cracks in the rail seat or in the gage of track;
(2) Configured with less than 2 fasteners on the same rail;
(3) So deteriorated in the vicinity of the rail fastener such that
the fastener assembly may pull out or move laterally more than \3/8\
inch relative to the crosstie;
(4) So deteriorated that the fastener base plate or base of rail
can move laterally more than \3/8\ inch relative to the crossties;
(5) So deteriorated that rail seat abrasion is sufficiently deep so
as to cause loss of rail fastener toeload;
(6) Completely broken through; or
(7) So unable, due to insufficient fastener toeload, to maintain
longitudinal restraint and maintain rail hold down and gage.
(e) Class 6 track shall have one non-defective crosstie whose
centerline is within 18 inches of the rail joint location or two
crossties whose center lines are within 24 inches either side of the
rail joint location. Class 7, 8, and 9 track shall have two non-
defective ties within 24 inches each side of the rail joint.
(f) For track constructed without crossties, such as slab track and
track connected directly to bridge structural components, the track
structure shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii),
and (iii) of this section.
(g) In Classes 7, 8 and 9 there shall be at least three non-
defective ties each side of a defective tie.
(h) Where timber crossties are in use there shall be tie plates
under the running rails on at least nine of 10 consecutive ties.

[[Page 34048]]

(i) No metal object which causes a concentrated load by solely
supporting a rail shall be allowed between the base of the rail and the
bearing surface of the tie plate.

Sec. 213.337 Defective rails.

(a) When an owner of track to which this part applies learns,
through inspection or otherwise, that a rail in that track contains any
of the defects listed in the following table, a person designated under
Sec. 213.305 shall determine whether or not the track may continue in
use. If the person determines that the track may continue in use,
operation over the defective rail is not permitted until--
(1) The rail is replaced; or
(2) The remedial action prescribed in the table is initiated--

Remedial Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length of defect (inch) Percent of rail head
---------------------------------------------------------------- cross-sectional area
weakened by defect If defective rail is not
Defect But not -------------------------- replaced, take the remedial
More than more than But not action prescribed in note
Less than less than
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transverse fissure............. 70 5 B.
100 70 A2.
100 A.
Compound fissure............... 70 5 B.
100 70 A2.
100 A.
Detail fracture Engine burn 25 5 C.
fracture Defective weld. 80 25 D.
100 80 [A2] or [E and H.]
100 [A] or [E and H].
Horizontal split head Vertical 1................................................ 2 H and F.
split head Split web Piped 2................................................ 4 I and G.
rail. 4................................................ B.
Head web separation (\1\)............................................ (\1\) (\1\) A.
\1/2\............................................ 1 H and F.
Bolt hole crack................ 1................................................ 1\1/2\ H and G.
1\1/2\........................................... A.
(\1\)............................................ (\1\) (\1\) A.
Broken base.................... 1................................................ 6 D.
6................................................ [A] or [E and I].
Ordinary break................ A or E.
Damaged rail................... D.
Flattened rail................. Depth \3/8\ and...................... H.
Length 8.............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) Break out in rail head.

Notes:
A. Assign person designated under Sec. 213.305 to visually
supervise each operation over defective rail.
A2. Assign person designated under Sec. 213.305 to make visual
inspection. That person may authorize operation to continue without
visual supervision at a maximum of 10 m.p.h. for up to 24 hours
prior to another such visual inspection or replacement or repair of
the rail.
B. Limit operating speed over defective rail to that as
authorized by a person designated under Sec. 213.305(a)(1)(i) or
(ii). The operating speed cannot be over 30 m.p.h.
C. Apply joint bars bolted only through the outermost holes to
defect within 20 days after it is determined to continue the track
in use. Limit operating speed over defective rail to 30 m.p.h. until
joint bars are applied; thereafter, limit speed to 50 m.p.h. When a
search for internal rail defects is conducted under Sec. 213.339 and
defects are discovered which require remedial action C, the
operating speed shall be limited to 50 m.p.h., for a period not to
exceed 4 days. If the defective rail has not been removed from the
track or a permanent repair made within 4 days of the discovery,
limit operating speed over the defective rail to 30 m.p.h. until
joint bars are applied; thereafter, limit speed to 50 m.p.h.
D. Apply joint bars bolted only through the outermost holes to
defect within 10 days after it is determined to continue the track
in use. Limit operating speed over the defective rail to 30 m.p.h.
or less as authorized by a person designated under
Sec. 213.305(a)(1)(i) or (ii) until joint bars are applied;
thereafter, limit speed to 50 m.p.h.
E. Apply joint bars to defect and bolt in accordance with
Sec. 213.351(d) and (e).
F. Inspect rail 90 days after it is determined to continue the
track in use.
G. Inspect rail 30 days after it is determined to continue the
track in use.
H. Limit operating speed over defective rail to 50 m.p.h.
I. Limit operating speed over defective rail to 30 m.p.h.

