Classes 1 through 5, and then separately calculate the GWP for track
Classes 6 through 9. The same GWP formula applies, regardless of the
class of track.
    In substituting GWP for GWR, FRA has also made a number of
conforming changes to this section, principally to ensure that the
terminology and references are consistent. These changes are generally
more technical than substantive, and they are neither intended to
diminish nor add to the requirements of this section. In this regard,
as proposed in the NPRM, FRA has corrected the table in paragraph (l)
to renumber the remedial action specified for a second level exception.
The remedial action should have been designated as (1), (2), and (3) in
the ``Remedial action required'' column, consistent with the manner in
which remedial action is specified for a first level exception--not
designated as footnote 2, (1), and (2). In addition, in preparing the
final rule, FRA has reformatted the table to distinguish more clearly
between first level and second level exceptions.
    FRA has also added footnote 5 to this section, as proposed in the
NPRM, stating that ``GRMS equipment using load combinations developing
L/V ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be operated with caution to protect
against the risk of wheel climb by the test wheelset.'' This footnote
is identical in substance to what is now designated as footnote 10
(formerly footnote 7), which applies to Sec.  213.333, Automated
vehicle-based inspection systems, thereby promoting conformity between
this section and its subpart G counterpart.
    Paragraph (e) has been modified from the proposal in the NPRM. In
its comments on the NPRM, Bombardier stated that in proposed paragraph
(e), it appeared that the formula for the extrapolation factor ``A''
may have been incorrect since the lateral load ``L'' and the vertical
load ``V'' were expressed in kips--not pounds. In this regard,
Bombardier also suggested changing the proposed text describing the
24,000-pound lateral load and 33,000-pound vertical load to express the
loads in kips, for consistency. The Task Force concurred with
Bombardier's comments and recommended revising the text and the
equation accordingly. FRA agrees and is adopting the recommended
changes in the final rule text. FRA is also making a conforming change
to this section by modifying the text defining GWP in paragraph (p).
Likewise, in Sec.  213.333(i)(2), FRA is modifying the rule so that the
units are correspondingly stated in kips.
Subpart G--Train Operations at Track Classes 6 and Higher
Section 213.305 Designation of Qualified Individuals; General
Qualifications
    This section recognizes that work on or about a track structure
supporting high-speed train operations demands the highest awareness of
employees of the need to perform their work properly. At the same time,
the wording of this section has literally required that each individual
designated to perform such work know and understand the requirements of
this subpart, detect deviations from those requirements, and prescribe
appropriate remedial action to correct or safely compensate for those
deviations, regardless whether that knowledge, understanding, and
ability with regard to all of subpart G were necessary for that
individual to perform his or her duties. For example, knowledge and
understanding of specific vehicle qualification and testing
requirements may be unnecessary for the performance of a track
inspector's duties.
    As a result, the Task Force recommended and FRA agrees that this
rule clarify that the requirements for a person to be qualified under
subpart G concern those portions of this subpart necessary for the
performance of that person's duties. This section continues to require
that a person designated under it has the knowledge, understanding, and
ability necessary to

supervise the restoration and renewal of subpart G track, or to perform
inspections of subpart G track, or both, for which he or she is
responsible. At the same time, adding the text makes clear that such a
designated person is not required to know or understand specific
requirements of this subpart not necessary to the fulfillment of that
person's duties. FRA does not believe that safety is in any way
diminished by these changes, and they were supported by the Task Force.
FRA believes that these changes reflect what was intended when this
section was established in the 1998 final rule.
Section 213.307 Classes of Track: Operating Speed Limits
    The 1998 final rule added subpart G to provide for the operation of
trains at progressively higher speeds up to 200 m.p.h. over four
separate classes of track--Classes 6 through 9. Standards for the
highest-speed track, Class 9 track, for speeds above 160 m.p.h. up to
200 m.p.h., were established looking ahead to the possibility that
certain operations would achieve those speeds. In addition, a maximum
limit of 160 m.p.h. was established for Class 8 track because trainsets
had operated in this country safely up to that speed for periods of
several months under waivers for testing and evaluation. See 63 FR
34015.
    In developing the NPRM, the Task Force recommended that standards
for Class 9 track be removed from this subpart and that the maximum
allowable speed for Class 8 track be lowered from 160 m.p.h. to 150
m.p.h. Although it was viewed in the 1998 final rule that standards for
Class 9 track were useful benchmarks for future planning with respect
to vehicle/track interaction, track structure, and inspection
requirements, the Task Force noted that operations at speeds in excess
of 150 m.p.h. were authorized by FRA only in conjunction with a rule of
particular applicability (RPA) addressing the overall safety of the
operation as a system, per former footnote 2 of this section. It was
thought that the vehicle/track interaction, track structure, and
inspection requirements in an RPA would likely be specific to both the
operation and the system components used, and track geometry
measurement systems, safety criteria, and safety limits might be quite
different than currently defined. The Task Force therefore recommended
that the safety of operations above 150 m.p.h. be addressed using a
system safety approach and regulated through an RPA specific to the
intended operation, and that the safety parameters in this subpart for
general application to operations above 150 m.p.h. be removed.
    Nonetheless, in the NPRM, FRA explained that it had identified the
continued need for benchmark standards addressing the highest speeds
likely to be achieved by the most forward-looking, high-speed rail
projects. And, as a result, FRA and the Volpe Center had conducted
additional research and vehicle/track interaction simulations at higher
speeds and concluded that Class 9 vehicle/track safety standards can be
safely extended to include the highest speeds proposed to date--speeds
of up to 220 m.p.h. FRA therefore included these standards in the NPRM.
FRA did note its intent to continue its discussions with the Task Force
as any comments were addressed following the publication of the NPRM.
FRA also noted that the Task Force did not consider a comprehensive
revision of all of Subpart G, including those requirements that are not
distinguished by class of track. In addition, FRA stated that the Class
9 standards would remain only as benchmark standards with the
understanding that the final suitability of track safety standards for
operations above 150 m.p.h. would be determined by FRA only after
examination of the entire operating system, including the subject
equipment, track structure, and other system attributes. FRA explained
that direct FRA approval is required for any such high-speed rail
operation, whether through an RPA or another regulatory proceeding.
    As a separate matter, FRA noted that the rule would require the
testing and evaluation of equipment for qualification purposes at a
speed of 5 m.p.h. above the maximum intended operating speed, in
accordance with Sec.  213.345, and that, for example, this would
require equipment intended to operate at Class 8 track's maximum speed
of 160 m.p.h. to be tested at 165 m.p.h. Therefore, FRA made clear that
operating at speeds up to 165 m.p.h. for vehicle qualification purposes
under this subpart would necessarily be permitted to continue on Class
8 track, subject to the requirements for the planning and safe conduct
of such test operations. These test operations are distinct from
service operations on Class 8 track that would be limited to a maximum
speed of 160 m.p.h.
    Finally, FRA proposed to slightly modify the section heading so
that it reads ``Classes of track: operating speed limits,'' using the
plural form of ``class.'' This change is intended to make the section
heading consistent with the heading for Sec.  213.9, the counterpart to
this section for lower-speed track classes.
    In its comments on the NPRM, Bombardier raised concern that FRA had
not adopted the recommendation of the Task Force to remove standards
for Class 9 track and reduce the maximum operating speed for Class 8
track to 150 m.p.h. In particular, Bombardier raised concern that FRA
conducted research without the involvement of the Task Force, and that
one of the principles used by the Task Force for evaluating any changes
to the track geometry standards at high speed or high cant deficiency
was to use representative vehicles that had actually been designed and
qualified for such operations. Bombardier believed that the use of the
Acela power car to determine track geometry standards for Class 9
track, by conducting simulations at 220 m.p.h. and 9 inches of cant
deficiency, was inappropriate since the equipment was designed and
qualified for operation at 150 m.p.h. Bombardier added that appropriate
track geometry safety limits for speeds up to 220 m.p.h. can only be
developed with a vehicle model that has been validated up to that
speed, and that track standards developed based on an invalidated
vehicle model could deter the implementation of some high-speed rail
systems and provide a false sense of security.
    Bombardier also noted that it was unsure what the term ``benchmark
standard'' entails in a regulation and requested that FRA clarify this
issue. Bombardier also asked for clarification as to FRA's statement
that direct FRA approval is required for any such high-speed operation,
whether through an RPA or another regulatory proceeding. Bombardier
asked what other regulatory proceeding can be used, and noted that
former footnote 2 indicated only an RPA proceeding. Bombardier
reiterated the Task Force recommendation to eliminate track Class 9
requirements in all sections and to limit track Class 8 speeds to 150
m.p.h. Bombardier stated that safety standards for speeds above 150
m.p.h. should be contained in an RPA and be based on the maximum
operating speed and specific equipment and track characteristics for
the proposed high-speed rail system.
    FDOT also commented on this section, and referenced the high-speed
rail project then-planned for top speeds of 168 m.p.h. between Tampa
and Orlando, and 186 m.p.h. between Orlando and Miami, Florida. FDOT
understood that because the maximum operating speed would be above 150
m.p.h., the system would be regulated through an RPA that would be
specific to the particular operation and

technology selected for this application. In this light, based on FRA's
discussion in the NPRM and the need for FRA to ascertain the
suitability of Class 9 standards for each proposed high-speed rail
operation, it wasn't clear to FDOT whether the benchmark standards
would prove beneficial or a deterrent to implementing high-speed rail
in the United States. Noting FRA's intent to continue discussion with
the Task Force, FDOT encouraged FRA and the Task Force to resolve any
differences on this issue and to assure that the final rule will be
compatible with the proven high-speed rail technologies and systems
that will be contemplated for the high-speed rail systems planned in
Florida and elsewhere in the United States. FDOT added that a final
rule governing the operation of a high-speed rail system must be based
on a systems approach that includes the characteristics of both the
infrastructure and rolling stock. Consequently, to ensure compatibility
of the various aspects of the system, the governing regulation should
include requirements for such components as ballast and crossties,
according to FDOT, and either be addressed in the Track Safety
Standards or included in the governing RPA. FDOT expected that these
requirements would be based on experience with proven high-speed rail
systems around the world and with rolling stock compatible with ``Tier
V'' operations, as defined in FRA's High-Speed Passenger Rail Safety
Strategy.
    Referencing FRA's mention in the NPRM of ``flying ballast'' as a
potential issue for high-speed rail operations, FDOT also commented
that slab track (ballastless track) is a modern form of track
construction that has been used successfully throughout the world on
various high-speed rail lines and would be considered as an option for
the system then-planned in Florida. FDOT stated that this construction
method not only addresses the flying ballast safety concern raised by
FRA, it also brings several construction advantages and long-term
performance benefits. Consequently, FDOT believed that any regulation
governing high-speed rail operation should address the use of slab
track. However, FDOT noted that it was not clear how this would be
addressed by the NPRM, in that it appeared that the track geometry
measurement systems, safety criteria, and inspection requirements
contained in the NPRM were based on significant experience and
simulations using ballasted track (and FRA-compliant Tier I and Tier II
passenger equipment, in accordance with 49 CFR part 238). FDOT stated
that it is well known that allowable track geometry defects determined
by simulation are highly dependent on both vehicle suspension and track
stiffness characteristics and that, as such, the suitability of the
safety geometry limits contained in the NPRM for high-speed equipment
operating over slab track is very questionable, adding that the
inspection and maintenance requirements for slab track are very
different from those that are required for ballasted track. FDOT
encouraged FRA to address this issue in the final rule or to clarify
that the final rule only governs ballasted track. And, should the
latter be the case, there would be a further need to regulate all
vehicle/track interaction issues where slab track is used through an
RPA.
    The issues of the maximum speed limit for Class 8 track and
standards for Class 9 track were the subject of much discussion within
the Task Force. Ultimately, the Task Force concurred with FRA's
proposal in the NPRM to maintain Class 8 track's maximum speed at 160
m.p.h., retain Class 9 track standards, and increase Class 9 track's
maximum speed to 220 m.p.h. At the same time, the Task Force also
concurred with revising footnote 2 of this section. As revised,
footnote 2 provides that operating speeds in excess of 125 m.p.h. are
authorized by this part only in conjunction with FRA regulatory
approval addressing other safety issues presented by the railroad
system. In addition, footnote 2 also provides that for operations on a
dedicated right-of-way, FRA's regulatory approval may allow for the use
of inspection and maintenance criteria and procedures in the
alternative to those contained in this subpart, based upon a showing
that at least an equivalent level of safety is provided.
    The underlying purpose of footnote 2 is to indicate that compliance
alone with the Track Safety Standards does not authorize operations at
high speeds; other safety issues must be addressed in their own right
for each high-speed rail system as elements of a comprehensive, system-
safety-based regulatory approval and compliance program. While the
reference in former footnote 2 to an RPA for regulating high-speed
operations was appropriate when the Track Safety Standards were amended
in 1998, based on subsequent developments, footnote 2 should more
appropriately state that high-speed operations are subject to FRA
regulatory approval. It is no longer necessary to specify that FRA
regulatory approval be provided through an RPA. Likewise, this footnote
should refer to high-speed rail operations as operations conducted at
speeds above 125 m.p.h.--not 150 m.p.h. Footnote 2 of this section was
added together with the rest of subpart G to the Track Safety Standards
in 1998--the year following FRA's issuance of a proposed RPA to
establish safety standards for the Florida Overland eXpress (FOX) high-
speed rail system. See 62 FR 65478, December 12, 1997. (The FOX
rulemaking was terminated after the State of Florida withdrew financial
support for the project, see 65 FR 50952, August 22, 2000.) Moreover,
subpart G preceded the issuance of the Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards in 1999, which require FRA regulatory approval for the
operation of Tier II passenger equipment, i.e., passenger equipment
operating at speeds above 125 m.p.h. and not exceeding 150 m.p.h. See,
generally, 49 CFR 238.111(b) and 238.501, et seq. Amtrak's Acela
operates at these Tier II speeds, and it has done so for over a decade
through FRA approval. In this regard, FRA makes clear that the
revisions to this footnote neither impose any new requirement on Acela,
nor alter any aspect of FRA's regulatory approval of Acela.
    Further, this very rulemaking on vehicle/track interaction was
initiated before a more recent effort by FRA to consider and develop
standards for the safe operation of another tier of high-speed rail
service. That work is being carried out through the Engineering Task
Force of the same RSAC Passenger Safety Working Group that has overseen
the Vehicle/Track Interaction Task Force. FRA requested that the
Engineering Task Force develop safety recommendations for the operation
of passenger rail equipment at speeds up to 220 m.p.h., focusing on a
new tier of passenger equipment safety standards in part 238: Tier III,
which is predicated on passenger equipment operating in an exclusive
right-of-way at speeds over 125 m.p.h., and in a shared right-of-way
only at speeds not exceeding 125 m.p.h. This new tier of safety
standards is intended to facilitate the nationwide deployment of a
high-speed rail network, both maximizing the benefits inherent in
dedicated high-speed rail operation while minimizing the costs involved
by allowing for the sharing of infrastructure. These standards will
expand FRA's overall regulatory framework for high-speed passenger rail
safety, complementing FRA's existing standards for Tier II high-speed
rail operations on shared rights-of-way. FRA has also been examining,
with the assistance of RSAC, requirements for passenger railroad system
safety planning that would further address safety issues in a
comprehensive way,

