Rule2026-17788
Expanding Certain Locomotive Wheel Set Diameter Variations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 31, 2026
Effective
September 30, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Railroad Administration
Abstract
This rule amends FRA's locomotive safety regulations to expand the maximum permitted variation in diameter for locomotive wheel sets using alternating current technology, in response to a Class I railroad's May 2019 petition for rulemaking and innovations in traction motor control.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 167 (Monday, August 31, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55776-55779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17788]
[[Page 55776]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. FRA-2025-0126]
RIN 2130-AD50
Expanding Certain Locomotive Wheel Set Diameter Variations
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends FRA's locomotive safety regulations to expand
the maximum permitted variation in diameter for locomotive wheel sets
using alternating current technology, in response to a Class I
railroad's May 2019 petition for rulemaking and innovations in traction
motor control.
DATES: This rule is effective September 30, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Fairbanks, Staff Director, Motive
Power & Equipment Division, FRA, telephone: (202) 230-9594, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#721513000b5c14131b0010131c190132161d065c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="583f392a21763e39312a3a3936332b183c372c763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>; or Michael Masci, Attorney Adviser, FRA,
telephone: (202) 302-7177, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e78a8e848f86828bc98a8694848ea7838893c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25484c464d4440490b484456464c65414a510b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219,
Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's
``Department of Government Efficiency'' Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR
10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in
49 CFR parts 200 through 299 and repealing requirements that are
outdated and redundant.
On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that proposed to amend 49 CFR 229.73(b) to expand the maximum
permitted variation in diameter for locomotive wheel sets using
alternating current (AC) technology. 90 FR 28658 (July 1, 2025). During
the comment period, which closed on September 2, 2025, FRA received
comments from the following five entities: the American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA); \1\ the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of the Rail Conference of
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET); \2\ the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM
Union); \3\ the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail,
and Transportation Workers--Transportation Division (SMART-TD); \4\ and
the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0007">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0007</a>.
\2\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0005">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0005</a>.
\3\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0003">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0003</a>.
\4\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0004">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0004</a>.
\5\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0006">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0126-0006</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, ASLRRA supports the proposed regulatory change, whereas
BLET, IAM Union, SMART-TD, and TTD oppose the rulemaking. FRA discusses
the comments it received further in the Section-by-Section Analysis of
this final rule.
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 229.73 Wheel Sets
As proposed in the NPRM, in this final rule, FRA is amending
paragraph (b) of this section to expand the maximum permitted variation
in diameter for locomotive wheel sets using AC technology. In May 2019,
Union Pacific Railroad (UP) submitted a petition for rulemaking under
49 CFR part 209 on the basis that ``[n]ew technology with individual
axle control developed and placed in service after 1980 provides the
basis for change which will result in better customer service through a
reduction of locomotive out of service time and increased wheel life
without impacting safety.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ UP's petition for rulemaking is available in Docket No. FRA-
2025-0126 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2025-0126-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2025-0126-0002</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing paragraph (b) of Sec. 229.73 specifies that the maximum
variation in the diameter between any two wheel sets on different
trucks on a locomotive that has three-powered-axle trucks may not
exceed 1\1/4\ inches. This final rule separates the existing
requirement in current paragraph (b) into new paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2), generally continuing the current 1\1/4\-inch maximum variation for
wheel sets on, for example, older locomotives equipped with direct
current (DC) traction motors. This final rule adds a new paragraph
(b)(3), generally allowing a 1\1/2\-inch maximum variation for wheel
sets on newer locomotives equipped with AC traction motors that utilize
individual truck or single axle control technology. New paragraph
(b)(3) eliminates the wheel set variation requirement of this section
for wheel sets on non-powered axles on locomotives equipped with AC
traction motors that utilize individual truck or single axle control
technology because FRA does not expect wheel variation to have a
significant impact on truck dynamics in that case. FRA modified the
final rule text from the NPRM to simplify the language and address a
potential regulatory gap in the proposed framework.
Specifically, FRA decided not to include the proposed reference to
DC traction motors in paragraph (b) in this final rule. The revised
language is intended to help clarify that the existing requirement
(i.e., the default 1\1/4\-inch maximum variation)--now in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2)--continues to apply to wheel sets in general, unless the
wheel sets meet the criteria in new paragraph (b)(3).