[[Page 34049]]

through it. A crack or rust streak may show under the head close to the
web or pieces may be split off the side of the head.
(5) Split web means a lengthwise crack along the side of the web
and extending into or through it.
(6) Piped rail means a vertical split in a rail, usually in the
web, due to failure of the shrinkage cavity in the ingot to unite in
rolling.
(7) Broken base means any break in the base of the rail.
(8) Detail fracture means a progressive fracture originating at or
near the surface of the rail head. These fractures should not be
confused with transverse fissures, compound fissures, or other defects
which have internal origins. Detail fractures may arise from shelly
spots, head checks, or flaking.
(9) Engine burn fracture means a progressive fracture originating
in spots where driving wheels have slipped on top of the rail head. In
developing downward they frequently resemble the compound or even
transverse fissures with which they should not be confused or
classified.
(10) Ordinary break means a partial or complete break in which
there is no sign of a fissure, and in which none of the other defects
described in this paragraph (b) are found.
(11) Damaged rail means any rail broken or injured by wrecks,
broken, flat, or unbalanced wheels, slipping, or similar causes.
(12) Flattened rail means a short length of rail, not a joint,
which has flattened out across the width of the rail head to a depth of
\3/8\ inch or more below the rest of the rail. Flattened rail
occurrences have no repetitive regularity and thus do not include
corrugations, and have no apparent localized cause such as a weld or
engine burn. Their individual length is relatively short, as compared
to a condition such as head flow on the low rail of curves.
(13) Bolt hole crack means a crack across the web, originating from
a bolt hole, and progressing on a path either inclined upward toward
the rail head or inclined downward toward the base. Fully developed
bolt hole cracks may continue horizontally along the head/web or base/
web fillet, or they may progress into and through the head or base to
separate a piece of the rail end from the rail. Multiple cracks
occurring in one rail end are considered to be a single defect.
However, bolt hole cracks occurring in adjacent rail ends within the
same joint shall be reported as separate defects.
(14) Defective weld means a field or plant weld containing any
discontinuities or pockets, exceeding 5 percent of the rail head area
individually or 10 percent in the aggregate, oriented in or near the
transverse plane, due to incomplete penetration of the weld metal
between the rail ends, lack of fusion between weld and rail end metal,
entrainment of slag or sand, under-bead or other shrinkage cracking, or
fatigue cracking. Weld defects may originate in the rail head, web, or
base, and in some cases, cracks may progress from the defect into
either or both adjoining rail ends.
(15) Head and web separation means a progressive fracture,
longitudinally separating the head from the web of the rail at the head
fillet area.

Sec. 213.339 Inspection of rail in service.

(a) A continuous search for internal defects shall be made of all
rail in track at least twice annually with not less than 120 days
between inspections.
(b) Inspection equipment shall be capable of detecting defects
between joint bars, in the area enclosed by joint bars.
(c) Each defective rail shall be marked with a highly visible
marking on both sides of the web and base.
(d) If the person assigned to operate the rail defect detection
equipment being used determines that, due to rail surface conditions, a
valid search for internal defects could not be made over a particular
length of track, the test on that particular length of track cannot be
considered as a search for internal defects under Sec. 213.337(a).
(e) If a valid search for internal defects cannot be conducted for
reasons described in paragraph (d) of this section, the track owner
shall, before the expiration of time limits--
(1) Conduct a valid search for internal defects;
(2) Reduce operating speed to a maximum of 25 miles per hour until
such time as a valid search for internal defects can be made; or
(3) Remove the rail from service.

Sec. 213.341 Initial inspection of new rail and welds.

The track owner shall provide for the initial inspection of newly
manufactured rail, and for initial inspection of new welds made in
either new or used rail. A track owner may demonstrate compliance with
this section by providing for:
(a) In-service inspection--A scheduled periodic inspection of rail
and welds that have been placed in service, if conducted in accordance
with the provisions of Sec. 213.339, and if conducted not later than 90
days after installation, shall constitute compliance with paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section;
(b) Mill inspection--A continuous inspection at the rail
manufacturer's mill shall constitute compliance with the requirement
for initial inspection of new rail, provided that the inspection
equipment meets the applicable requirements specified in Sec. 213.339.
The track owner shall obtain a copy of the manufacturer's report of
inspection and retain it as a record until the rail receives its first
scheduled inspection under Sec. 213.339;
(c) Welding plant inspection--A continuous inspection at a welding
plant, if conducted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)
of this section, and accompanied by a plant operator's report of
inspection which is retained as a record by the track owner, shall
constitute compliance with the requirements for initial inspection of
new rail and plant welds, or of new plant welds made in used rail; and
(d) Inspection of field welds--An initial inspection of field
welds, either those joining the ends of CWR strings or those made for
isolated repairs, shall be conducted not less than one day and not more
than 30 days after the welds have been made. The initial inspection may
be conducted by means of portable test equipment. The track owner shall
retain a record of such inspections until the welds receive their first
scheduled inspection under Sec. 213.339.
(e) Each defective rail found during inspections conducted under
paragraph (a) or (d) of this section shall be marked with highly
visible markings on both sides of the web and base and the remedial
action as appropriate under Sec. 213.337 will apply.

Sec. 213.343 Continuous welded rail (CWR).