and has issued a proposed rule to require commuter and intercity
passenger railroads to develop and implement system safety programs
(see 77 FR 55371; Sept. 7, 2012).
    As noted, the Task Force concurred with the NPRM proposal to
maintain Class 8 track's maximum speed at 160 m.p.h., retain Class 9
track standards, and increase Class 9 track's maximum speed to 220
m.p.h. Each of FRA's track classes is essentially based on the same
foundation, with a set of progressively stricter safety limits as
operating speeds increase. While standards for Class 9 track are the
strictest, they follow the same fundamental approach as for the lowest-
speed class of track, which is essential to support the operation of
different types of rail service on the same track. Class 8 track speeds
up to 160 m.p.h. have been validated not only through computer
modeling, but also through actual testing and experience. FRA believes
that retaining the 160-m.p.h. maximum speed is safe for supporting rail
operations at that speed, given the requirements associated with Class
8 track speeds. Although FRA's passenger equipment safety standards in
part 238 currently do not provide standards for operations above 150
m.p.h., FRA has been engaged in developing new Tier III high-speed
safety standards for operations up to 220 m.p.h., as discussed above.
FRA is also reexamining the current Tier II maximum speed of 150
m.p.h., which was established in 1999, with a view to safely extending
that speed to permit higher-speed Tier II operations.
    In retaining Class 9 track standards and extending the maximum
speed to 220 m.p.h., footnote 2 now provides that for operations above
125 m.p.h. on a dedicated right-of-way, FRA's regulatory approval may
allow for the use of inspection and maintenance criteria and procedures
in the alternative to those contained in this subpart, based upon a
showing that at least an equivalent level of safety is provided. This
addition helps to place in clearer perspective what FRA intended by
describing Class 9 track standards as ``benchmark'' standards in the
NPRM, acknowledging the unique system attributes inherent in a
dedicated right-of-way. Indeed, for this reason, the provision applies
to Class 8 track in a dedicated right-of-way as well, allowing for FRA
approval of alternative criteria and procedures that are appropriate
and safe in such a defined operating environment. Moreover, together
with the development of Tier III standards in Part 238, this provision
is intended to harmonize the regulation of high-speed rail operations
on dedicated rights-of-way--facilitating innovation and efficiency,
while protecting safety.
    In addition, FRA intends to examine, with the assistance of RSAC
members, those requirements of subpart G that it has not addressed in
this rulemaking on vehicle/track interaction safety. FRA recognizes
that while this rulemaking makes substantial revisions to the high-
speed track standards in subpart G, it was not intended to result in a
comprehensive revision of these standards. In this regard, FRA has
noted that requirements in subpart G that are not distinguished by
class of track, such as ballast, merit examination, which was amplified
by FDOT in its comments concerning ballastless track. FRA is therefore
interested in undertaking a future effort with the assistance of RSAC
to consider revisions to subpart G not addressed in this rulemaking.
    As a final matter, at the recommendation of the AAR, footnote 1 is
being modified. Footnote 1 provides conditions under which freight may
be transported at passenger train speeds. The second clause of footnote
1 references passenger locomotive axle loadings utilized in passenger
service along with the freight. This clause is modified by adding the
words ``if any'' after the reference to passenger service, to make
clear that there need not be any passenger service on the same line
with the freight service.
Section 213.313 Application of Requirements to Curved Track
    This is a new section that is being added to help define the
application of requirements for curved track, following publication of
and comment on the NPRM. Please see the discussion of Sec.  213.14,
which is identical to this section. At the recommendation of Task Force
members, FRA is restating this section in subpart G to make clear that
it applies together with the other provisions in this subpart. Subpart
G is intended to function as its own set of regulations governing any
track identified as belonging to one of its (higher) track classes, and
this section's addition is consistent with the comprehensiveness of
this subpart.
Section 213.323 Track Gage
    This section contains the minimum and maximum limits for gage,
including limits for the change in gage within any 31-foot distance. As
proposed in the NPRM, for Class 6 track FRA is modifying the limit for
the change in gage within any 31-foot distance from \1/2\ inch to \3/4\
inch. During Task Force discussions in developing the NPRM, Amtrak had
raised concern that for track constructed with wooden ties and cut
spikes, the \1/2\-inch variation in gage limit was difficult to
maintain. Tolerance values for the rail base, tie plate shoulders, and
spikes can result in a \1/2\-inch gage variation in track constructed
with wooden ties, particularly due to daily temperature fluctuations of
rail and associated heat-induced stresses. In response to Amtrak's
concern, FRA conducted modeling of track with variations in gage up to
\3/4\ inch in 31-foot distances and found no safety concerns for the
equipment modeled. Modeling was also conducted using 20 miles of actual
measured track geometry with these variations in gage for speeds up to
115 m.p.h. without showing safety concerns for the equipment modeled.
As a result, FRA believes that modifying this limit for the change of
gage for Class 6 track, which has a maximum permitted speed of 110
m.p.h., will not diminish safety and reduces the burden on the track
owner or railroad to maintain safe gage.
    FRA notes that during Task Force consideration of the draft final
rule, concern was raised by the AAR and Amtrak as to the application of
the \1/2\-inch limit for the change in gage within any 31-foot distance
in Class 7 through 9 track. They suggested that clarification be
provided to exclude up to a \1/4\-inch, designed widening of the gage
at switch point locations to enable the stock rail and the switch point
to fit smoothly together. FRA believes that such an exclusion could
have safety implications in these high-speed track classes, especially
should the switch point geometry be poorly maintained, and that the
need for such an exclusion would potentially arise only in very limited
circumstances in these track classes, as perhaps when an emergency
repair is made in a switch using wooden ties in place of concrete ties.
Nonetheless, FRA agrees that an appropriate safety determination could
be made upon inspection of the rail head profile at the local points of
concern, and in applying the requirements will give consideration to
design modifications that are made for the purpose of ensuring the
proper functioning of switches where adjacent gage change occurs within
31 feet of the switch point. FRA will include such guidance in its
Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual, which is available on FRA's
Web site, as part of its overall revision of the Manual to reflect the
changes made in this final rule.
    No other issue was raised on this section, other than the general
comment from Bombardier on the propriety of retaining Class 9 track
standards. FRA has addressed Bombardier's comment in the general
discussion of Class 9 track

standards in Sec.  213.307. Consequently, FRA is adopting the rule text
as proposed.
Section 213.327 Track Alinement
    This section is the subpart G counterpart to Sec.  213.55 and is
intended for higher-speed track classes--Classes 6 through 9. As
proposed, the section heading is being modified so that it reads
``Track alinement,'' instead of ``Alinement,'' for clarity.
    Paragraph (a) remains substantively unchanged, as proposed in the
NPRM.
    FRA is revising the single-deviation, track alinement limits in
paragraph (b) so as to distinguish between limits for tangent and
curved track. Specifically, the 62-foot MCO limit for Class 6 curved
track has been narrowed to \5/8\ inch, while the tangent track limit
remains at the value of \3/4\ inch. This change is intended to provide
consistency between the track alinement limits for track Classes 5 and
6, as the Class 5 limit for curved track in Sec.  213.55 is \5/8\ inch.
The 62-foot MCO limits for Class 7 and Class 8 tangent track have been
increased to \3/4\ inch, while the curved track limits remain at the
value of \1/2\ inch. Further, the 124-foot MCO limit for Class 8
tangent track has been increased to 1 inch, while the curved track
limit remains at the value of \3/4\ inch. These changes are also based
on the results of the simulation studies for determining safe
amplitudes of track geometry alinement variations. See Technical
Background, Section IV.B, above.
    FRA is reformatting the table in paragraph (b) from that proposed
in the NPRM. The AAR commented that the table in proposed paragraph (b)
was missing a number of deviation limits for curved track that had been
recommended by the Task Force. FRA believes that these limits were not
clearly identified in the NPRM, and therefore appeared to have been
omitted, due to the way the table was formatted for publication in the
Federal Register. Consequently, the table is being revised to ensure
that these values are properly displayed.
    The former text of paragraph (c) has been moved to a new paragraph
(d). In revised paragraph (c) FRA has added tighter, single-deviation
geometry limits for operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency. These
additions include 31-foot, 62-foot, and 124-foot MCO limits. The track
geometry limits in revised paragraph (c) are based on the results of
simulation studies to determine the safe amplitudes of track geometry
alinement variations, discussed in Section IV.B above, which describes
in particular the 124-foot MCO limit for Class 7 track. FRA believes
that adding these track geometry limits is necessary to provide an
equivalent margin of safety for operations at higher cant deficiency.
    FRA notes that Bombardier raised the same comment on this section
as for other sections concerning the inclusion of proposed footnote 1
in paragraphs (b) and (c), specifying that curved track alinement
limits apply only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. In
response to this comment and as a result of Task Force discussions
following publication of the NPRM, FRA has added Sec.  213.313 to make
clear that limits specified for curved track apply only to track having
a curvature greater than 0.25 degree, in lieu of adopting proposed
footnote 1. By defining curved track as track having a curvature
greater than 0.25 degree, the rule makes clear when the requirements
for curved track apply.
    As noted, the text of former paragraph (c) has been moved to new
paragraph (d) and remains substantively unchanged.
    FRA is adding new paragraph (e) to this section, as proposed.
Paragraph (e) is an adaptation of footnotes 1 and 2 from Sec.  213.55,
and describes the ends of the chord and the line rail for purposes of
complying with this section. Paragraph (e) applies to all of the
requirements in this section and is consistent with current practice.
    No other comment was received on this section, other than the
general comment from Bombardier on the propriety of retaining Class 9
track standards. FRA has addressed Bombardier's comment in the general
discussion of Class 9 track standards in Sec.  213.307. Consequently,
FRA adopts this section as proposed, with paragraph (b) reformatted and
curved track defined in new Sec.  213.313.
Section 213.329 Curves; Elevation and Speed Limitations
    Determining the maximum speed that a vehicle may safely operate
around a curve is based on the degree of track curvature, actual
elevation, and amount of unbalanced elevation, where the actual
elevation and curvature are derived by a moving average technique. This
approach, as codified in this section, is as valid in the high-speed
regime as it is in the lower-speed track classes, and Sec.  213.57 is
the counterpart to this section for track Classes 1 through 5. As in
Sec.  213.57, FRA has substantially revised this section, including
both modifying and clarifying the qualification requirements and
approval process for vehicles intended to operate at more than 3 inches
of cant deficiency.
    Paragraph (a) formerly provided that the maximum crosslevel on the
outside rail of a curve may not be more than 7 inches. As proposed,
this provision is being restated to provide that the maximum elevation
of the outside rail of a curve may not be more than 7 inches.
Crosslevel is a function of elevation differences between two rails,
and is the focus of other provisions of this final rule, specifically
Sec.  213.331, Track surface. The clarification here is intended to
limit the elevation of a single rail.
    FRA is also revising the second requirement of paragraph (a),
consistent with the revision to Sec.  213.57(a). In the NPRM, FRA noted
that the Task Force recommended moving to Sec.  213.331 the second
requirement of paragraph (a), which formerly provided that ``[t]he
outside rail of a curve may not be more than \1/2\ inch lower than the
inside rail.'' Instead, FRA proposed that this requirement be re-
written more clearly to restrict configuring track so that the outside
rail of a curve is designed to be lower than the inside rail, while
allowing for a deviation of up to \1/2\ inch as provided in Sec.
213.331, which also included a proposed limit for reverse crosslevel
deviation. FRA explained in the NPRM that this requirement in paragraph
(a) was intended to restrict configuring track so that the outside rail
of a curve is lower than the inside rail, while the limits at issue in
Sec.  213.331 govern local deviations from uniform elevation--from the
designed elevation--that occur as a result of changes in conditions.
Rather than conflict, FRA stated these provisions complement each
other, addressing both the designed layout of a curve and the
deviations from that layout that result from actual use and wear.
    The AAR commented on FRA's proposal to revise the second
requirement of paragraph (a), stating that such a sweeping prohibition
against the outside rail being lower than the inside rail is
inappropriate. The AAR explained that turnouts off of gradual curves
can have small reverse superelevation by design, even for track where
speeds over 90 m.p.h. are permitted. The AAR also noted that the Task
Force had recommended eliminating this requirement from paragraph (a),
and that, if FRA were unwilling to adopt that recommendation, then the
original language should be retained.
    FRA has modified this provision to state that the outside rail of a
curve may not be lower than the inside rail by design, except when
engineered to address specific track or operating conditions, and that
the limits in

