Rail Integrity and Track Safety Standards, 63362-63392 [2020-18339]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63362
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 213
[Docket No. FRA–2018–0104, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130–AC53
Rail Integrity and Track Safety
Standards
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Structures Division, Office of Railroad
Safety, Federal Railroad Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W33–302,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202–
493–6460; or Aaron Moore, Attorney,
Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, W31–216,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202–
493–7009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
FRA is revising its regulations
governing the minimum safety
requirements for railroad track. The
changes include allowing inspection of
rail using continuous rail testing;
allowing the use of flange-bearing frogs
in crossing diamonds; relaxing the
guard check gage limits on heavy-point
frogs used in Class 5 track; removing an
inspection-method exception for highdensity commuter lines; and other
miscellaneous revisions. Overall, the
revisions will benefit track owners,
railroads, and the public by reducing
unnecessary costs and incentivizing
innovation, while improving rail safety.
DATES: This final rule is effective
October 7, 2020 in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the
docket to read background documents
or comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: YuJiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track and
SUMMARY:
I. Executive Summary
II. Rulemaking Authority and Background
III. Summary of the Major Provisions of the
Final Rule
A. Continuous Rail Testing
B. Removal of the High-Density Commuter
Line Exception
C. Incorporation of Flange-Bearing Frog
and Heavy-Point Frog Waivers
i. Heavy-Point Frogs
ii. Flange-Bearing Frog Crossing Diamonds
IV. Discussion of Comments and Conclusions
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Environmental Impact
E. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental
Justice)
F. Federalism Implications
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Energy Impact
I. Executive Summary
Beginning in 2015, the Track Safety
Standards Working Group (TSS
Working Group) of the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC) met
numerous times to ‘‘consider specific
improvements to the Track Safety
Standards . . . designed to enhance rail
safety by improving track inspection
methods, frequency, and
documentation.’’ On December 31,
2019, FRA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that was
informed by the RSAC’s
recommendations and FRA’s own
review and analysis of the Track Safety
Standards (TSS or Standards) (49 CFR
part 213). See 84 FR 72526. In the
NPRM, FRA proposed to amend
subparts A, D, F, and G of the TSS to:
(1) Allow for continuous rail testing, (2)
incorporate longstanding waivers
related to track frogs,1 (3) remove the
exception for high-density commuter
lines from certain track inspection
method requirements, and (4)
incorporate several consensus-based,
RSAC recommendations. For a more indepth discussion of the proposals and
their development, please see the NPRM
(84 FR 72526).
FRA analyzed the economic impact of
this rule over a 10-year period and
estimated its costs and cost savings. If
railroad track owners choose to take
advantage of the cost savings from this
rule, they will incur additional labor
costs associated with continuous rail
testing. These costs are voluntary
because railroad track owners will only
incur them if they choose to operate
continuous rail testing vehicles. The
following table shows the net cost
savings of this rule, over the 10-year
analysis.
NET COST SAVINGS, IN MILLIONS
[2019 Dollars]
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
$27.44
149.30
121.86
$33.24
180.99
147.75
Costs ................................................................................................................
Cost Savings ....................................................................................................
Net Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Annualized
7%
$3.91
21.26
17.35
Annualized
3%
$3.90
21.22
17.32
This rule will result in cost savings
for railroad track owners. The cost
savings are in the table below.
COST SAVINGS, IN MILLIONS
[Over a 10-year period of analysis]
Section
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
$0.194
0.184
0.013
$0.229
0.215
0.016
Government Cost Savings ...............................................................................
Flange Bearing Frog Inspections ....................................................................
Frog Waiver Savings .......................................................................................
1 A frog is a track component used at the
intersection of two running rails to provide support
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
for wheels and passage for their flanges, thus
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Annualized
7%
$0.028
0.026
0.002
Annualized
3%
$0.027
0.025
0.002
permitting wheels on either rail to cross the other
intersecting rail.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
63363
COST SAVINGS, IN MILLIONS—Continued
[Over a 10-year period of analysis]
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
Continuous Testing Labor Cost Savings .........................................................