Each track owner with track constructed of CWR shall have in effect
written procedures which address the installation, adjustment,
maintenance and inspection of CWR, and a training program for the
application of those procedures, which shall be submitted to the
Federal Railroad Administration within six months following the
effective date of this rule. FRA reviews each plan for compliance with
the following--
(a) Procedures for the installation and adjustment of CWR which
include--
(1) Designation of a desired rail installation temperature range
for the geographic area in which the CWR is located; and
(2) De-stressing procedures/methods which address proper attainment
of the desired rail installation temperature range when adjusting CWR.

[[Page 34050]]

(b) Rail anchoring or fastening requirements that will provide
sufficient restraint to limit longitudinal rail and crosstie movement
to the extent practical, and specifically addressing CWR rail anchoring
or fastening patterns on bridges, bridge approaches, and at other
locations where possible longitudinal rail and crosstie movement
associated with normally expected train-induced forces, is restricted.
(c) Procedures which specifically address maintaining a desired
rail installation temperature range when cutting CWR including rail
repairs, in-track welding, and in conjunction with adjustments made in
the area of tight track, a track buckle, or a pull-apart. Rail repair
practices shall take into consideration existing rail temperature so
that--
(1) When rail is removed, the length installed shall be determined
by taking into consideration the existing rail temperature and the
desired rail installation temperature range; and
(2) Under no circumstances should rail be added when the rail
temperature is below that designated by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, without provisions for later adjustment.
(d) Procedures which address the monitoring of CWR in curved track
for inward shifts of alinement toward the center of the curve as a
result of disturbed track.
(e) Procedures which control train speed on CWR track when --
(1) Maintenance work, track rehabilitation, track construction, or
any other event occurs which disturbs the roadbed or ballast section
and reduces the lateral and/or longitudinal resistance of the track;
and
(2) In formulating the procedures under this paragraph (e), the
track owner shall--
(i) Determine the speed required, and the duration and subsequent
removal of any speed restriction based on the restoration of the
ballast, along with sufficient ballast re-consolidation to stabilize
the track to a level that can accommodate expected train-induced
forces. Ballast re-consolidation can be achieved through either the
passage of train tonnage or mechanical stabilization procedures, or
both; and
(ii) Take into consideration the type of crossties used.
(f) Procedures which prescribe when physical track inspections are
to be performed to detect buckling prone conditions in CWR track. At a
minimum, these procedures shall address inspecting track to identify --
(1) Locations where tight or kinky rail conditions are likely to
occur;
(2) Locations where track work of the nature described in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section have recently been performed; and
(3) In formulating the procedures under this paragraph (f), the
track owner shall--
(i) Specify the timing of the inspection; and
(ii) Specify the appropriate remedial actions to be taken when
buckling prone conditions are found.
(g) The track owner shall have in effect a comprehensive training
program for the application of these written CWR procedures, with
provisions for periodic re-training, for those individuals designated
under Sec. 213.305(c) of this part as qualified to supervise the
installation, adjustment, and maintenance of CWR track and to perform
inspections of CWR track.
(h) The track owner shall prescribe recordkeeping requirements
necessary to provide an adequate history of track constructed with CWR.
At a minimum, these records shall include:
(1) Rail temperature, location and date of CWR installations. This
record shall be retained for at least one year; and
(2) A record of any CWR installation or maintenance work that does
not conform with the written procedures. Such record shall include the
location of the rail and be maintained until the CWR is brought into
conformance with such procedures.
(i) As used in this section--
(1) Adjusting/de-stressing means the procedure by which a rail's
temperature is re-adjusted to the desired value. It typically consists
of cutting the rail and removing rail anchoring devices, which provides
for the necessary expansion and contraction, and then re-assembling the
track.
(2) Buckling incident means the formation of a lateral mis-
alinement sufficient in magnitude to constitute a deviation of 5 inches
measured with a 62-foot chord. These normally occur when rail
temperatures are relatively high and are caused by high longitudinal
compressive forces.
(3) Continuous welded rail (CWR) means rail that has been welded
together into lengths exceeding 400 feet.
(4) Desired rail installation temperature range means the rail
temperature range, within a specific geographical area, at which forces
in CWR should not cause a buckling incident in extreme heat, or a pull-
apart during extreme cold weather.
(5) Disturbed track means the disturbance of the roadbed or ballast
section, as a result of track maintenance or any other event, which
reduces the lateral or longitudinal resistance of the track, or both.
(6) Mechanical stabilization means a type of procedure used to
restore track resistance to disturbed track following certain
maintenance operations. This procedure may incorporate dynamic track
stabilizers or ballast consolidators, which are units of work equipment
that are used as a substitute for the stabilization action provided by
the passage of tonnage trains.
(7) Rail anchors means those devices which are attached to the rail
and bear against the side of the crosstie to control longitudinal rail
movement. Certain types of rail fasteners also act as rail anchors and
control longitudinal rail movement by exerting a downward clamping
force on the upper surface of the rail base.
(8) Rail temperature means the temperature of the rail, measured
with a rail thermometer.
(9) Tight/kinky rail means CWR which exhibits minute alinement
irregularities which indicate that the rail is in a considerable amount
of compression.
(10) Train-induced forces means the vertical, longitudinal, and
lateral dynamic forces which are generated during train movement and
which can contribute to the buckling potential.
(11) Track lateral resistance means the resistance provided to the
rail/crosstie structure against lateral displacement.
(12) Track longitudinal resistance means the resistance provided by
the rail anchors/rail fasteners and the ballast section to the rail/
crosstie structure against longitudinal displacement.