Sec.  213.331 apply in all cases. FRA continues to believe that the
former rule text could give the mistaken impression that it is
appropriate to design reverse elevation into curves as the nominal
condition for all curves. Nonetheless, FRA appreciates from the
comments raised that reverse elevation is designed into certain curves
both out of necessity and for safety reasons. FRA did not intend its
proposal to nullify such engineering design--engineering design of
which the track owner and railroad are aware in carrying out railroad
operations and responsibilities safely. As modified, the rule text
addresses both the concerns raised by FRA and those raised in the
comments, and the Task Force concurred with this revision.
    As explained in the discussion of specific comments and conclusions
section of the preamble, above, what was proposed as paragraph (b) is
not included in this final rule. Please see Wheel Unloading from Wind
on Superelevated Curves, Section V.B., for a full explanation of FRA's
treatment of that proposal. Rather, what was proposed as paragraph (c)
is designated as paragraph (b).
    As proposed, in paragraph (b) the Vmax formula
determines the maximum allowable posted timetable operating speed for
curved track based on the qualified cant deficiency (inches of
unbalance), Eu, for the vehicle type. This paragraph also
references a new footnote 7 to permit the vehicle type to operate at
the qualified cant deficiency for which it is approved, Eu,
plus \1/2\ inch, if actual elevation of the outside rail,
Ea, and degree of track curvature, D, change as a result of
track degradation. This paragraph is intended to provide a tolerance to
account for the effects of local crosslevel or curvature conditions on
Vmax that may result in the operating cant deficiency
exceeding that approved for the equipment, i.e, the actual operating
speed may exceed the maximum allowable posted timetable operating
speed. Without this tolerance, these track conditions could generate a
limiting speed exception, and some railroads have adopted the approach
of reducing the operating cant deficiency of the vehicle in order to
avoid these exceptions. FRA believes that this \1/2\ inch tolerance is
supported by operational experience and complemented by related
standards acting to mitigate safety concerns. For instance, the
Vmax formula is not intended to replace FRA's track geometry
limits, which more clearly focus on individual track irregularities
with shorter wavelengths. These track geometry limits apply
independently and act independently to limit the maximum allowable
speed for a track segment based on the condition of the track.
    In addition, as proposed, former footnote 4 is being redesignated
as footnote 6, and a statement within the former footnote is being
removed regarding the application of the Vmax equation to
the spirals on both ends of the curve if Eu exceeds 4
inches. The Vmax equation is intended to be applied in the
body of the curve where the cant deficiency is the greatest, and the
actual elevation and degree of curvature are determined according to
the moving average techniques defined in footnote 6, as well as in
footnote 8, discussed below. Within spirals, where the degree of
curvature and elevation are changing continuously, local deviations
from uniform elevation and degree of curvature are governed by the
limits in Sec.  213.327 and Sec.  213.331.
    Former footnote 5 is being redesignated as footnote 8 without
substantive change.
    Paragraph (c), which was proposed as paragraph (d) in the NPRM,
provides that all vehicle types are considered to be qualified for up
to 3 inches of cant deficiency, as allowed since the 1998 Track Safety
Standards final rule.
    Paragraph (d), which was proposed as paragraph (e) in the NPRM, is
being modified to specify the requirements for vehicle qualification
over track with more than 3 inches of cant deficiency in track Classes
6 through 9. This paragraph formerly specified two sets of static lean
test requirements for vehicle qualification for more than 3 inches of
cant deficiency. The first set of requirements limited both the
vertical wheel load remaining on the raised wheels to no less than 60
percent of their static level values and the roll of a passenger
carbody to 5.7 degrees with respect to the horizontal, for a vehicle
standing on superelevation equal to the proposed cant deficiency. The
second set of requirements addressed potential roll-over and passenger
safety issues should a vehicle be stopped or traveling at very low
speed on a curve with 7 inches of superelevation, by limiting both the
vertical wheel load remaining on the raised wheels to no less than 60
percent of their static level values and the roll of a passenger
carbody to 8.6 degrees with respect to the horizontal. In the final
rule, the revised requirements, consistent with the revised standards
in Sec.  213.57 (for lower-speed track classes), limit both the
vertical wheel load remaining on the raised wheels to no less than 60
percent of their static level values and carbody roll for passenger
cars to no more than 8.6 degrees with respect to the horizontal when
the vehicle is standing (stationary) on track with a uniform
superelevation equal to the proposed cant deficiency. Consequently, the
rule no longer imposes a 7-inch superelevation static lean requirement
generally; rather, the amount of superelevation is dependent on the
proposed cant deficiency. For example, if the proposed cant deficiency
is 6 inches, the superelevation used for demonstrating compliance with
this paragraph is also 6 inches.
    The requirements in paragraph (d) may be met by either static or
dynamic testing, and are consistent with the requirements in Sec.
213.57. As in Sec.  213.57, the vehicle type must be tested in a ready-
for service condition. In consultation with the Task Force, FRA is
clarifying that the vehicle type be tested in a ready-for-service
condition, i.e., in the same vehicle/track performance condition in
which it would be in passenger service. At the same time, FRA is
clarifying paragraph (e), below, so that the load condition under which
testing is performed is included in the description of the test
procedure. For example, the vehicle type may or may not be loaded to
simulate passengers on board, and this information would be necessary
for a complete evaluation of the vehicle's performance.
    As noted, the static lean test limits the vertical wheel load
remaining on the raised wheels to no less than 60 percent of their
static level values and limits the roll of a passenger carbody to 8.6
degrees with respect to the horizontal, when the vehicle is standing on
track with superelevation equal to the proposed cant deficiency. The
dynamic test limits the steady-state vertical wheel load remaining on
the low rail wheels to no less than 60 percent of their static level
values and limits the lateral acceleration in a passenger car to 0.15g
steady-state, when the vehicle operates through a curve at the proposed
cant deficiency. This 0.15g steady-state lateral acceleration limit in
the dynamic test is consistent with the 8.6-degree roll limit in the
static lean test, in that it corresponds to the lateral acceleration a
passenger would experience in a standing (stationary) vehicle whose
carbody is at a roll angle of 8.6 degrees with respect to the
horizontal. The former 5.7-degree roll limit, which limited steady-
state, carbody lateral acceleration to 0.1g, has been removed.
    FRA notes that the less stringent steady-state, carbody lateral
acceleration limit and carbody roll angle limit adopted in this final
rule will minimize both the need to equip vehicles with tilt

systems at higher cant deficiencies and the costs associated with such
features, as well. Moreover, by facilitating higher cant deficiency
operations, savings may also result from shortened trip times. These
savings may be particularly beneficial to passenger operations in
emerging high-speed rail corridors, enabling faster operations through
curves.
    Of course, any such savings should not come at the expense of
safety, and FRA is adopting additional track geometry requirements for
operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency, whether or not the
vehicles are equipped with tilt systems. These additional track
geometry requirements were developed to control for undesirable vehicle
response to track conditions that could pose derailment concerns.
Nonetheless, the VTI limits on transient accelerations may need to be
stricter when combined with higher steady-state lateral acceleration,
to address passenger ride safety concerns. Additional research on
passenger response to vibration is necessary to establish this
relationship and model this effect. While the tighter geometry limits
at high cant deficiency that have been added in this final rule were
not specifically developed to address such concerns, they may help to
control transient, carbody acceleration events that could pose ride
safety concerns for passengers subjected to higher steady-state lateral
accelerations. These additional track geometry requirements apply only
to operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency, where steady-state,
carbody lateral acceleration may approach 0.15g for typical vehicle
designs. FRA does note that higher cant deficiencies are necessary to
support high-speed operations on curved track, and, as a result, the
additional track geometry requirements contained in this final rule for
such high cant deficiency operations are likely to be implicated.
Moreover, FRA is not aware of any general safety issue involving
passengers losing their balance and falling due to excessive steady-
state, carbody lateral accelerations in current operations.
    Yet, as explained in the discussion of Sec.  213.57(d), FRA is
concerned in particular about the effect transient, carbody lateral
acceleration events that pose no derailment safety concerns may
nonetheless have on passenger ride safety when combined with increased
steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration forces. Consequently, to
fully inform FRA's decisions in preparing this final rule, FRA
specifically invited public comment on the proposal to set the steady-
state, carbody lateral acceleration limit at 0.15g. FRA requested
specific comment on whether the proposed rule would appropriately
provide for passenger ride safety, and if not, requested that the
commenters state what additional requirement(s) should be imposed, if
any.
    As noted above, in commenting on the NPRM, SNCF agreed that the
limit of 0.15g for steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration is
justified in that this value is usually considered a comfort limit for
curve design and is the limit value accepted for passenger cars. SNCF
specifically commented that, in European rules, the 0.15g value
corresponds to an exceptional value of cant deficiency, while the
recommended value is about 0.14g. FRA sees no conflict with these
comments; measurements and supplemental research have indicated that a
steady-state, carbody lateral acceleration limit of 0.15g is considered
to be the maximum, steady-state lateral acceleration above which jolts
from vehicle dynamic response to track deviations can present a hazard
to passenger safety. FRA has therefore adopted the proposal in the
final rule.
    The changes to this section also separate and clarify the submittal
requirements to FRA to obtain approval for the qualifying cant
deficiency of a vehicle type (paragraph (e)), and to notify FRA prior
to the implementation of the approved higher curving speeds (paragraph
(f)). As discussed above, FRA is clarifying paragraph (e) so that the
load condition under which the testing was performed is included in the
description of the test procedure. Additional clarification in
paragraph (e) has been included for submitting suspension system
maintenance information. This requirement for submitting suspension
system maintenance information applies to vehicle types not subject to
parts 238 or 229 of this chapter, such as a freight car operated in a
freight train, and then only to safety-critical components. Paragraph
(f) also clarifies that in approving the request made pursuant to
paragraph (e), FRA may impose conditions necessary for safely operating
at the higher curving speeds.
    FRA notes that former footnote 6 is being redesignated as footnote
9 and modified in conformance with the changes in this final rule. The
former footnote offered an example test procedure providing
measurements for up to 6 inches of cant deficiency and 7 inches of cant
excess. This footnote has been modified to reference testing at ``the
proposed cant deficiency,'' rather than a specific condition,
consistent with the requirements of this section. The cant-excess
requirement has also been addressed, as explained above. In addition,
FRA notes that it has removed the statement in the former footnote that
the ``test procedure may be conducted in a test facility.'' Testing may
of course be conducted in a test facility, but the statement could
cause confusion that testing may be conducted only in a test facility.
No such limitation is intended.
    Former paragraph (f) is being moved to new paragraph (g), which was
proposed as paragraph (h) in the NPRM. As noted, paragraph (g) is
identical to two other provisions in this final rule: Sec.  213.57(g)--
the counterpart to this section for lower-speed track classes--and
Sec.  213.345(i). The Task Force agreed that the purpose of these
paragraphs is the same and recommended that the same text be included.
FRA agreed and has modified the rule accordingly. Please see the
discussion of Sec.  213.345(i), below.
    As discussed in Sec.  213.57(h), paragraph (h) was proposed to be
added as paragraph (i) to clarify that vehicle types that have been
permitted by FRA to operate at cant deficiencies, Eu,
greater than 3 inches prior to the publication of this final rule in
the Federal Register would be considered qualified under this section
to operate at those permitted cant deficiencies over the previously-
operated track segments(s). Consequently, before the vehicle type could
operate over another track segment at such cant deficiencies, FRA
proposed that the vehicle type be qualified as provided in this
section.
    In commenting on the NPRM, Amtrak stated that this proposal
implicated issues associated with vehicle qualification, and Amtrak
referenced its comments concerning proposed Sec.  213.345(b) and (d).
Moreover, Amtrak stated that the tests proposed in this section, as in
Sec.  213.57 for lower-speed track classes, would be even more wasteful
because, unlike the tests proposed for Sec.  213.345, the tests
proposed here would not have been conducted under ``local'' conditions
but rather in a static testing facility having no connection to the
location of the proposed service. Amtrak therefore wondered what types
of conditions FRA believed would be uncovered during this testing
process before permitting the vehicle types to operate at the same cant
deficiencies on other track segments. Amtrak believed that it would be
simply repeating the exact same test on the exact same car at the exact
same test facility, and therefore found it difficult to find any
justification for the proposed limitation.
    As noted, FRA discussed the proposal and the comments received with
the