In its comments, ASLRRA offers support for this regulatory change
and states that it ``agrees with FRA that this proposal would better
accommodate new technology while maintaining current levels of
safety.'' In addition, ASLRRA notes that short line railroads expect
the change to ``save a tremendous amount of time and additional wheel
cuts on 24-wheel sets in the industry's new fleets of AC traction
systems.''
In its comments, BLET opposes this rulemaking and UP's 2019
petition for rulemaking. BLET expresses concerns about the potential
risks associated with excessive wheel size variation. For example, BLET
states that uneven weight distribution on the trucks can cause an
uneven load and increase the risk of derailment simply due to the
difference in wheel diameters, and that can lead to more wheel slip as
there may be fewer contact points with the rail. BLET states they have
seen documentation from manufacturers recommending less than one inch
of variation in wheel diameters, in contrast to UP's proposed 1\1/2\
inches. BLET expresses interest in the safety studies UP, other Class I
railroads, or FRA, conducted to support an increase in wheel diameter
variation beyond what the manufacturer recommended. BLET indicates its
members believe the current practice at multiple railroads is for AC
locomotives to have a smaller variation in wheel diameter than DC
locomotives.
In its respective comments, the IAM Union and TTD assert that FRA's
existing limit of 1\1/4\ inches reflects sound engineering practice and
remains necessary for safe operation, and raising the limit to 1\1/2\
inches or eliminating it for non-powered axles introduces additional
mechanical risk, contravenes
[[Page 55777]]
manufacturer specifications, and lacks evidentiary justification.
FRA notes that Appendices A and B to UP's petition for rulemaking
include a white paper and presentation by General Electric (GE), the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The document in Appendix A to
UP's petition is titled, ``Expanding the limits of CFR 49 Part 229.73
Wheel Sets for GE AC Traction Single Axle Locomotives (AC4400CW,
ES44AC, ET44AC models),'' and it supports the expanded wheel diameter
variation in this final rule, based on a detailed technical
analysis.\7\ GE presented various simulations of extreme curving
examples and concluded that the derailment coefficients (L/V),\8\ after
increasing the wheel diameter difference from \3/4\ of an inch to 1\1/
2\ inches, were still within FRA's Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety
Limits for GE AC locomotives with individual axle control.\9\ It is not
clear what documentation from other manufacturers BLET, the IAM Union,
and TTD are referencing in their comments, and it is possible that
documentation refers to the existing standards regarding DC-powered
locomotives, which are still applicable and are not rescinded in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GE, FRA Part 229.73 Waiver, For GE North American
Locomotives, White Paper, available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2025-0126-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2025-0126-0002</a>.
\8\ The L/V ratio is the numerical ratio of lateral (L) load
applied at a point on the rail to the vertical (V) load applied at
that same point.
\9\ FRA's Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Limits are listed in
49 CFR 213.333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAM Union asserts that increasing the permissible wheel size
variation to 1\1/2\ inches disregards operational hazards, involving
truck dynamics, bearing and gearbox stress, wheel wear, and adhesion
and control systems, as further described in its comments.\10\ FRA
disagrees that the amendment to 49 CFR 229.73(b) will amplify side-to-
side imbalance, as IAM Union and TTD contend because the amendment does
not modify the standard for wheel diameters on the same axle.
Furthermore, FRA does not understand IAM Union's argument about bearing
and gearbox stress because the diameter of the wheel has no bearing on
lateral tolerances. IAM Union presents no data that the regulatory
amendment will create more wear, rather than less wear and unnecessary
wheel truing, as presented in GE's white paper. The only indication in
GE's white paper that the expanded wheel diameter variation could cause
instability is if the smallest wheelset is the lead wheelset, and the
general practice is never to place the smallest wheelset in the lead
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Similarly, TTD states a quarter-inch expansion beyond the
existing limit amplifies side-to-side imbalance, reducing suspension
effectiveness and increasing derailment risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments, SMART-TD urges FRA to withdraw the proposal and
reinstate the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to provide a
rigorous safety analysis on this subject. FRA appreciates SMART-TD's
support in general for RSAC and agrees that RSAC may be the appropriate
forum for the agency's various stakeholders to exchange information
about certain issues relating to the safety of rail operations in the
future.