Sec. 213.345 Vehicle qualification testing.

(a) All rolling stock types which operate at Class 6 speeds and
above shall be qualified for operation for their intended track classes
in order to demonstrate that the vehicle dynamic response to track
alinement and geometry variations are within acceptable limits to
assure safe operation. Rolling stock operating in Class 6 within one
year prior to the promulgation of this subpart shall be considered as
being successfully qualified for Class 6 track and vehicles presently
operating at Class 7 speeds by reason of conditional waivers shall be
considered as qualified for Class 7.
(b) The qualification testing shall ensure that, at any speed less
than 10 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum operating speed, the
equipment will not exceed the wheel/rail force safety limits and the
truck lateral accelerations

[[Page 34051]]

specified in Sec. 213.333, and the testing shall demonstrate the
following:
(1) The vertical acceleration, as measured by a vertical
accelerometer mounted on the car floor, shall be limited to no greater
than 0.55g single event, peak-to-peak.
(2) The lateral acceleration, as measured by a lateral
accelerometer mounted on the car floor, shall be limited to no greater
than 0.3g single event, peak-to-peak; and
(3) The combination of the lateral acceleration (L) and the
vertical acceleration (V) within any period of two consecutive seconds
as expressed by the square root of (V² + L²)
shall be limited to no greater than 0.604, where L may not exceed 0.3g
and V may not exceed 0.55g.
(c) To obtain the test data necessary to support the analysis
required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the track owner
shall have a test plan which shall consider the operating practices and
conditions, signal system, road crossings and trains on adjacent tracks
during testing. The track owner shall establish a target maximum
testing speed (at least 10 m.p.h. above the maximum proposed operating
speed) and target test and operating conditions and conduct a test
program sufficient to evaluate the operating limits of the track and
equipment. The test program shall demonstrate vehicle dynamic response
as speeds are incrementally increased from acceptable Class 6 limits to
the target maximum test speeds. The test shall be suspended at that
speed where any of the safety limits specified in paragraph (b) are
exceeded.
(d) At the end of the test, when maximum safe operating speed is
known along with permissible levels of cant deficiency, an additional
run shall be made with the subject equipment over the entire route
proposed for revenue service at the speeds the railroad will request
FRA to approve for such service and a second run again at 10 m.p.h.
above this speed. A report of the test procedures and results shall be
submitted to FRA upon the completions of the tests. The test report
shall include the design flange angle of the equipment which shall be
used for the determination of the lateral to vertical wheel load safety
limit for the track/vehicle interaction safety measurements required
per Sec. 213.333(k).
(e) As part of the submittal required in paragraph (d) of the
section, the operator shall include an analysis and description of the
signal system and operating practices to govern operations in Classes 7
and 8. This statement shall include a statement of sufficiency in these
areas for the class of operation. Operation at speeds in excess of 150
m.p.h. is authorized only in conjunction with a rule of particular
applicability addressing other safety issues presented by the system.
(f) Based on test results and submissions, FRA will approve a
maximum train speed and value of cant deficiency for revenue service.

Sec. 213.347 Automotive or railroad crossings at grade.

(a) There shall be no at-grade (level) highway crossings, public or
private, or rail-to-rail crossings at-grade on Class 8 and 9 track.
(b) If train operation is projected at Class 7 speed for a track
segment that will include rail-highway grade crossings, the track owner
shall submit for FRA's approval a complete description of the proposed
warning/barrier system to address the protection of highway traffic and
high speed trains. Trains shall not operate at Class 7 speeds over any
track segment having highway-rail grade crossings unless:
(1) An FRA-approved warning/barrier system exists on that track
segment; and
(2) All elements of that warning/barrier system are functioning.

Sec. 213.349 Rail end mismatch.

Any mismatch of rails at joints may not be more than that
prescribed by the following table--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any mismatch of rails at
joints may not be more than
the following--
-------------------------------
Class of track On the gage
On the tread side of the
of the rail rail ends
ends (inch) (inch)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6, 7, 8 and 9..................... \1/8\ \1/8\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 213.351 Rail joints.

(a) Each rail joint, insulated joint, and compromise joint shall be
of a structurally sound design and dimensions for the rail on which it
is applied.
(b) If a joint bar is cracked, broken, or because of wear allows
excessive vertical movement of either rail when all bolts are tight, it
shall be replaced.
(c) If a joint bar is cracked or broken between the middle two bolt
holes it shall be replaced.
(d) Each rail shall be bolted with at least two bolts at each
joint.
(e) Each joint bar shall be held in position by track bolts
tightened to allow the joint bar to firmly support the abutting rail
ends and to allow longitudinal movement of the rail in the joint to
accommodate expansion and contraction due to temperature variations.
When no-slip, joint-to-rail contact exists by design, the requirements
of this section do not apply. Those locations, when over 400 feet long,
are considered to be continuous welded rail track and shall meet all
the requirements for continuous welded rail track prescribed in this
subpart.
(f) No rail shall have a bolt hole which is torch cut or burned.
(g) No joint bar shall be reconfigured by torch cutting.