Task Force. The Task Force recommended that vehicle types that have
been permitted by FRA to operate at cant deficiencies, Eu,
greater than 3 inches but not exceeding 5 inches be considered
qualified under this section to operate at those permitted cant
deficiencies over all track segments--not only over previously operated
segments. As adopted in paragraph (h)(1), FRA agrees that extending the
nature of the qualification in this way is appropriate for operations
on Class 6 track given that the requirements of this paragraph are
static or steady-state and do not directly reflect the ``local''
interaction of the vehicle and the track. Further, FRA makes clear that
the provision applies not only to previous permission by FRA to operate
at these cant deficiencies, but also prospectively to vehicle types
when they are approved by FRA to operate at these cant deficiencies.
Nonetheless, a requirement has been included in paragraph (h)(1) that
written notice be provided to FRA no less than 30 calendar days prior
to the proposed implementation of such curving speeds on another track
segment in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section. This notice
is intended to identify the new track segment(s) so that FRA is aware
of the proposed operation, can ensure that appropriate permission has
been provided for it, and otherwise administer the requirements of this
rule.
    However, FRA does note that pursuant to Sec.  213.345, Vehicle/
track system qualification, dynamic testing is required when moving a
vehicle type to a new track segment for operation at cant deficiencies
greater than 5 inches on Class 6 track, or greater than 3 inches on
Class 7 through 9 track, to reflect the ``local'' interaction of the
vehicle and the track over which it operates as a system. Accordingly,
paragraph (h)(2) makes clear that vehicle types that have been
permitted by FRA to operate at cant deficiencies, Eu,
greater than 5 inches on Class 6 track, or greater than 3 inches on
Class 7 through 9 track, shall be considered qualified under this
section to operate at those permitted cant deficiencies only for the
previously operated or identified track segments(s). Operation of these
vehicle types at such cant deficiencies and track class on any other
track segment is permitted only in accordance with the qualification
requirements in this subpart.
    Paragraph (i), proposed as paragraph (j), is a new paragraph for
defining the terms ``vehicle'' and ``vehicle type,'' as used in this
section and in Sec. Sec.  213.333 and 213.345. As the term ``vehicle''
is used elsewhere in this subpart and has a different meaning than the
term ``vehicle type,'' both terms are defined here for the purposes of
these sections so that these sections' requirements may be properly
understood and applied. These terms have the same meaning as in Sec.
213.57(j).
Section 213.331 Track Surface
    This section is the subpart G counterpart to Sec.  213.63 and is
intended for higher-speed track classes.
    As proposed in the NPRM, FRA is making three changes to the single-
deviation, track surface limits in paragraph (a). Specifically, the
124-foot MCO limit for Class 9 track has been reduced to 1 inch, based
on a review of simulation results of Acela equipment performance.
Further, the limit for the difference in crosslevel between any two
points less than 62 feet apart has been reduced to 1[frac14] inches for
Class 8 track, and 1 inch for Class 9 track. These two changes are
intended to provide more consistent safety limits and are based on
simulation studies conducted for short warp conditions.
    In addition, three new limits are being added to the single-
deviation, track surface limits in paragraph (a). Two of these limits
(deviation from zero crosslevel on tangent track, and reverse elevation
for curved track), although not explicitly stated in the table in
former paragraph (a), have effectively been applicable to track Classes
6 through 9 because these higher-speed track classes must at least meet
the minimum geometry requirements for the lower-speed track classes.
Specifically, the 1-inch limit for deviation from zero crosslevel on
tangent Class 5 track, as specified in Sec.  213.63, is being added as
a limit for track Classes 6 through 9. Second, the [frac12]-inch
reverse elevation limit for curved track, as formerly specified in
Sec.  213.329(a), is being moved to this paragraph (a). The third
limit, a new limit for the difference in crosslevel between any two
points less than 10 feet apart (short warp), is being added to
paragraph (a) as well. FRA noted in the NPRM that the Task Force
proposed that the existing 1-inch runoff limit for Class 5 track, as
specified in Sec.  213.63, be added for higher track classes. However,
FRA believes that appropriate surface requirements have already been
established in Sec.  213.331 that address this runoff condition, and
thus FRA believes it would be duplicative to include this 1-inch runoff
limit separately in the text of this paragraph.
    In its comments on this section, the AAR raised concern with the
proposed addition in paragraph (a) of a new restriction on the
deviation from zero crosslevel on tangent track. The AAR noted that the
proposed requirement parallels an existing entry in the corresponding
table in Sec.  213.63 for the lower-speed track classes but that there
is a proviso contained in Sec.  213.59(b) that makes allowances for
elevation runoff in curves. Specifically, the proviso in Sec.
213.59(b) states: ``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.'' The AAR believed that the proposed
restriction on the deviation from zero crosslevel on tangent track
needed a similar proviso, and recommended including the same text in
this paragraph. Amtrak likewise raised this concern and made the same
suggestion. The Task Force concurred with these commenters, recognizing
that the additional text applies to the comparable provision for the
lower-speed classes of track. FRA agrees and has included the text as
footnote 2 to this section. Footnote numbering has been modified
appropriately to reflect the addition of this new footnote 2.
    As proposed, FRA is also adding tighter geometry limits for
operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency in revised paragraph (b).
These include 124-foot MCO limits and a new limit for the difference in
crosslevel between any two points less than 10 feet apart (short warp).
The text of former paragraph (b) is being moved to new paragraph (c).
FRA believes that adding these track geometry limits is necessary to
provide an equivalent margin of safety for operations at higher cant
deficiency. These limits are based on the results of simulation studies
to determine the safe amplitudes of track geometry surface variations.
See Technical Background, Section IV.B, above.
    As noted in Sec.  213.313, FRA received comment on the inclusion of
proposed footnote 3, specifying that curved track surface limits apply
only when track curvature is greater than 0.25 degree. In response to
this comment and as a result of Task Force discussions following
publication of the NPRM, FRA is adding Sec.  213.313 to make clear that
limits specified for curved track apply only to track having a
curvature greater than 0.25 degree. By defining curved track as track
having a curvature greater than 0.25 degree, the rule clarifies when
the requirements for curved track apply and makes the adoption of
proposed footnote 3 unnecessary.
    The remaining comment on this section was raised by Bombardier
concerning the propriety of retaining Class 9 track standards. FRA has
addressed Bombardier's comment in the general discussion of Class 9
track standards in Sec.  213.307.

Section 213.332 Combined Track Alinement and Surface Deviations
    As proposed in the NPRM, FRA is adding a new section containing
limits addressing combined track alinement and surface deviations.
These limits apply to high-speed operations on curved track above 5
inches of cant deficiency, as well as to any operation at Class 9
speeds. (In preparing the final rule, FRA added ``track'' to the
section heading to be consistent with the section headings for Sec.
213.327, Track alinement, and Sec.  213.331, Track surface.) An
equation-based safety limit is provided for track alinement and surface
deviations occurring in combination within a single chord length of
each other. The limits in this section are intended to be used only
with a TGMS. These limits are applicable on the outside rail in curves,
as well as to any of the two rails of a tangent section in Class 9
track. Please see the discussion of Sec.  213.65, which is the
companion provision to this section for lower-speed classes of track.
Please also note that in accordance with Sec.  213.313, the limits
specified for curved track apply only to track having a curvature
greater than 0.25 degree.
    The only comment on this section was raised by Bombardier
concerning the inclusion of standards for Class 9 track. Specifically,
Bombardier stated that the inclusion of combined alinement and surface
deviations on all Class 9 track, both on curves and on tangent track,
was not reviewed by the Task Force. FRA believes that the standards are
appropriate for Class 9 track; please see the general discussion of
Class 9 track standards in Sec.  213.307. Consequently, this section is
being adopted as proposed without substantive change.
Section 213.333 Automated Vehicle-Based Inspection Systems
    FRA is making a number of significant changes to this section,
which contains requirements for automated vehicle-based measurement
systems--i.e., track geometry measurement systems, gage restraint
measurement systems, and the systems necessary to monitor vehicle/track
interaction (acceleration and wheel/rail forces). For clarity, FRA is
revising the original section heading ``Automated vehicle inspection
systems'' to reflect more clearly that the inspection systems are
vehicle-based--not necessarily vehicles themselves--and are for
inspecting track conditions and monitoring vehicle/track interactions.
    In paragraph (a)(1), FRA is adding TGMS inspection requirements for
low-speed, high cant deficiency operations, which apply as required by
Sec.  213.57(i). FRA believes that these requirements are appropriate
and necessary for operations at high cant deficiency on lower-speed
track classes.
    In paragraph (a)(2), FRA is also adding TGMS inspection
requirements for Class 6 track, with two different inspection
frequencies depending on the amount of cant deficiency. For operations
at a qualified cant deficiency, Eu, not exceeding 5 inches,
at least one inspection must be conducted each calendar year with not
less than 170 days between inspections. If the qualified cant
deficiency is more than 5 inches, then at least two inspections must be
conducted each calendar year, with not less than 120 days between
inspections.
    In its comments on the NPRM, however, the AAR stated that the focus
of the proposal was on operations with cant deficiency greater than 5
inches, and that there was no support in the record for TGMS inspection
requirements on Class 6 track having less cant deficiency.
Consequently, the AAR maintained that FRA should not adopt TGMS
inspection requirements for Class 6 track where the cant deficiency is
not greater than 5 inches.
    FRA believes that TGMS inspection of Class 6 track is required for
safety regardless of the operating cant deficiency. Nonetheless, the
rule does take into account that for track with lower amounts of cant
deficiency, the inspection need not be as frequent--only once per
calendar year. Further, discussion within the Task Force in response to
this comment revealed that, with the exception of a limited amount of
Class 6 track in the state of New York owned by CSXT over which Amtrak
operated, all other Class 6 track was inspected by Amtrak with a
qualifying TGMS meeting the requirements of this final rule. FRA makes
clear that an operating railroad may fulfill the requirements of this
paragraph, even where it is not the track owner. In this regard, given
that Amtrak currently operates over all Class 6 track, it may conduct
TGMS inspections as the operating railroad on behalf of any owner of
Class 6 track, and FRA does not foresee any change that would impact
such an arrangement between a track owner and Amtrak or another high-
speed passenger railroad operation. Moreover, as discussed below, FRA
is modifying the requirements in the final rule to address issues
raised by the AAR concerning a host freight railroad performing TGMS
inspections of its track in its own right as the track owner.
    Paragraph (a)(3) concerns TGMS inspections for Class 7 track. The
former Class 7 track inspection frequency of twice within 120 calendar
days with not less than 30 days between inspections is being reduced to
not less than 25 days between inspections in this 120-day period. This
change is intended to provide additional operational flexibility to
fulfill the requirements and allow for more frequent inspections to be
performed regularly, for example, on a monthly basis, with additional
days in which to complete inspections that may be interrupted or not
started as planned.
    For Class 8 and 9 track in paragraph (a)(4), the former TGMS
inspection frequency of twice within 60 calendar days with not less
than 15 days between inspections is also being reduced to not less than
12 days between inspections in this 120-day period. This change is also
intended to provide additional operational flexibility to fulfill the
requirements and allow for more frequent inspections to be performed
regularly, for example, on a bi-weekly basis, with additional days in
which to complete inspections that may be interrupted or not started as
planned.
    In paragraph (b)(1), FRA proposed to retain the requirement that
track geometry measurements 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. In response, the AAR commented that this provision
would exclude the use of current test platforms (including hi-rail
geometry equipment) that do not meet this axle load, as well as the
development and exploration of test platforms that do not meet this
axle load. The AAR believed that, lacking justification for this
requirement, it should be deleted. FRA also notes that Amtrak commented
on proposed paragraphs (b) and (h) as together creating an internal
inconsistency that would make compliance difficult. According to
Amtrak, it uses a GRMS as its TGMS to take geometry measurements of
record for its Class 8 track. Amtrak stated that proposed paragraph
(b)(1) would require that the measurement be made within 3 feet of the
10,000-pound loaded axle and that this distance requirement is not
attainable on vehicles using a contact geometry system such as a GRMS.
Further, Amtrak stated that while it would be possible for an entity to
comply with the requirements of both proposed paragraphs (b) and (h),
Amtrak could not without incurring the time and expense of running two
type of TGMS tests, where it now runs only one. Amtrak therefore
suggested that a railroad be deemed in compliance with

