[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1943-1945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain 
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is 
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory 
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the 
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Association of American Railroads; (Waiver Petition Docket Number 
FRA-1999-5104)

    The Association of American Railroads (AAR) seeks a waiver of 
compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety 
Standards. Specifically, the petitioner seeks relief from the 
requirements of Sec. 213.137(d), to use flange-bearing frogs (FBF) in 
crossing diamonds on Classes 2 through 5 track in revenue service. 
Currently, the standards allow FBFs only in Class 1 track.
    Specifically, Sec. 213.137(a) limits the flangeway depth measured 
from a plane across the wheel-bearing area of a frog on Class 1 track 
to not less than 1\3/8\ inch and 1\1/2\ inches on Classes 2 through 5 
track. Section 213.137(d) states that where frogs are designed as 
flange-bearing, flangeway depth may be less than that shown for Class 1 
if operated at Class 3 speeds. AAR seeks a waiver from Sec. 213.137(d) 
to allow the use of FBFs in Track Classes 2 through 5 in addition to 
Class 1.
    AAR's petition states that it seeks the waiver in order to improve 
safety. The petition discusses the development of the recently revised 
federal Track Safety Standards and states that at the time of the 
discussions by the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (an industry 
committee which recommended revisions to the track standards), AAR had 
not completed its tests on the FBFs at higher speeds. AAR says those 
tests have now been completed and support application of Section 213.
    The petition proposes that up to five FBF crossing diamond 
installations be permitted during the first six-month period with one 
installation subject to wheel inspection. AAR proposes that the first 
FBF crossing diamond for use above Class 1 speeds be installed by the 
industry, after FRA's approval of this waiver petition, in a location 
where speeds of 40 mph or greater are allowed in at least one direction 
over the diamond.
    While the railroad industry feels that the recent Facility for 
Accelerated Service Testing (FAST) tests, as well as earlier tests at 
AAR's Transportation Technology Center (TTC), provided a much more 
severe test on wheels than would ever occur in revenue service, the 
industry said it is ``willing to monitor wheels for the first FBF 
crossing diamond if FRA believes such monitoring is necessary.'' Wheels 
of at least 10 cars (80 wheels) of one dedicated group of cars (most 
likely on a unit train that cycles on a pre-determined route using the 
diamond) would be used. A cut of cars included

[[Page 1944]]