Sec. 213.352 Torch cut rail.

(a) Except as a temporary repair in emergency situations no rail
having a torch cut end shall be used. When a rail end with a torch cut
is used in emergency situations, train speed over that rail shall not
exceed the maximum allowable for Class 2 track. All torch cut rail ends
in Class 6 shall be removed within six months of September 21, 1998.
(b) Following the expiration of the time limits specified in
paragraph (a) of this section, any torch cut rail end not removed shall
be removed within 30 days of discovery. Train speed over that rail
shall not exceed the maximum allowable for Class 2 track until removed.

Sec. 213.353 Turnouts, crossovers and lift rail assemblies or other
transition devices on moveable bridges.

(a) In turnouts and track crossings, the fastenings must be intact
and maintained so as to keep the components securely in place. Also,
each switch, frog, and guard rail shall be kept free of obstructions
that may interfere with the passage of wheels. Use of rigid rail
crossings at grade is limited per Sec. 213.347.

[[Page 34052]]

(b) Track shall be equipped with rail anchoring through and on each
side of track crossings and turnouts, to restrain rail movement
affecting the position of switch points and frogs. Elastic fasteners
designed to restrict longitudinal rail movement are considered rail
anchoring.
(c) Each flangeway at turnouts and track crossings shall be at
least 1\1/2\ inches wide.
(d) For all turnouts and crossovers, and lift rail assemblies or
other transition devices on moveable bridges, the track owner shall
prepare an inspection and maintenance Guidebook for use by railroad
employees which shall be submitted to the Federal Railroad
Administration. The Guidebook shall contain at a minimum--
(1) Inspection frequency and methodology including limiting
measurement values for all components subject to wear or requiring
adjustment.
(2) Maintenance techniques.
(e) Each hand operated switch shall be equipped with a redundant
operating mechanism for maintaining the security of switch point
position.

Sec. 213.355 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage.

The guard check and guard face gages in frogs shall be within the
limits prescribed in the following table--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guard check gage--The distance
between the gage line of a frog
to the guard line ^{1 of its Guard face gage--The distance between
Class of track guard rail or guarding face, guard lines,^{1 measured across the
measured across the track at track at right angles to the gage
right angles to the gage line,^{2 line,^{2 may not be more than--
may not be less than--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 6 track........................... 4' 6\1/2\''.................... 4' 5''
Class 7 track........................... 4' 6\1/2\''.................... 4' 5''
Class 8 track........................... 4' 6\1/2\''.................... 4' 5''
Class 9 track........................... 4' 6\1/2\''.................... 4' 5''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{1 A line along that side of the flangeway which is nearer to the center of the track and at the same elevation
as the gage line.
^{2 A line \5/8\ inch below the top of the center line of the head of the running rail, or corresponding location
of the tread portion of the track structure.

Sec. 213.357 Derails.

(a) Each track, other than a main track, which connects with a
Class 7, 8 or 9 main track shall be equipped with a functioning derail
of the correct size and type, unless railroad equipment on the track,
because of grade characteristics cannot move to foul the main track.
(b) For the purposes of this section, a derail is a device which
will physically stop or divert movement of railroad rolling stock or
other railroad on-track equipment past the location of the device.
(c) Each derail shall be clearly visible. When in a locked
position, a derail shall be free of any lost motion which would prevent
it from performing its intended function.
(d) Each derail shall be maintained to function as intended.
(e) Each derail shall be properly installed for the rail to which
it is applied.
(f) If a track protected by a derail is occupied by standing
railroad rolling stock, the derail shall be in derailing position.
(g) Each derail on a track which is connected to a Class 7, 8 or 9
main track shall be interconnected with the signal system.

Sec. 213.359 Track stiffness.

(a) Track shall have a sufficient vertical strength to withstand
the maximum vehicle loads generated at maximum permissible train
speeds, cant deficiencies and surface defects. For purposes of this
section, vertical track strength is defined as the track capacity to
constrain vertical deformations so that the track shall return
following maximum load to a configuration in compliance with the
vehicle/track interaction safety limits and geometry requirements of
this subpart.
(b) Track shall have sufficient lateral strength to withstand the
maximum thermal and vehicle loads generated at maximum permissible
train speeds, cant deficiencies and lateral alinement defects. For
purposes of this section lateral track strength is defined as the track
capacity to constrain lateral deformations so that track shall return
following maximum load to a configuration in compliance with the
vehicle/track interaction safety limits and geometry requirements of
this subpart.

Sec. 213.361 Right of way.

The track owner in Class 8 and 9 shall submit a barrier plan,
termed a ``right-of-way plan,'' to the Federal Railroad Administration
for approval. At a minimum, the plan will contain provisions in areas
of demonstrated need for the prevention of--
(a) Vandalism;
(b) Launching of objects from overhead bridges or structures into
the path of trains; and
(c) Intrusion of vehicles from adjacent rights of way.

Sec. 213.365 Visual inspections.