paragraph (b)(1) when the railroad performs otherwise qualifying TGMS
tests with a GRMS. Amtrak did add that while CSXT was the only freight
railroad with track affected by paragraph (b), if high-speed operations
do proliferate, freight railroads may find themselves unable to comply
with the regulations, as proposed, because they would no longer be able
to rely on their hi-rail-mounted TGMS equipment.
    FRA notes that the actual text of paragraph (b)(1) as proposed in
the NPRM was unchanged from the 1998 Track Safety Standards final rule.
What was different was the proposal to expand the application of TGMS
inspection requirements to more than track Classes 7 through 9,
discussed above. As explained by the AAR in Task Force meetings, this
change would make the TGMS requirements applicable to equipment used by
CSXT for the inspection of Class 6 track. To address this concern, the
text is being revised to allow for FRA approval to measure track
geometry other than as specified in this paragraph. Further, the text
is being revised to express the 10,000-pound wheel load in kips, for
consistency with related provisions, as suggested by Bombardier in its
comments on the NPRM. Consequently, as revised, paragraph (b)(1) states
that 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 kips per wheel, unless otherwise approved by FRA. FRA
believes that this modification also addresses Amtrak's concern by
providing added flexibility for the use of different equipment that
measures track geometry. FRA did not intend for a railroad to duplicate
measurements to comply with both paragraphs (b) and (h). A railroad may
use GRMS equipment to perform otherwise qualifying TGMS tests. In the
circumstance raised by Amtrak in its comments on the NPRM, Amtrak does
not need to repeat the testing performed using GRMS equipment with one
of its TGMS vehicles as well.
    In paragraph (b)(2), FRA proposed to amend the TGMS sampling
interval so that the interval would not exceed 1 foot. FRA believed
this proposal to be in line with current practice for providing
sufficient data to identify track geometry perturbations. In commenting
on the NPRM, however, the AAR stated that there is equipment in use
that takes measurements at a 2-foot sampling rate, and that there is no
showing that this equipment should be prohibited from taking
measurements in this way. The AAR stated that in developing the NPRM
the Task Force made no recommendation to prohibit the use of a 2-foot
sampling rate, and that FRA should not adopt this change. In addition,
Amtrak stated that the 1-foot interval in proposed paragraphs (b)(2)
and (c), as discussed below, would conflict with the requirement in
paragraph (h)(1)(i) for GRMS equipment to take measurements within a
16-inch interval. Consequently, Amtrak stated that it could not meet
the requirements of proposed paragraph (b) with its current GRMS
equipment and operating practices.
    FRA discussed this comment with the Task Force, and the Task Force
concurred with modifying the provision to state that track geometry
measurements shall be taken and recorded on a distance-based sampling
interval at a nominal distance of 1 foot, not exceeding 2 feet. FRA
agrees with the Task Force's recommendation, and in the final rule has
expressed the 1-foot sampling interval as the preferable distance, all
else being equal. Nonetheless, FRA recognizes that an allowance can be
made for sampling at up to a 2-foot interval depending on the
circumstances involved, and therefore railroads may continue to use
equipment that samples within such a 2-foot interval. FRA has modified
a related provision in paragraph (c), as discussed below. Further, the
AAR requested that in this final rule, FRA make clear that the use of
existing equipment that takes measurement samples on a time-based
interval is permitted as long as the equipment produces a measurement
within the specified distance-based sampling interval. Accordingly, FRA
makes clear that equipment that takes measurement samples on a time-
based interval at a rate that corresponds to the distance-based
interval specified in this section indeed complies with this provision.
    In paragraph (c), as proposed, FRA is specifying the application of
the added TGMS inspection requirements for high cant deficiency
operations on lower-speed track classes. These requirements in subpart
G apply to vehicle types intended to operate at any curving speed
producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, as provided in Sec.
213.57(i). Requirements for track Classes 6 through 9 have been amended
to reference Sec.  213.332, the new section for combined track
alinement and surface deviations. In addition, consistent with the
modification of paragraph (b)(2), as discussed above, FRA is removing
the proposed reference in paragraph (c) to measuring and processing
track geometry parameters at an interval of no more than every 1 foot.
While former paragraph (c) referenced a 2-foot interval, FRA is
removing the distance reference altogether in paragraph (c), as it is
adequately addressed in paragraph (b).
    Paragraphs (d) through (f) remain unchanged.
    During Task Force consideration of the draft final rule, it was
noted that former paragraph (g) required the track owner to maintain
for a period of one year following an inspection performed by a
qualifying TGMS, a copy of the plot and the exception ``printout'' for
the track segment involved. Given the proliferation of electronic
information since the 1998 Track Safety Standards were issued, FRA's
support for appropriate usage of electronic information to comply with
FRA's requirements, and FRA's recognition that reports of exceptions do
not necessarily need to be printed out, FRA has clarified the paragraph
by replacing ``exception printout'' with ``exception report.'' FRA has
also modified the paragraph to apply the requirements expressly to
railroads, as well as to track owners, consistent with the others
changes in this rule to provide clearly for railroads to carry out the
regulatory requirements, and not only track owners. The Task Force
concurred with these revisions, which clarify FRA's intent.
    As noted in the discussion of Sec.  213.110, above, FRA is making
changes to the GRMS testing requirements in paragraphs (h) and (i), to
reflect recommendations made in the FRA report titled ``Development of
Gage Widening Projection Parameter for the Deployable Gage Restraint
Measurement System.'' These changes include replacing the GWR equation
(and all references to GWR) with a GWP equation, which is intended to
compensate for the weight of the testing vehicle. This correction is
also intended to result in more uniform strength measurements across
the variety of testing vehicles that are in operation. FRA has also
modified the Class 8 and 9 track inspection frequency of once per year
with not less than 180 days between inspections to require at least one
inspection per calendar year with not less than 170 days between
inspections. This change is intended to provide additional operational
flexibility in scheduling inspections.
    In Bombardier's comments on the NPRM, in addition to its general
concerns on the inclusion of track Class 9 standards, Bombardier raised
specific concern that there was no justification for requiring GRMS to
be operated over Class 9 track. Bombardier stated that if the track
standards for Class 9 track were contained in an RPA, it would be

expected that the requirements specific to the operation, such as for
ballast and the maximum number of allowable defective crossties, would
result in a superior track structure than currently required. A GRMS
requirement on this structure would result in a significant cost with
no safety benefit, according to Bombardier.
    FRA notes that the requirement to conduct GRMS testing on Class 9
track was established in the 1998 Track Safety Standards final rule and
is not a new requirement. Nonetheless, FRA recognizes that the
underlying issue raised by Bombardier relates to track inspection and
maintenance standards for a high-speed operation on a dedicated right-
of-way. This concern has been addressed in the revision to Sec.
213.307, as discussed above. FRA's regulatory approval may allow for
the use of inspection and maintenance criteria and procedures in the
alternative to those contained in this subpart, including the GRMS
inspection requirements in this paragraph, based upon a showing that at
least an equivalent level of safety is provided.
    FRA is making one change to paragraph (i) from that proposed in the
NPRM by stating the GWP load in kips and not pounds, as suggested by
Bombardier in its comments on the NPRM. The Task Force concurred that
the units should be stated in kips for consistency among measurement
units.
    As proposed, FRA is revising the wording and requirements in
paragraphs (j) and (k), which concern the monitoring of carbody and
truck accelerations. Changes include adding the option to use a
portable device when performing the acceleration monitoring, and
clarifying the requirements for locating the carbody and truck
accelerometers. In paragraph (j)(1), monitoring requirements have been
added for operations above 5 inches of cant deficiency on track Classes
1 through 6. These requirements for monitoring high cant deficiency
operations apply to vehicle types qualified to operate at any curving
speed producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, as provided in
Sec.  213.57(i) and Sec.  213.345(a), as appropriate. Indeed, these
monitoring and qualification requirements for carbody accelerations are
intended to be complementary, in the same way as the monitoring
requirements for track Classes 7 through 9 are likewise intended to
continue to apply to vehicles that have been qualified to operate under
Sec.  213.345.
    Paragraph (j)(2) applies to operations at track Class 7 speeds, and
requires that carbody and truck accelerations be monitored at least
twice within any 60-day period with not less than 12 days between
inspections on at least one passenger car of each type that is assigned
to the service. This paragraph essentially restates requirements
applicable to operations on Class 7 track in former paragraph (k),
reducing the minimum period between inspections in the 60-day period to
not less than 12 days--from not less than 15 days in the former
paragraph.
    As discussed in Section IV.A, above, FRA is revising the
requirement in former paragraph (j) to monitor carbody and truck
accelerations each day on at least one vehicle in one train operating
at track Class 8 and 9 speeds. Based on data collected to date and to
reduce unnecessary burden on the track owner or railroad operating the
vehicle type, this monitoring frequency has been reduced from a minimum
of once per day to four times within any 7-day period for carbody
accelerations, and twice within 60 days for truck accelerations. These
requirements are now found in paragraph (j)(3).
    In its comments on proposed paragraph (j), the AAR stated that it
opposed the monitoring of carbody acceleration for any track class. The
AAR stated that these accelerations are often caused by train handling
and other normal events unrelated to the condition of the track.
Requiring railroads to monitor carbody acceleration and address
accelerometer measurements would divert resources from more productive
safety endeavors, according to the AAR. Further, the AAR believed that,
leaving aside the issue of whether there should be any monitoring of
carbody accelerations, proposed paragraph (j) contained contradictory
statements regarding the vehicle to be used for monitoring: the first
sentence proposed the use of a vehicle having dynamic response
characteristics that are representative of other vehicles assigned to
the service, while paragraph (j)(1) proposed to require the use of at
least one passenger car of each type that is assigned to the service.
The AAR added that freight railroads do not possess passenger cars.
    As a result of the AAR's comments and discussions within the Task
Force, the text of paragraph (j) is being revised to make clear that
the requirements apply as specified for the combination of track class,
cant deficiencies, and vehicles subject to paragraphs (j)(1) through
(3). Consequently, the acceleration monitoring requirements in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) for speeds up to 125 m.p.h. do not apply to
equipment operated in a freight train. In fact, the requirements of
this section apply to equipment operating in a freight train only at
speeds above 125 m.p.h., per paragraph (j)(3), and only as appropriate;
specifically, if no passenger carrying vehicles are assigned to the
service, there are no passenger carrying vehicles to monitor. FRA also
makes clear that, in the case of Amtrak's Acela service at track Class
8 speeds, the carbody acceleration monitoring requirements of paragraph
(j)(3) require only one power car (locomotive), i.e., non-passenger
carrying vehicle, and one trailer car (passenger coach) to be
monitored. FRA recognizes that only one type of passenger carrying
vehicle is currently assigned to this Acela service--the caf[eacute]
cars, first class cars, and business class cars are all passenger
carrying vehicles of the same dynamic response type.
    In commenting on the NPRM, Amtrak stated that the proposal to
revise paragraph (k)(1) to require accelerometers on the floor of a
vehicle, as near to the center of a truck as practicable, would be a
substantive change from the requirement to place them near the end of
the vehicle at the floor level. Amtrak noted that accelerometers have
been mounted under the floors of its vehicles in the machine bay on the
centerline next to the trucks. Amtrak believed that placing the units
on the floor would not be an option and would result in the creation of
a tripping hazard in the center of the passenger aisle. Nor did Amtrak
believe that there was a readily-available space to locate the
accelerometers near the centerline within coach cars. Moreover, Amtrak
was concerned with locating accelerometers where they could be subject
to being kicked and influenced by dropped luggage, which could falsely
indicate unsafe readings when there are none. Amtrak therefore
requested that FRA retain the original language in paragraph (k)
relating to placement of accelerometers.
    FRA is revising this final rule in response to Amtrak's comment so
that paragraph (k)(1) requires the accelerometers to be attached to the
carbody on or under the floor of the vehicle, as near the center of a
truck as practicable. FRA did not intend for the proposed text to
create the concerns raised by Amtrak. FRA's intent in revising the text
has been focused on placing the accelerometers near the center of a
truck--not simply near the end of a vehicle. FRA did not intend in any
way to remove the needed flexibility for a railroad to locate the
accelerators on or under the floor. FRA has revised the rule text
accordingly, and the Task Force concurred with this revision.