in a train carrying other commodities could also be used.
    AAR's petition states that the wheels would be monitored by visual 
inspection and by taking profiles of flanges. Reports on these wheels 
would be forwarded to FRA three months, six months, one year and two 
years following installation of the FBF crossing diamond. Reports on 
the condition of the first diamond itself would be forwarded to FRA at 
the same time intervals. AAR proposes that not more than four 
additional FBF crossing diamonds be installed within the first six 
months after the initial installation. The railroads would notify FRA 
at least thirty days in advance of the installation of each FBF 
crossing diamond. This notification would include the location, train 
MGT, speed and train types (intermodal, mixed freight, unit coal, 
passenger, etc.) for each of the crossing tracks, as well as plans and 
specifications for the crossing diamond itself. Six months after the 
first FBF crossing diamond enters service, additional FBF diamonds 
beyond the first five could be installed. For each such location, the 
industry would provide FRA with the same train and diamond design 
information on the first five FBF crossing diamonds thirty days in 
advance of installation.
    Each new FBF crossing diamond would be inspected on foot daily for 
the first five days of service and on foot weekly thereafter for the 
first year of service. After this, inspection would be at the normal 
inspection interval for track crossings in accordance with Sec. 213.235 
of the Federal Track Safety Standards.
    In support of its argument, AAR's petition states that there are 
two major safety advantages created by the use of FBF crossing diamonds 
instead of the conventional tread-bearing diamonds. AAR's petition also 
states that first advantage is the elimination of adverse effects on 
track, locomotives and railroad cars caused by rolling stock passing 
over the eight 2-inch gaps in the running rail surface of conventional 
diamonds where two tracks cross on the level. According to the 
petition, the vertical impacts at conventional crossing diamonds are 
the highest found in railroad service, other than in derailments. AAR's 
petition states that the second safety advantage is a result of the 
introduction of residual compressive stresses in the flange tip of the 
wheel due to cold working. AAR believes that this can prevent any crack 
opening and, therefore, retard wheel crack growth, which could lead to 
wheel failure. In an attachment to the petition, AAR included a 
technical report concerning the ``lack of significant impact loads due 
to the transition from tread-bearing to flange-bearing diamonds.''
    AAR's petition also states that FRA currently permits the use of 
the FBF concept. AAR says that the proposal for FBFs is not a radical 
change because the concept is already in use. AAR's petition states 
that it has been widely used on rail transit lines now under the 
Federal Transit Authority's jurisdiction for more than a century, not 
only where tracks cross, but also for turnout frogs and, in some cases, 
switches. For example, FBF use is the current practice on light rail 
lines in Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto, New Orleans, San Francisco, 
Galveston, Memphis and other cities.
    AAR says that FRA permits the flange-bearing concept in some cases 
now, and it was also permitted prior to the recent revisions to the 
track safety standards. FRA allows flange depth at 10 mph (15 mph 
passenger) to be 1\3/8\ inches (See 49 CFR 213.137(as)), even though 
flanges are allowed to be 1\1/2\ inches under current freight car 
standards. The petition goes on to state that even at speeds up to 90 
mph, flangeways are only required to be 1\1/2\ inches deep, which means 
that with the most minute variations, flange-bearing will occur. The 
petition states that the track standards ``properly'' allow flanges to 
ride on the tops of joint bars at any speed as this condition has not 
been shown to cause safety problems. Yet, this condition is more severe 
than designed flange-bearing because of the sudden impact from the 
flange hitting the end of the joint bar.
    The petition states that in addition, FBFs are used and have been 
used for over a century when regular railroad tracks cross double-
flanged gantry crane rails in port facilities. AAR's petition states 
that this is a standard way of handling such crossings and exists at 
numerous ports. For example, at Savannah, Norfolk Southern locomotives 
and crews make dozens and perhaps hundreds of flange-bearing crossings 
per day and have done so for decades with no adverse safety effect or 
wheel problems.
    AAR's petition states that FRA has no prohibition against flange-
bearing in general, only with respect to frogs. According to the 
petition, the railroads are free to install the flange-bearing switches 
that exist on some transit properties (where the switch points provide 
guidance but do not support vertical loads) and flange-bearing weight 
scales (offered for sale by European manufacturers).
    AAR's petition states that extensive full-scale testing of the FBF 
concept has been performed by them at speeds up to 80 mph to prove the 
safety of the FBF concept. The petition included a summary of the 
safety issues evaluated during the full-scale testing. AAR testing 
included a wheel ``torture test'' involving overheating, locked brakes 
and other items when the test over the flange-bearing sections took 
place. According to AAR's petition, the results of the tests provided 
convincing evidence of the safety of the concept, and the use of wheels 
in flange-bearing was approved by AAR's Wheel, Axle, Bearing and 
Lubrication (WABL) Committee in 1997.
    AAR says that extensive tests also took place on locomotives. The 
first test was performed at AAR's Chicago Track Lab in early 1995 (This 
facility has since been moved to Pueblo). These tests involved 10,000 
passes of a 263,000 pound car over flange-bearing sections and caused 
no adverse effects.
    The second series of tests were performed from 1995 through 1997. 
These tests involved severe braking and high wheel temperatures with 
cars up to 315,000 pounds at 60 mph, as well as passenger and other 
equipment at speeds up to 80 mph. This series of tests involved both AC 
and DC locomotives with wheels locked and dragged over the flange-
bearing sections. Some wheels with pre-existing cracks were used, and 
even under these severe conditions, the cracks did not grow.
    Following approval of the flange-bearing concept by the WABL 
Committee in 1997, a decision was made to use the FAST loop for a third 
series of tests at TTC to test specific designs of crossing diamonds 
using the flange-bearing concept. These tests were much more severe 
than present revenue service because nearly all of the cars were 
315,000 pounds with no empties, and the wheels were subjected to a 
frequency of diamond crossings of at least 10 times what would be 
expected in revenue service. According to AAR's report, in these tests, 
the flange-bearing diamond has lasted longer than any other diamond 
design. These tests also showed how FBF diamond designs could be 
further improved for additional durability, primarily through the 
elimination of flange-bearing joints.
    AAR's petition states that with all of this extensive testing 
(documented in attachments) whose cost has run well over one million 
dollars, the crossing diamonds using FBFs have been shown to be 
suitable for revenue service. Other items of trackwork innovation, such 
as swing-nosed frogs and tangential geometry switch points, are 
developed

[[Page 1945]]

by the industry without the need for FRA waivers. AAR states that, of 
course, this type of product improvement will continue with FBFs also.
    In conclusion, the petition states that the granting of this waiver 
request concerning revenue service use of FBF crossing diamonds is 
necessary for implementation of a technological improvement in railway 
engineering.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings 
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate 
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since 
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party 
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in 
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for 
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the 
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number 1999-
5104) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management 
Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this 
notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments 
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All 
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for 
examination during regular business hours (9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.) at the 
above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available 
for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's web 
site at http://dms.dot.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 3, 2000.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 
Development.
[FR Doc. 00-709 Filed 1-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P