(a) All track shall be visually inspected in accordance with the
schedule prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section by a person
designated under Sec. 213.305.
(b) Each inspection shall be made on foot or by riding over the
track in a vehicle at a speed that allows the person making the
inspection to visually inspect the track structure for compliance with
this part. However, mechanical, electrical, and other track inspection
devices may be used to supplement visual inspection. If a vehicle is
used for visual inspection, the speed of the vehicle may not be more
than 5 miles per hour when passing over track crossings and turnouts,
otherwise, the inspection vehicle speed shall be at the sole discretion
of the inspector, based on track conditions and inspection
requirements. When riding over the track in a vehicle, the inspection
will be subject to the following conditions--
(1) One inspector in a vehicle may inspect up to two tracks at one
time provided that the inspector's visibility remains unobstructed by
any cause and that the second track is not centered more than 30 feet
from the track upon which the inspector is riding;
(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may inspect up to four tracks at
a time provided that the inspector's visibility remains unobstructed by
any cause and that each track being inspected is centered within 39
feet from the track upon which the inspectors are riding;

[[Page 34053]]

(3) Each main track is actually traversed by the vehicle or
inspected on foot at least once every two weeks, and each siding is
actually traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot at least once
every month. On high density commuter railroad lines where track time
does not permit an on track vehicle inspection, and where track centers
are 15 foot or less, the requirements of this paragraph (b)(3) will not
apply; and
(4) Track inspection records shall indicate which track(s) are
traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot as outlined in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section.
(c) Each track inspection shall be made in accordance with the
following schedule--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track Required frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6, 7, and 8............................ Twice weekly with at least 2
calendar-day's interval
between inspections.
9...................................... Three times per week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) If the person making the inspection finds a deviation from the
requirements of this part, the person shall immediately initiate
remedial action.
(e) Each switch, turnout, crossover, and lift rail assemblies on
moveable bridges shall be inspected on foot at least weekly. The
inspection shall be accomplished in accordance with the Guidebook
required under Sec. 213.353.
(f) In track Classes 8 and 9, if no train traffic operates for a
period of eight hours, a train shall be operated at a speed not to
exceed 100 miles per hour over the track before the resumption of
operations at the maximum authorized speed.

Sec. 213.367 Special inspections.

In the event of fire, flood, severe storm, temperature extremes or
other occurrence which might have damaged track structure, a special
inspection shall be made of the track involved as soon as possible
after the occurrence and, if possible, before the operation of any
train over that track.

Sec. 213.369 Inspection records.

(a) Each owner of track to which this part applies shall keep a
record of each inspection required to be performed on that track under
this subpart.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each
record of an inspection under Sec. 213.365 shall be prepared on the day
the inspection is made and signed by the person making the inspection.
Records shall specify the track inspected, date of inspection, location
and nature of any deviation from the requirements of this part, and the
remedial action taken by the person making the inspection. The owner
shall designate the location(s) where each original record shall be
maintained for at least one year after the inspection covered by the
record. The owner shall also designate one location, within 100 miles
of each state in which they conduct operations, where copies of record
which apply to those operations are either maintained or can be viewed
following 10 days notice by the Federal Railroad Administration.
(c) Rail inspection records shall specify the date of inspection,
the location and nature of any internal defects found, the remedial
action taken and the date thereof, and the location of any intervals of
track not tested per Sec. 213.339(d). The owner shall retain a rail
inspection record for at least two years after the inspection and for
one year after remedial action is taken.
(d) Each owner required to keep inspection records under this
section shall make those records available for inspection and copying
by the Federal Railroad Administrator.
(e) For purposes of compliance with the requirements of this
section, an owner of track may maintain and transfer records through
electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval provided that--
(1) The electronic system be designed such that the integrity of
each record maintained through appropriate levels of security such as
recognition of an electronic signature, or other means, which uniquely
identify the initiating person as the author of that record. No two
persons shall have the same electronic identity;
(2) The electronic storage of each record shall be initiated by the
person making the inspection within 24 hours following the completion
of that inspection;
(3) The electronic system shall ensure that each record cannot be
modified in any way, or replaced, once the record is transmitted and
stored;
(4) Any amendment to a record shall be electronically stored apart
from the record which it amends. Each amendment to a record shall be
uniquely identified as to the person making the amendment;
(5) The electronic system shall provide for the maintenance of
inspection records as originally submitted without corruption or loss
of data; and
(6) Paper copies of electronic records and amendments to those
records, that may be necessary to document compliance with this part,
shall be made available for inspection and copying by the FRA and track
inspectors responsible under Sec. 213.305. Such paper copies shall be
made available to the track inspectors and at the locations specified
in paragraph (b) of this section.
(7) Track inspection records shall be kept available to persons who
performed the inspection and to persons performing subsequent
inspections.
(f) Each vehicle/track interaction safety record required under
Sec. 213.333 (g), and (m) shall be made available for inspection and
copying by the FRA at the locations specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.