    Paragraph (k)(2) is based on former paragraph (k) and provides that
a device for measuring lateral accelerations shall be mounted on a
truck frame at a longitudinal location as close as practicable to an
axle's centerline (either outside axle for trucks containing more than
2 axles), or, if approved by FRA, at an alternate location. As
proposed, a provision has been added to allow the track owner or
operating railroad to petition FRA for an exemption from the periodic
monitoring requirements in paragraph (j) for truck acceleration, after
2 years, or 1 million miles, whichever occurs first. FRA does note
that, pursuant to Sec.  238.427, truck acceleration is continuously
monitored on each Tier II passenger vehicle in order to determine if
hunting oscillations of the vehicle are occurring during revenue
operation.
    Paragraph (k)(3) is based on provisions in former paragraphs (j)
and (k). Paragraph (j) formerly provided that each track owner 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 problem, and paragraph (k) formerly provided
that for the periodic testing of equipment in track Classes 7 through
9, speeds would be reduced if the vehicle/track interaction safety
limits were exceeded. In the NPRM, FRA sought to combine the two
provisions, proposing that if any of the carbody lateral, carbody
vertical, or truck frame lateral acceleration safety limits in this
section's table of vehicle/track interaction safety limits is exceeded,
appropriate speed restrictions be applied until corrective action is
taken.
    In its comments on the NPRM, Amtrak stated that the proposal in
paragraph (k)(3) would have required Amtrak to issue a mandatory slow
order when an accelerometer recorded an anomaly. Amtrak believed that
the proposal was completely impractical and did not take into account
the reality of accelerometer testing or railroad operations. Amtrak
related the example of an Acela coach with a bad lateral damper that
had recorded 57 separate ``hits,'' asserting that under the proposal
Amtrak would have been required to have placed slow orders on a large
portion of the NEC, impacting all intercity and commuter rail
operations. Amtrak stated that the original provision required Amtrak
only to have a plan in place to handle accelerometer data issues, that
the requirement had served Amtrak well, and that there was no evidence
that mandatory slow orders would do anything but result in slower
trains.
    FRA is revising paragraph (k)(3) in consultation with the Task
Force. Paragraph (k)(3) provides that if any of the carbody lateral,
carbody vertical, or truck frame lateral acceleration safety limits in
this section's table of vehicle/track interaction safety limits is
exceeded, corrective action shall be taken as necessary. Paragraph
(k)(3) also provides that track personnel shall be notified when the
accelerometers indicate a possible track-related problem. FRA did not
intend that a railroad issue a slow order merely because an
accelerometer registers a ``hit.'' FRA intended that corrective action
be taken only as necessary for safety, and has modified the paragraph
to make that clearer. Likewise, the requirement to provide notification
to track personnel does not, in itself, require that a slow order must
be issued. Overall, FRA believes that this paragraph reflects the
intent of the former paragraphs and provides the necessary direction
and flexibility to the track owner or railroad, or both, to respond
appropriately when the accelerometers record that the safety limits in
the VTI table have been exceeded.
    FRA is modifying the requirement in paragraph (l) for conducting
instrumented wheelset (IWS) testing on Class 8 and 9 track. IWS testing
is no longer a general requirement applicable for all Class 8 and 9
track. Instead, the specific need to perform IWS testing shall be
determined by FRA on a case-by-case basis, after reviewing a report
submitted annually by the track owner or railroad detailing the
accelerometer monitoring data collected in accordance with paragraphs
(j) and (k) of this section. A thorough review of the Acela trainset
IWS data, as well as consideration of the economics associated with the
testing, revealed that there were significant cost and little apparent
safety benefit to justify IWS testing as a general requirement on an
annual basis. FRA believes that the testing and monitoring requirements
in this section, as a whole, together with FRA's oversight and ability
to impose IWS testing requirements as needed, are sufficient to
maintain safety at a lower cost.
    FRA is making conforming changes to paragraph (m), which, because
of the revisions to this section, now requires that the track owner or
railroad maintain a copy of the most recent exception records for the
inspections required under paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section, and,
as appropriate, paragraph (l) should IWS testing be required. FRA noted
in publishing the NPRM that the Task Force did not specifically propose
to retain paragraph (m), seemingly because of the proposed addition in
paragraph (l) of an annual requirement to provide an analysis of the
monitoring data gathered for operations on track Classes 8 and 9.
However, while the reporting requirement in paragraph (l) is new, it is
intended to support the change to the IWS testing requirements so that
IWS testing is no longer generally required for Class 8 and 9
operations, as discussed above. Moreover, the reporting requirement is
only an annual one and, by virtue of applying only to Class 8 and 9
operations, does not address lower-speed operations.
    At the recommendation of the Task Force, paragraph (m) is also
being modified to make clear that exception data shall be maintained as
a record, but not necessarily a printed record. Each railroad or track
owner is in the best position to determine the most efficient and
effective method for keeping this information, and FRA makes clear that
the information may be maintained electronically. In this regard, Sec.
213.369(f) requires that each vehicle/track interaction safety record
required under Sec.  213.333(g) and (m) be made available for
inspection and copying by FRA, and Sec.  213.369(e) sets forth
conditions for maintaining records in an electronic system.
    As proposed, substantial changes are being made to the content of
the VTI safety limits table. In general, most of the limits have been
clarified or updated. Specifically, the single wheel vertical load
ratio limit has been tightened from 0.10 to 0.15 to ensure an adequate
safety margin for wheel unloading.
    The net axle lateral L/V ratio limit is being modified from 0.5, to
0.4 + 5.0/Va, so as to take into account the effect of axle
load and more appropriately reflect the cumulative, detrimental effect
of track panel shift from heavier vehicles. This net axle lateral load
limit is intended to control excessive lateral track shift and is
sensitive to a number of track parameters. The well-established,
European Prud'homme limit is a function of the axle load and this
sensitivity is desired to differentiate between coach car and heavier
locomotive loads. The Volpe Center's TREDA (Track Residual Deflection
Analysis) simulation work, testing at the Transportation Technology
Center, Inc. (TTCI), and comparison to the Prud'homme limit all have
indicated the dependence on axle load and the importance of initial,
small lateral deflections. Representatives of the Task Force
independently reviewed the Volpe Center analysis and concurred

with this change. The limiting condition allows for a small initial
deformation and assumes a stable configuration with the accumulation of
additional traffic.
    Due to variations in vehicle design requirements and passenger ride
safety, the carbody acceleration limits have been divided into separate
limits for ``Passenger Cars'' and those for ``Other Vehicles'' (such as
conventional locomotives). In addition, the carbody transient
acceleration limits have been modified from 0.5g lateral and 0.6g
vertical to the following: in the lateral direction, 0.65g for
passenger cars and 0.75g for other vehicles; and, in the vertical
direction, 1.0g for both passenger cars and other vehicles. These
changes were developed after considerable research into the performance
of existing vehicles during qualification testing and revenue
operations. Overall, it was found that the carbody transient
acceleration limits need not be as stringent to protect against events
leading to vehicle or passenger safety issues.
    Based on the small energy content associated with high-frequency
acceleration events of the carbody, FRA is adding text to exclude any
transient acceleration peaks lasting less than 50 milliseconds. Other
changes include the addition of new limits for sustained carbody
lateral and vertical oscillatory accelerations, as well as the addition
of minimum requirements for sampling and filtering of the acceleration
data. The sustained carbody oscillatory acceleration limits have been
developed in response to a review of data that was obtained during
qualification testing for the MARC-III multi-level passenger car, as
discussed in Section IV.A. of the preamble. The sustained carbody
oscillatory acceleration limits are 0.10g RMSt (root mean
squared with linear trend removed) for passenger cars and 0.12g
RMSt for other vehicles in the lateral direction, and 0.25g
RMSt for both passenger cars and other vehicles in the
vertical direction. These new limits require that the RMSt
value be used in order to attenuate the effects of the linear variation
in oscillatory accelerations resulting from negotiation of track
segments with changes in curvature or grade by design, such as spirals.
Root mean squared values shall be determined over a sliding 4-second
window with linear trend removed and be sustained for more than 4
seconds. Acceleration measurements shall be processed through a low
pass filter with a minimum cut-off frequency of 10 Hz, and the sample
rate for oscillatory acceleration data need be at least 100 samples per
second.
    FRA is modifying the proposed requirement that peak-to-peak carbody
vertical (transient) accelerations, measured as the algebraic
difference between the two extreme values of measured acceleration in
any 1-second time period, excluding any peak lasting less than 50
milliseconds, not exceed 1.0g for both ``Passenger Cars'' and ``Other
Vehicles.'' While the final rule retains the limit for ``Passenger
Cars'' of 1.0g, the limit for ``Other Vehicles'' is changed to 1.25g.
    In commenting on the NPRM, Bombardier stated that this limit had
been an open issue with the Task Force prior to publication of the NPRM
and that it should be discussed by the Task Force prior to promulgating
this final rule. Further, in commenting on the proposed VTI safety
limits, SNCF noted that it did not consider vertical car body
acceleration as a safety limit. This issue was discussed with the Task
Force, and FRA reevaluated relevant test data, including wheel/rail
loads at the time of peak-to-peak acceleration. FRA does not believe
that safety will be compromised by changing this limit to 1.25g.
    The last set of changes to the VTI table concerns the truck lateral
acceleration limit used for the detection of truck hunting. This limit
is being tightened from 0.4g to 0.3g and specifies that the value must
exceed that limit for more than 2 seconds. Analyses conducted by FRA
have shown that this change will help to better identify the
occurrences of excessive truck hunting, while excluding high-frequency,
low-amplitude oscillations that do not require immediate attention. In
addition, this revised limit requires that the RMSt value be
used rather than the RMSm (root mean squared with mean
removed) value. FRA believes that this revision will improve the
process for analyzing data while the vehicle is negotiating spiral
track segments. Separately, FRA notes that it has retained the entry in
the ``Parameter'' column as ``Truck Lateral''--rather than change it to
``Truck Lateral Acceleration'' as proposed in the NPRM. The original
entry is stated appropriately and needs no modification.
Section 213.345 Vehicle/Track System Qualification
    As part of the 1998 Track Safety Standards final rule, all
(passenger and freight) rolling stock was required to be qualified for
operation for its intended track class. Qualification testing was
intended to demonstrate that the equipment not exceed the VTI limits
specified in Sec.  213.333 at any speed less than 10 m.p.h. above the
proposed maximum operating speed. An exception was provided for
equipment that had already operated in specified track classes. Rolling
stock operating in Class 6 track within one year prior to the
promulgation of the 1998 final rule was considered qualified. Further,
vehicles operating at Class 7 track speeds under conditional waivers
prior to the promulgation of the 1998 final rule were qualified for
Class 7 track, including equipment that was then-operating on the
Northeast Corridor at Class 7 track speeds.
    FRA is making a number of significant changes to this section,
whose heading is modified from ``Vehicle qualification testing'' to
``Vehicle/track system qualification,'' to reflect more appropriately
the interaction of the vehicle and the track over which it operates as
a system. These changes include modifying and clarifying this section's
substantive requirements, reorganizing the structure and layout of the
rule text, and revising the qualification procedures. Among the
specific changes, high cant deficiency operations on lower-speed track
classes are subject to the requirements of this section in accordance
with Sec.  213.57(i).
    FRA proposed that paragraph (a) require all vehicle types intended
to operate at Class 6 speeds or above, or at any curving speed
producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency, to be qualified for
operation for their intended track classes in accordance with this
subpart. FRA also proposed that, for qualification purposes, the former
over-speed testing requirement be reduced from 10 m.p.h. to 5 m.p.h.
above the maximum proposed operating speed. FRA noted in the NPRM that
it agreed with the Task Force's view that the former 10 m.p.h. over-
speed testing requirement, which was established as part of the 1998
final rule, had become overly conservative based on improved speed
control and display technology deployed in current operations.
    In commenting on the proposal, the AAR stated that FRA insert
language providing that where the maximum operating speed is 150
m.p.h., qualification testing may take place at speeds up to 155 m.p.h.
without requiring an RPA for operating at speeds in excess of 150
m.p.h., per former footnote 2 to Sec.  213.307(a). Specifically, the
AAR suggested that FRA add a sentence to paragraph (a)(2), stating that
speeds up to 155 m.p.h. are permitted for the purpose of qualification
testing without an RPA, where the maximum allowable operating speed is
150 m.p.h.
    As explained in the discussion of Sec.  213.307, above, FRA is
modifying the rule to make clear that an RPA is not