In its comments, SMART-TD highlights that FRA acknowledged in the
NPRM that excessive wheel size variation poses risks to wheel slip,
truck dynamics, and ultimately derailment potential. SMART-TD contends
that those risks do not disappear simply because newer locomotives are
equipped with AC traction motors, stating that allowing greater
tolerance in wheel set variation will increase lateral forces, create
more vibration, and cause greater truck instability. According to
SMART-TD, this instability translates directly into a rougher ride in
the locomotive cab, amplifying shocks and lateral motion that its
members endure for long hours on duty.
FRA disagrees with SMART-TD's comment because it fails to consider
the safety benefit of axle control technology on wheel slip and truck
dynamics. Section 229.73(b)(3) in this final rule permits increased
wheel variation for only wheel sets ``on locomotives equipped with
alternating current traction motors that utilize individual truck or
single axle control technology.'' As explained in GE's white paper, the
axle control technology mitigates any safety risks caused by the small
increase in wheel size variation permitted in this final rule. GE
asserts that its traction ``locomotives with individual axle control
utilize a wheel slip control system which includes one speed sensor per
traction motor. Each traction motor is powered by an exclusive inverter
which applies a frequency and voltage appropriate for the wheel
diameter and vehicle speed.'' \11\ GE explains further that the
``inverter for each axle regulates tractive effort regardless of the
other axles so variation in axle to axle wheel diameters do not result
in tractive effort or current imbalance risk nor a shift in the thermal
duty toward any traction motors due to its axle's wheel diameter.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GE White Paper at 18.
\12\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA's Motive Power and Equipment (MP&E) Compliance Manual
reiterates that Sec. 229.73, Wheel sets, applies only to three-
powered-axle trucks.\13\ FRA's MP&E Compliance Manual also acknowledges
that the wheel slip control system brings into play either manual
sanding by the engineer or automatic sanding triggered as the response
to arrest the wheel slip, and in either case, sanding may substantially
increase the ratio of lateral to vertical forces creating a derailment
possibility. However, GE maintains that ``variation in axle to axle
wheel diameters do not impair the wheel slip control system nor
influence the automatic sanding in a manner which would increase the
use of this sand.'' FRA believes this also would not influence the
ratio of lateral to vertical forces. FRA continues to rely on GE's
analysis and is adopting the rule text as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Federal Railroad Administration, Motive Power and Equipment
Compliance Manual (July 2012), available at <a href="https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-05/MPEComplianceManual2013.pdf">https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-05/MPEComplianceManual2013.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMART-TD's comment also asserts that increases to lateral forces,
vibration, and truck instability will result in a rougher ride, but
does not provide any details showing how, or to what extent, these
changes will occur, or explain how any such changes would impact safety
or result in noncompliance with current safety regulations. FRA expects
that any increase in lateral forces, vibration, or truck instability
will be consistent with current levels of railroad safety and is
adopting the rule text as proposed.
In its comments, TTD echoes the comments from BLET, the IAM Union,
and SMART-TD, including opposing the rulemaking and requesting that FRA
withdraw the NPRM. In TTD's view, to increase variation in wheel set
diameter is arbitrary and not based on practical applications in
railroading. TTD argues that FRA has not provided test data, peer-
reviewed studies, or operational safety analyses demonstrating that the
proposed increase to a 1\1/2\-inch wheel diameter variation poses no
additional risk.
Generally, excessive wheel size variation is a safety concern due
to the potential impact on wheel slip and truck dynamics. For older
locomotives equipped with DC traction motors, excessive wheel size
variation causes current imbalance and triggers wheel slip corrections,
including unnecessary sanding, removing tractive effort, and removing
power. These corrections can have adverse effects on the equipment and
efficiency of operations but are necessary to prevent more serious
safety
[[Page 55778]]
hazards like damage to the rail (e.g., rail burn) that can lead to rail
failure. Newer locomotives equipped with AC traction motors utilize
single axle control technology to apply voltage and control current
more precisely to each wheel set based on operating conditions. As
such, the AC traction motors function as an independent wheel slip
correction system that does not use wheel size variation as a trigger
for correction.