Appendix A to Part 213--Maximum Allowable Curving Speeds

Table 1.--Three Inches Unbalance
[Elevation of outer rail (inches)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of curvature 0 \1/2\ 1 1\1/2\ 2 2\1/2\ 3 3\1/2\ 4 4\1/2\ 5 5\1/2\ 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12)Maximum allowable operating
speed (mph)

0 deg.30'.......................... 93 100 107 113 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160
0 deg.40'.......................... 80 87 93 98 103 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139
0 deg.50'.......................... 72 78 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124
1 deg.00'.......................... 66 71 76 80 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113
1 deg.15'.......................... 59 63 68 72 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101
1 deg.30'.......................... 54 58 62 66 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93
1 deg.45'.......................... 50 54 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86
2 deg.00'.......................... 46 50 54 57 60 63 66 68 71 73 76 78 80
2 deg.15'.......................... 44 47 50 54 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 74 76
2 deg.30'.......................... 41 45 48 51 54 56 59 61 63 66 68 70 72
2 deg.45'.......................... 40 43 46 48 51 54 56 58 60 62 65 66 68
3 deg.00'.......................... 38 41 44 46 49 51 54 56 58 60 62 64 66

[[Page 34054]]

3 deg.15'.......................... 36 39 42 45 47 49 51 54 56 57 59 61 63
3 deg.30'.......................... 35 38 40 43 45 47 50 52 54 55 57 59 61
3 deg.45'.......................... 34 37 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 54 55 57 59
4 deg.00'.......................... 33 35 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 55 57
4 deg.30'.......................... 31 33 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 54
5 deg.00'.......................... 29 32 34 36 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51
5 deg.30'.......................... 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 41 43 44 46 47 48
6 deg.00'.......................... 27 29 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46
6 deg.30'.......................... 26 28 30 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 45
7 deg.00........................... 25 27 29 30 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43
8 deg.00'.......................... 23 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40
9 deg.00'.......................... 22 24 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38
10 deg.00'......................... 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36
11 deg.00'......................... 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
12 deg.00'......................... 19 20 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Four Inches Unbalance
[Elevation of outer rail (inches)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of curvature 0 \1/2\ 1 1\1/2\ 2 2\1/2\ 3 3\1/2\ 4 4\1/2\ 5 5\1/2\ 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12)Maximum allowable operating
speed (mph)
0 deg.30'.......................... 107 113 120 125 131 136 141 146 151 156 160 165 169
0 deg.40'.......................... 93 98 104 109 113 118 122 127 131 135 139 143 146
0 deg.50'.......................... 83 88 93 97 101 106 110 113 117 121 124 128 131
1 deg.00'.......................... 76 80 85 89 93 96 100 104 107 110 113 116 120
1 deg.15'.......................... 68 72 76 79 83 86 89 93 96 99 101 104 107
1 deg.30'.......................... 62 65 69 72 76 79 82 85 87 90 93 95 98
1 deg.45'.......................... 57 61 64 67 70 73 76 78 81 83 86 88 90
2 deg.00'.......................... 53 57 60 63 65 68 71 73 76 78 80 82 85
2 deg.15'.......................... 50 53 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 76 78 80
2 deg.30'.......................... 48 51 53 56 59 61 63 65 68 70 72 74 76
2 deg.45'.......................... 46 48 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
3 deg.00'.......................... 44 46 49 51 53 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69
3 deg.15'.......................... 42 44 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66
3 deg.30'.......................... 40 43 45 47 49 52 53 55 57 59 61 62 64
3 deg.45'.......................... 39 41 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 59 60 62
4 deg.00'.......................... 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 60
4 deg.30'.......................... 36 38 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 52 53 55 56
5 deg.00'.......................... 34 36 38 40 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53
5 deg.30'.......................... 32 34 36 38 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51
6 deg.00'.......................... 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 46 48 49
6 deg.30'.......................... 30 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 47
7 deg.00'.......................... 29 30 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 45
8 deg.00'.......................... 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 42
9 deg.00'.......................... 25 27 28 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40
10 deg.00'......................... 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
11 deg.00'......................... 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
12 deg.00'......................... 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B to Part 213--Schedule of Civil Penalties

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willful
Section Violation Violation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A--General:
213.4(a) Excepted track \2\......... $2,500 $5,000
213.4(b) Excepted track \2\......... 2,500 5,000
213.4(c) Excepted track \2\......... 2,500 5,000
213.4(d) Excepted track \2\......... 2,500 5,000
213.4(e):
(1) Excepted track \2\.......... 5,000 7,500
(2) Excepted track \2\.......... 7,000 10,000
(3) Excepted track \2\.......... 7,000 10,000
(4) Excepted track \2\.......... 5,000 7,500
213.4(f) Excepted track............. 2,000 4,000
213.7 Designation of qualified
persons to supervise certain
renewals and inspect track......... 1,000 2,000
213.9 Classes of track: Operating
speed limits....................... 2,500 2,500
213.11 Restoration or renewal of
track under traffic conditions..... 2,500 2,500
213.13 Measuring track not under
load............................... 1,000 2,000
Subpart B--Roadbed:
213.33 Drainage..................... 2,500 5,000
213.37 Vegetation................... 1,000 2,000

[[Page 34055]]