specifically needed to authorize high-speed rail operations. Paragraph
(a) concerns qualification testing to operate rail service at such high
speeds. No process or procedure as formal as an RPA is necessary to
allow such qualification testing above the maximum speeds proposed for
the operation. Rather, FRA's very approval of the qualification test
plan will provide the necessary oversight to allow for the safe conduct
of testing at such speeds, and testing conducted in accordance with
this FRA approval shall be deemed in compliance with this part 213.
Accordingly, paragraph (a)(2) clarifies that for purposes of
qualification testing, speeds may exceed the maximum allowable
operating speeds for the class of track in accordance with the test
plan approved by FRA.
    In its comments on the NPRM, Bombardier stated that paragraph (a)
did not contain a Task Force proposal that qualification testing take
place not only at any speed up to and including 5 m.p.h. above the
proposed maximum operating speed, but also at a speed that produces a
cant deficiency greater than 3 inches above the proposed maximum cant
deficiency, whichever is less. Bombardier stated that not including
this proposal seems appropriate on the higher track classes, since a 5
m.p.h. increase in speed through any curve will not result in cant
deficiency greater than 3 inches over the proposed cant deficiency.
However, Bombardier believed that this may not be the case when
conducting such tests on lower-speed track classes at cant deficiencies
exceeding 5 inches. Therefore, Bombardier suggested retaining the
proposed language developed by the Task Force, and stated that this
comment affected proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) in this section as well.
    The final rule does not include an alternative requirement that
qualification testing take place at a speed that produces a cant
deficiency greater than 3 inches above the proposed maximum cant
deficiency, if this speed is less than 5 m.p.h. above the proposed
maximum operating speed. FRA believes that the 5 m.p.h. over-speed
testing requirement is appropriate, especially for the lower-speed
track classes, because the requirements of this section apply only to
those operations on Class 1 through 5 track at curving speeds producing
more than 5 inches of cant deficiency. For example, a speed that
produces a cant deficiency greater than 3 inches above this already
high level of cant deficiency on Class 2 or 3 track would be
unrealistic for testing. Moreover, since that speed would surely exceed
5 m.p.h. above the proposed maximum operating speed, the lesser speed
of 5 m.p.h. over the proposed maximum operating speed would apply. FRA
has therefore not adopted the suggestion of the commenter.
    Paragraph (b) addresses the qualification of existing vehicle types
and provides that such vehicle types previously qualified or permitted
to operate at track Class 6 speeds or above or at any curving speeds
producing more than 5 inches of cant deficiency are considered as being
successfully qualified under the requirements of this section for
operation at the previously operated speeds and cant deficiencies over
the previously operated track segment(s). FRA makes clear that this
qualification applies for operation over the previously-operated track
segment(s) only. To qualify such vehicle types to operate over new
routes (even at the same track speeds), the qualification requirements
contained in other paragraphs of this section must be met.
    Paragraph (c) contains the requirements for qualifying new vehicle
types. The additional (and tighter) carbody acceleration limits in
former paragraph (b) for new vehicle qualification have been removed.
In their place, this section now references Sec.  213.333 for the
applicable VTI limits for accelerations and wheel/rail forces. This
change resulted from considerable research into the performance of
existing vehicles during qualification testing and revenue operations.
Overall, it was found that the acceleration limits in former paragraph
(b) need not be as stringent to protect against events leading to
vehicle or passenger safety issues. As further specified in this
paragraph, vehicle types intended to operate at track Class 6 speeds or
above, or at any curving speed producing more than 5 inches of cant
deficiency, may be subject to a combination of computer simulations,
carbody acceleration testing, truck acceleration testing, and wheel/
rail force measurements.
    In commenting on proposed paragraph (c), Bombardier stated that for
new vehicles intended to operate at track Class 6 speeds, the rule
should allow an option for vehicles to be qualified either through
simulations or wheel/rail force measurements, to be consistent with
what has been allowed for vehicle qualification testing. In addition,
NCDOT raised concern that the proposal would have eliminated the use of
instrumented wheelsets for the measurement of wheel/rail forces during
vehicle qualification testing on track Class 6, noting that computer
simulations over a representative segment of the actual route using
MCAT were proposed in lieu of IWS tests for speeds up to 110 m.p.h. and
up to 6 inches of cant deficiency. NCDOT stated that, while this may be
a safe and less expensive method, NCDOT believed it not entirely clear
whether the vehicle/track model validation requirements in the NPRM
could be achieved and approved by FRA in a reasonable timeframe and at
a lower cost than conducting IWS tests. NCDOT stated that, since the
concept of using simulations as a qualification tool is relatively new,
it suggested an option be allowed to use simulations or instrumented
wheelsets for qualification on track Class 6. NCDOT cited that this
concept was proposed in the NPRM for qualifying equipment for use on
another corridor at the same speed and cant deficiency, and believed it
logical to allow this option for new vehicle qualification in this
lower speed range. NCDOT suggested that FRA employ this option as an
interim measure until the implications of the simulation requirements
have been fully verified and justified using a detailed cost-benefit
analysis. In addition, NCDOT noted that this option would allow the use
of existing instrumentation if it is compatible with the new vehicle
type seeking qualification.
    FRA agrees with the commenters that instrumented wheelsets are
currently used for qualifying vehicle types intended to operate at
track Class 6 speeds and that their use for such qualification purposes
should be permitted to continue. As recommended by the Task Force,
paragraph (c) is being revised by adding a new paragraph (c)(1) to
allow for vehicle types intended to operate at track Class 6 speeds to
be qualified either through simulations or the use of instrumented
wheelsets to demonstrate compliance with the wheel/rail force limits
specified in Sec.  213.333.
    Consequently, what was proposed as paragraph (c)(1) for computer
simulations is being designated as paragraph (c)(2) and modified to
state that it applies to new vehicle types intended to operate at track
Class 7 speeds or above--not Class 6 speeds or above--as well at any
curving speed producing more than 6 inches of cant deficiency, as
proposed in the NPRM. FRA notes that, although in accordance with Sec.
213.57(i), vehicle types intended to operate at cant deficiencies
greater than 5 inches on the lower-speed track classes are subject to
the requirements of this section, the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)
apply to the lower-speed track classes only for operations at cant
deficiencies greater than 6

inches. This paragraph requires computer simulations to be conducted on
both an analytically defined track segment representative of minimally
compliant track conditions (MCAT) for the respective track classes as
specified in appendix D to this part and on a track segment
representative of the full route on which the vehicle type is intended
to operate. (See the discussion of MCAT in appendix D, below.)
    No comment was specifically raised on the remaining provisions of
proposed paragraph (c), and they have been adopted as proposed, newly
designated as paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(5).
    Paragraph (c)(3) requires carbody acceleration testing for all
operations at track Class 6 speeds or above, or for any operation above
5 inches of cant deficiency. FRA notes that, in accordance with Sec.
213.57(i), vehicle types intended to operate at cant deficiencies
greater than 5 inches on the lower-speed track classes are subject to
the requirements of this section.
    Paragraph (c)(4) requires truck acceleration testing for all
operations at track Class 6 speeds or above.
    Paragraph (c)(5) provides that measurement of wheel/rail forces,
through the use of instrumented wheelsets (or equivalent devices), are
required for all operations at track Class 7 speeds or above, or for
any operation above 6 inches of cant deficiency. Again, FRA notes that,
although in accordance with Sec.  213.57(i), vehicle types intended to
operate at cant deficiencies greater than 5 inches on the lower-speed
track classes are subject to the requirements of this section, the
requirements of paragraph (c)(5) apply to the lower-speed track classes
only for operations at cant deficiencies greater than 6 inches.
    In paragraph (d), FRA proposed to separate and explicitly define
the qualification requirements for previously qualified vehicle types
intended to operate on new track segments. Former paragraph (d)
provided for test runs to be made over the entire route intended for
revenue service, and for previously qualified equipment, the paragraph
applied if a new route were proposed at a later date.
    In commenting on the NPRM, Bombardier suggested that for vehicles
previously qualified under this subpart for a track class and cant
deficiency using both wheel/rail force measurements and simulations,
the vehicles should be qualified at the same class and cant deficiency
on another route without requiring additional simulations or track
testing. Bombardier stated that as the vehicle model would have been
fully validated with the extensive process required by the rule,
including the worst-case MCAT conditions, there would be high cost with
no safety benefit to conducting simulations and testing on other
routes.
    In addition, Amtrak commented extensively on proposed changes to
this section concerning the ``portability'' of a vehicle type's
qualification. Amtrak commented that it could see no increased safety
benefit from the regulatory scheme proposed by FRA. According to
Amtrak, the proposed changes would not be an efficient use of railroad
resources in that there would be a potentially never-ending series of
qualifications and re-qualifications required. Amtrak cited as an
example the safe use of Amfleet equipment for decades on the Northeast
Corridor. Amtrak believed that if it sought to use that same Amfleet
equipment in the Midwest at the same speeds on track maintained to the
same track class standards as the Northeast Corridor, then under the
proposed regulation Amtrak would have been required to qualify the
equipment to the new standards. Moreover, Amtrak raised concern that
FRA would have required qualification every time it sought to operate a
type of equipment over a new portion of the same route. Amtrak stated
that track maintained to a particular FRA class standard in one part of
the country is, by definition, identical to any other piece of track
maintained to that same standard. Amtrak commented that once equipment
is qualified to operate at a particular speed on a class of track, that
qualification should suffice to ``certify'' that that equipment can
operate at the speed in question over that class of track anywhere in
the country. At the same time, Amtrak noted that it did not question
the need for local testing of operational and safety issues; all new
and expanded service must be thoroughly vetted to make sure that all
safety issues are discovered and addressed.
    Amtrak added that FRA's proposal was counter to the Task Force
recommendation that once a vehicle is qualified for a particular speed
and cant deficiency, it would not have to be retested and qualified
each time it moved to operate at that same cant deficiency on a new
track segment. Amtrak offered another example to illustrate its
concern: Amtrak performs testing on a particular piece of equipment to
demonstrate that it can operate safely at a particular cant deficiency.
This new service is to be run over the territory of a freight railroad
host. The equipment is placed in service by Amtrak and operates safely.
One year later, a State decides to increase service and builds a new
station 5 miles away from the existing terminus of Amtrak service, on
the same host railroad's line. Amtrak believed that, under FRA's
proposal, Amtrak would have to re-qualify this equipment to operate
safely over this ``new'' stretch of railroad, even though the equipment
is operated by the same railroad, and the rail line itself is
maintained by the same railroad to the same standards as the existing
line. Amtrak stated that FRA cannot justify the need for this new
qualification as responsive to ``local'' conditions. There are no
``local'' variations to track class standards, according to Amtrak; the
track is either maintained to the FRA standards, or it is not. Amtrak
also pointed out that portability of equipment qualification could
simplify the design and procurement process for future high-speed and
commuter equipment. Knowing a particular design already meets FRA
safety standards for known track conditions makes it easier to procure
equipment, Amtrak stated.
    Based on the comments received, the Task Force re-addressed the
portability requirements in paragraph (d) for previously qualified
vehicle types. The Task Force considered that, although the vehicle
type would be unchanged, the vehicle/track system should be
appropriately examined for deficiencies prior to its service operation
on a new route where performance-based standards are relied upon at
track Class 7 speeds or above and at cant deficiencies exceeding 5
inches. Past experience was cited with the high-speed and high cant
deficiency qualification of the Acela trainset where testing at a well-
maintained track Class 8 test facility did not uncover performance
issues that were later identified during the local vehicle/track system
testing on the Northeast Corridor, where it was intended to operate. In
this regard, the Task Force considered the adequacy to which the new
vehicle/track system need be examined during qualification testing to
demonstrate system safety.
    At the same time, the Task Force took into account that all of the
requirements of revised paragraph (c) in this final rule--i.e., wheel/
rail force, carbody acceleration and truck lateral acceleration
testing, as well as simulations using MCAT and a representative track
segment--apply to new vehicle qualification for track Class 7 speeds or
above, or at any curving speed producing more than 6 inches of cant
deficiency. The MCAT simulations are independent of the route, and once
conducted, will have examined the vehicle/track system performance
under the majority of worst-case conditions