Despite the improvements to prevent wheel slip, wheel sets on
locomotives equipped with AC traction motors still need to minimize
wheel size variation to help maintain proper truck dynamics. Excessive
wheel size variation can decrease the effectiveness of weight
distribution from corresponding trucks, and the trucks' inability to
help absorb the impact of a shifting load could lead to a derailment.
III. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FRA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.\14\ The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 49 CFR part 5; see also DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and
Procedures for Rulemakings, available at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-order-21006b-policies-and-procedures-rulemakings">https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-order-21006b-policies-and-procedures-rulemakings</a>; DOT Order 2100.7, Ensuring Reliance Upon
Sound Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation Policies,
Programs, and Activities, available at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ensuring-reliance-upon-sound-economic-analysis-department-transportation-policies-programs">https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ensuring-reliance-upon-sound-economic-analysis-department-transportation-policies-programs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA has considered the potential costs and benefits of this final
rule. This final rule amends FRA's locomotive safety regulations to
expand the maximum permitted variation in diameter for wheel sets using
alternating current technology. FRA expects that this final rule will
result in cost savings to the industry as it will increase a maximum
threshold for certain locomotives under 49 CFR 229.73(b) due to
innovations in traction motor control. This will, in turn, result in a
reduction of locomotive out-of-service time and increased wheel life
without impacting safety. The increased allowable variation will help
reduce the regulatory burden on the railroad industry while maintaining
proper truck dynamics. FRA does not anticipate any costs associated
with this final rule.
B. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires
that for ``each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten
prior regulations be identified for elimination.'' \15\ Implementation
guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26,
2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14192 of
January 31, 2025, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR
9065-9067 (Feb. 6, 2025).
\16\ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget, Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192,
Titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' Memorandum M-
25-20 (Mar. 26, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as ``an action that
has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.'' This final
rule is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore, it
is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this
final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996,\17\
requires a Federal agency to prepare and make available to the public a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and
mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these
businesses. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses,
not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated
and are not dominant in their fields, and government jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, FRA certified that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
No comments were received on this certification.
This final rule will not preclude small entities from continuing
practices that comply with part 229; it merely offers flexibilities
that will result in cost savings, if a small entity or other regulated
entity chooses to utilize those flexibilities. By extending this
regulatory relief, many regulated entities, including small entities,
will experience benefits. FRA does not expect these impacts to be
significant. Consequently, FRA holds to its previous certification that
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it does not
impose any new information collection requirements or modify any
existing information collection requirements. Therefore, an information
collection submission to OMB is not required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
E. Environmental Assessment
FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C.
4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). This
rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any environmental impacts,
and there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances present in
connection with this rulemaking.
F. Federalism Implications
This final rule will not have a substantial effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, Federalism
(64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a Federalism Assessment is
not warranted.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule will not result in the expenditure, in the
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one
year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private
sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required
to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an
expenditure.
H. Energy Impact
E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for
any ``significant
[[Page 55779]]
energy action.'' \18\ FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance
with E.O. 13211 and determined that this final rule is not a
``significant energy action'' within the meaning of E.O. 13211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final
rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
Tribal Governments, and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, the
funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply, and a
tribal summary impact statement is not required.
J. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not
expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business
overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 229
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Final Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 229 of
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 229--RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20137-38, 20143,
20168, 20701-03, 21301-02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR
1.89.
0
2. Amend Sec. 229.73 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 229.73 Wheel sets.
* * * * *
(b) The maximum variation in the diameter between any two wheel
sets (the average diameter of the two wheels on an axle) shall not
exceed the following:
(1) Within the same three-powered-axle truck, \3/4\ inch, except
that when shims are used at the journal box springs to compensate for
wheel diameter variation, the maximum variation may not exceed 1\1/4\
inches.
(2) On different trucks on a locomotive that has three-powered-axle
trucks, 1\1/4\ inches.
(3) For powered axles on locomotives equipped with alternating
current traction motors that utilize individual truck or single axle
control technology, 1\1/2\ inches, with or without shims. For non-
powered axles in the middle of two powered axles, this paragraph (b)
does not apply.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.89.
David A. Fink,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-17788 Filed 8-28-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 31, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.