Subpart C--Track Geometry:
213.53 Gage......................... 5,000 7,500
13.55 Alinement..................... 5,000 7,500
213.57 Curves; elevation and speed
limitations........................ 2,500 5,000
213.59 Elevation of curved track;
runoff............................. 2,500 2,500
213.63 Track surface.................... 5,000 7,500
Subpart D--Track surface:
213.103 Ballast; general............ 2,500 5,000
213.109 Crossties
(a) Material used............... 1,000 2,000
(b) Distribution of ties........ 2,500 5,000
(c) Sufficient number of
nondefective ties.............. 1,000 2,000
(d) Joint ties.................. 2,500 5,000
(e) Track constructed without
crossties...................... 2,500 5,000
213.113 Defective rails............. 5,000 7,500
213.115 Rail end mismatch........... 2,500 5,000
213.119 Continuous welded rail
(a) through (h)................. 5,000 7,500
213.121 (a) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.121 (b) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.121 (c) Rail joints............. 5,000 7,500
213.121 (d) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.121 (e) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.121 (f) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.121 (g) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.121 (h) Rail joints............. 5,000 7,500
213.122 Torch cut rail.............. 2,500 5,000
213.123 Tie plates.................. 1,000 2,000
213.127 Rail fastenings............. 2,500 5,000
213.133 Turnouts and track
crossings, generally............... 1,000 1,000
213.135 Switches:
(a) through (g)................. 2,500 5,000
(h) chipped or worn points...... 5,000 7,500
213.137 Frogs....................... 2,500 5,000
213.139 Spring rail frogs........... 2,500 5,000
213.141 Self-guarded frogs.......... 2,500 5,000
213.143 Frog guard rails and guard
faces; gage........................ 2,500 5,000
Subpart E--Track appliances and track-
related devices:
213.205 Derails..................... 2,500 5,000
Subpart F--Inspection:
213.233 Track inspections........... 2,000 4,000
213.235 Switches, crossings,
transition devices................. 2,000 4,000
213.237 Inspection of rail.......... 2,500 5,000
213.239 Special inspections......... 2,500 5,000
213.241 Inspection records.......... 1,000 1,000
Subpart G--High Speed:
213.305 Designation of qualified
individuals; general qualifications 1,000 2,000
213.307 Class of track; operating
speed limits....................... 2,500 5,000
213.309 Restoration or renewal of
track under traffic conditions..... 2,500 5,000
213.311 Measuring track not under
load............................... 1,000 2,000
213.319 Drainage.................... 2,500 5,000
213.321 Vegetation.................. 1,000 2,000
213.323 Track gage.................. 5,000 7,500
213.327 Alinement................... 5,000 7,500
213.329 Curves, elevation and speed
limits............................. 2,500 5,000
213.331 Track surface............... 5,000 7,500
213.333 Automated vehicle inspection
systems............................ 5,000 7,500
213.335 Crossties
(a) Material used............... 1,000 2,000
(b) Distribution of ties........ 2,500 5,000
(c) Sufficient number of
nondefective ties, non-concrete 1,000 2,000
(d) Sufficient number of
nondefective concrete ties..... 1,000 2,000
(e) Joint ties.................. 2,500 5,000
(f) Track constructed without
crossties...................... 2,500 5,000
(g) Non-defective ties
surrounding defective ties..... 2,500 5,000
(h) Tie plates.................. 2,500 5,000
(i) Tie plates.................. 1,000 2,000
213.337 Defective rails............. 5,000 7,500
213.339 Inspection of rail in
service............................ 2,500 5,000
213.341 Inspection of new rail...... 2,500 5,000
213.343 Continuous welded rail (a)
through (h)........................ 5,000 7,500
213.345 Vehicle qualification
testing (a) through (b)............ 5,000 7,500
(c) through (e)................. 2,500 5,000

[[Page 34056]]

213.347 Automotive or railroad
crossings at grade................. 5,000 7,500
213.349 Rail end mismatch........... 2,500 5,000
213.351 (a) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.351 (b) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.351 (c) Rail joints............. 5,000 7,500
213.351 (d) Rail joints............ 2,500 5,000
213.351 (e) Rail joints............. 2,500 5,000
213.351 (f) Rail joints............. 5,000 7,500
213.351 (g) Rail joints............. 5,000 7,500
213. 352 Torch cut rails............ 2,500 5,000
213.353 Turnouts, crossovers,
transition devices................. 1,000 2,000
213.355 Frog guard rails and guard
faces; gage........................ 2,500 5,000
213.357 Derails..................... 2,500 5,000
213.359 Track stiffness............. 5,000 7,500
213.361 Right of way................ 5,000 7,500
213.365 Visual inspections.......... 2,500 5,000
213.367 Special inspections......... 2,500 5,000
213.369 Inspections records......... 2,000 4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a willful
violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a penalty of
up to $22,000 for any violation where circumstances warrant. See 49
CFR Part 209, Appendix A.
\2\ In addition to assessment of penalties for each instance of
noncompliance with the requirements identified by this footnote, track
segments designated as excepted track that are or become ineligible
for such designation by virtue of noncompliance with any of the
requirements to which this footnote applies are subject to all other
requirements of Part 213 until such noncompliance is remedied.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 10, 1998.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-15932 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}