that might be found on any route. However, MCAT cannot account for all
wavelengths and combinations of track deviations that may locally exist
on a given route.
    For consistency within this final rule, the Task Force agreed that
the static lean requirements of Sec.  213.57(d) and Sec.  213.329(d),
once met, are independent of the route and noted that no further
analysis or testing with respect to these requirements is necessary for
previously qualified vehicle types. In addition, vehicle types that
have been permitted to operate at cant deficiencies greater than 3
inches but not exceeding 5 inches are considered to be qualified under
the new rule for all operations at track Class 6 speeds and below. In
the final rule, no testing or simulations are required for previously
qualified vehicle types intending to operate on new routes at track
Class 1 through Class 6 speeds and at cant deficiencies not exceeding 5
inches.
    As provided in paragraph (d)(1), for all operations at track Class
7 speeds or above and cant deficiencies exceeding 5 inches, or for any
operation above 6 inches of cant deficiency, simulations or measurement
of wheel/rail forces is required to demonstrate safe, local vehicle/
track system performance on a new route. For performance-based
standards that address the vehicle/track system, simulations are
especially useful for demonstrating that when qualified vehicles are
intended to operate on a new route, the new vehicle/track system is
adequately examined for deficiencies prior to revenue service
operation. The Task Force did recognize that, once run for the MCAT
deviations, a fully-validated vehicle model required for qualifying new
vehicle types under this final rule need not be repeated. Only a
simulation for a representative track segment from the new route is
required, as the results of the MCAT simulations will be kept on file
and be available for reference.
    As noted, for previously qualified vehicle types intended to
operate on new routes at track Class 1 through Class 6 speeds and at
cant deficiencies not exceeding 5 inches, the requirements of this
paragraph (d) do not apply. Should the proposed cant deficiency exceed
5 inches but not exceed 6 inches for operations at track Class 1
through 6 speeds, carbody acceleration testing under paragraph (d)(2)
is required to demonstrate safe, local vehicle/track system performance
on a new route; however, no other qualification testing is required by
this paragraph (d).
    As provided in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3), for previously qualified
vehicle types intended to operate on new routes at track Class 7 speeds
or above, carbody and truck acceleration testing is required to
demonstrate safe, local vehicle/track system performance. The carbody
acceleration testing requirements in paragraph (d)(2) also apply to
previously qualified vehicle types intended to operate on new routes at
cant deficiencies exceeding 5 inches.
    Paragraph (e) clarifies the requirements in former paragraph (c)
for the content of the qualification testing plan and adds a
requirement for the plan to be submitted to FRA at least 60 days prior
to conducting the testing.
    In response to a comment from Bombardier, FRA is consolidating
proposed paragraph (e)(1), for including in the testing plan the
results of required vehicle/track performance simulations, with
proposed paragraph (e)(7), for including in the testing plan an
analysis of simulation results, when simulations are required as part
of vehicle qualification. Together, both paragraphs were potentially
duplicative and are now addressed in paragraph (e)(6), which provides
that the testing plan shall include the results of vehicle/track
performance simulations that are required by this section. As a
consequence, the remaining paragraphs, proposed as paragraphs (e)(2)
through (6), are designated as paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) in this
final rule.
    FRA notes that paragraph (e)(3) is being modified from the proposal
in paragraph (e)(4) to provide that the test plan identify the maximum
angle found on the gage face of the designed (newly profiled) wheel
flange referenced with respect to the axis of the wheelset that will be
used for the determination of the Single Wheel L/V Ratio safety limit
specified in Sec.  213.333. This modification is consistent with the
proposal in the NPRM and clarifies that the designed wheel flange is of
a wheel newly profiled to that which is intended for service.
    In addition, paragraph (e)(4) is being modified from the proposal
in paragraph (e)(5), to provide that the test plan identify the target
maximum testing speed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section
and the maximum testing cant deficiency. During Task Force
consideration of the draft final rule, Interfleet noted that the
reference to paragraph (a) concerns the maximum testing speed but that,
as proposed, the reference appeared after the mention of the target
maximum cant deficiency. Specifically, paragraph (a)(2) provides that
for purposes of qualification testing, speeds may exceed the maximum
allowable operating speed for the class of track in accordance with the
test plan approved by FRA. Therefore, this reordering from the NPRM
more clearly associates together the provisions that concern testing
speed. At the same time, FRA has clarified what was meant by the
``target'' maximum cant deficiency in proposed paragraph (e)(5). The
final rule makes clear that this cant deficiency is the ``maximum
testing cant deficiency,'' i.e., the maximum cant deficiency intended
(targeted) during qualification testing. In addition, FRA recognizes
that not every curve tested in a track segment need or will require the
same level of cant deficiency, and therefore, FRA does not expect all
test operations to be conducted at the maximum cant deficiency
specified in a track segment for each curve within that segment. FRA
intends that issues specific to individual qualification tests, such as
the targeted cant deficiency for each curve, be addressed in the
qualification testing plan, program, and approval process.
    Paragraph (f) contains the requirements for conducting
qualification testing upon FRA approval of the test plan, expanding on
the original requirements in this section. For instance, this paragraph
expressly requires that TGMS equipment be operated over the intended
test route within 30 days prior to the start of the testing, to help
ensure the integrity of the test results. This paragraph also makes
clear that exceptions to the safety limits that occur on track or at
speeds that are not part of the test do not need to be reported.
Specifically, any exception to the safety limits that occurs at speeds
below track Class 6 speeds when the cant deficiency is at or below 5
inches does not need to be reported.
    During Task Force consideration of the draft final rule, Interfleet
recommended that FRA set a timeframe for FRA approval of testing plans
so that the track owner or railroad can schedule testing and plan
related activities that are resource- or time-critical, or both. FRA
notes that for this reason, and as proposed, paragraph (e) specifies
that a qualification testing plan be submitted to FRA at least 60 days
prior to conducting the testing. This 60-day period is for the benefit
of FRA primarily to allow sufficient time to review and approve the
plan, and to seek clarification from the submitter as necessary. In
some cases, the review and approval may be able to be accomplished in
less than 60 days; in other cases, the process may take longer,
especially if the plan is incomplete or if questions are raised. FRA is
mindful of the concern that FRA not unduly delay testing, and at the
same time recognizes that safety is better and more efficiently

served by identifying potential safety issues early in the
qualification process. FRA therefore encourages those planning to
conduct qualification testing to approach FRA prior to the submission
of their test plans should they have any questions or concerns about
the testing and approval process.
    Paragraph (g) contains the requirements for reporting to FRA the
results of the qualification testing program. Bombardier commented that
the Task Force did not discuss the proposal that when simulations are
required as part of vehicle qualification this report include a
comparison of simulation predictions to the actual wheel/rail force or
acceleration data, or both, recorded during full-scale testing.
Bombardier stated that it understands the intent of the requirement but
expressed concern that if not applied in a practical manner, it could
significantly delay equipment approvals. Bombardier suggested that this
issue be further reviewed and discussed by the Task Force prior to
promulgation of the final rule. Bombardier believed that one way of
addressing this issue would be to include a section in the Track Safety
Standards Compliance Manual that would provide guidance on the means
and expectations for correlating simulations with vehicle qualification
test results. A good example would be the correlation that was
conducted by the Volpe Center on the vehicle models used to develop the
regulation, according to Bombardier.
    FRA appreciates Bombardier's comment on this proposal. Indeed, FRA
has sponsored research at TTCI to establish a set of procedures for
validating models used in simulating vehicle/track dynamic interaction.
FRA intends to publish this research before the final rule takes effect
and appropriately incorporate it into FRA's formal guidance on
compliance with the Track Safety Standards. FRA also encourages parties
to approach FRA early in the vehicle/track system qualification process
should they have any questions or concerns about correlating simulation
predictions with actual wheel/rail force or acceleration test data.
    Pursuant to paragraph (h), FRA approves a maximum train speed and
value of cant deficiency for revenue service, based on the test results
and all other required submissions. FRA intends to provide an approval
decision normally within 45 days of receipt of all the required
information, and has expressed its intent here at the suggestion of the
Task Force. A decision may be made earlier or later, depending on the
circumstance of each request. Paragraph (h) also makes clear that FRA
may impose conditions necessary for safely operating at the maximum
train speed and value of cant deficiency approved for revenue service.
    Paragraph (i) is being added to this section. In commenting on the
NPRM, Amtrak stated that a significant paragraph approved by the Task
Force has been omitted. The paragraph proposed that documents required
by this section must be submitted to FRA by either the tracker owner or
an operating entity that provides service with the vehicle type over
trackage of one or more track owners with the written consent of all
affected track owners. According to Amtrak, the second clause is an
important tenet in the operating world when an entity like Amtrak wants
to operate a high-speed train over trackage owned by one or more
freight railroads. Without this paragraph, Amtrak believed that each of
the host railroads would be required to submit the paperwork and
perform the tests required.
    The AAR likewise noted the Task Force's concurrence that this
section would contain a requirement that all documents be submitted to
FRA by either the track owner or by the operating entity with the
written consents of all affected track owners. The AAR stated that FRA
removed this provision without any explanation. According to the AAR,
FRA should not approve any application for permission to operate
vehicles at Class 6 speeds or at cant deficiencies without the
concurrence of the track owner(s), which the AAR believed was the
underlying intent behind the proposal that the necessary documents
should be submitted either by a track owner or with the approval of the
track owner(s).
    FRA did not intend such a result. Paragraph (i) is therefore being
added to this section to make clear that the documents required by this
section must be provided to FRA by either (1) the track owner, or (2) a
railroad that provides service with the same vehicle type over trackage
of one or more track owner(s), with the written consent of each
affected track owner. The Task Force concurred with this addition,
making clearer and more concise what was earlier discussed prior to the
publication of the NPRM. In this regard, FRA makes clear that a
``railroad'' includes what was previously identified as an ``operator
of a passenger or commuter service'' in former Sec.  213.57(e) and
Sec.  213.329(f). For example, Amtrak is a railroad that provides
passenger service over trackage often owned by other entities, usually
freight railroads. Amtrak is also a track owner over whose trackage
numerous passenger railroads operate, such as SEPTA and NJ Transit,
which commented on the NPRM.
Section 213.355 Frog Guard Rails and Guard Faces; Gage
    This section currently sets limits for guard check gage and guard
face gage for track Classes 6 through 9. As proposed, FRA is making
minor changes to the way in which the requirements of this section are
formatted. However, no substantive change is intended.
Appendix A to Part 213--Maximum Allowable Curving Speeds
    This appendix formerly contained only two charts showing maximum
allowable operating speeds in curves, by degree of curvature and inches
of unbalance (cant deficiency): table 1, which applies to curves with 3
inches of unbalance; and table 2, which applies to curves with 4 inches
of unbalance. Because this final rule facilitates the use of higher
cant deficiencies, this appendix has been expanded to include two
additional tables: tables 3 and 4, which apply, respectively, to curves
with 5 and 6 inches of unbalance. While this rule does provide for
operations at higher levels of unbalance, for convenience, FRA has set
out only those tables that it believes are more likely to be commonly
used.
    FRA notes that in response to comments by Bombardier on the NPRM,
FRA is revising the formatting of the tables from that proposed in the
NPRM. Bombardier suggested lowering the ``Degree of curvature'' text by
one row and inscribing a box around ``Elevation of outer rail
(inches)'' for placement over columns 0 through 6, as well as
inscribing a box around the ``Maximum allowable operating speed
(m.p.h.)'' text for placement over columns 0 though 6. For clarify,
each of the tables has been formatted accordingly.
Appendix B to Part 213--Schedule of Civil Penalties
    Appendix B to part 213 contains a schedule of civil penalties for
use in connection with this part. Because such penalty schedules are
statements of agency policy, notice and comment are not required prior
to their issuance. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, FRA invited
commenters to submit suggestions to FRA describing the types of actions
or omissions for each proposed regulatory section, either added or
revised, that would subject a person to the assessment of a civil
penalty. Commenters were also invited to recommend what penalties may
be appropriate, based upon the relative

seriousness of each type of violation. No comment was received.
    FRA is amending the penalty schedule to reflect the changes made to
part 213. Specifically, FRA is adding entries for new sections