Slow Orders .....................................................................................................
Continuous Testing Waiver Savings ................................................................
7.452
141.329
0.132
9.034
171.340
0.157
1.061
20.122
0.019
1.059
20.086
0.018
Total ..........................................................................................................
149.305
180.991
21.258
21.218
Section
Annualized
7%
Annualized
3%
The table below presents the
estimated costs, over the 10-year
analysis.
ESTIMATED COSTS, IN MILLIONS
[Over a 10-year period of analysis]
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
Annualized
7%
Annualized
3%
$27.4
$33.2
$3.9
$3.9
Continuous Testing ..........................................................................................
II. Rulemaking Authority and
Background
On January 30, 2017, President Trump
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13771.
E.O. 13771 seeks to ‘‘manage the costs
associated with the governmental
imposition of private expenditures
required to comply with Federal
regulations’’ and directs each executive
department or agency to identify for
elimination two existing regulations for
every new regulation issued. E.O. 13771
also requires any new incremental cost
associated with a new regulation, to the
extent permitted by law, be at least
offset by the elimination of existing
costs associated with at least two prior
regulations.
In response to E.O. 13771, FRA
initiated a review of its existing
regulations with the goal of identifying
regulations that it could amend or
eliminate to reduce the overall
regulatory, paperwork, and cost burden
on entities subject to FRA jurisdiction.
FRA identified part 213 as a regulation
FRA could amend and thereby reduce
the railroad industry’s overall regulatory
and cost burden while improving rail
safety. Also, in response to a DOT
request for public comment on existing
rules ripe for repeal or modification, the
Association of American Railroads and
other industry participants encouraged
FRA to revise part 213 to allow for the
use of innovations in rail inspection
technology, specifically the use of nonstop rail inspection vehicles. See docket
number DOT–OST–2017–0069
(available online at
www.regulations.gov). This rule
responds to those comments by
providing railroads with the flexibility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
to use continuous rail testing in a way
that will facilitate operational efficiency
and enhance safety.
Section 20103 of title 49 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) provides that,
‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation, shall
prescribe regulations and issue orders
for every area of railroad safety.’’ This
statutory section codifies the authority
granted to the Secretary of
Transportation under the former Federal
Railroad Safety Act of 1970. The
Secretary’s authority to act under
section 20103 is delegated to the Federal
Railroad Administrator. See 49 CFR
1.89.
FRA published the first Standards on
October 20, 1971. The most
comprehensive revision of the
Standards resulted from the Rail Safety
Enforcement and Review Act of 1992,
Public Law 102–365, 106 Stat. 972
(Sept. 3, 1992), later amended by the
Federal Railroad Safety Authorization
Act of 1994, Public Law 103–440, 108
Stat. 4615 (Nov. 2, 1994), which led to
FRA issuing a final rule amending the
Standards in 1998. See 63 FR 34029,
June 22, 1998; 63 FR 54078, Oct. 8,
1998.
As noted in the NPRM, this final rule
is based, in part, on the consensus
recommendations of the TSS Working
Group. Specifically, this final rule
implements the TSS Working Group’s
recommendations to remove the highdensity commuter line inspectionmethod exception and to revise certain
recordkeeping requirements and the
qualification requirements for certain
railroad employees.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
III. Summary of Major Provisions of the
Final Rule
A. Continuous Rail Testing
FRA sponsors railroad safety research,
including research on rail integrity. The
general objectives of FRA rail integrity
research have been to improve railroad
safety by reducing rail failures and the
associated risks of train derailment, and
to do so more efficiently through
maintenance practices that increase rail
service life. Generally, FRA’s rail
integrity research focuses on four
distinct areas: Analysis of rail defects;
residual stresses in rail; strategies for
rail testing; and other related issues
(e.g., advances in nondestructive
inspection techniques; feasibility of
advanced materials for rail, rail
lubrication, rail grinding and wear; etc.).
FRA’s rail integrity research is an
ongoing effort, and is particularly
important as annual tonnages and
average axle loads continue to increase
on the nation’s railroads. For more
discussion of rail integrity generally, see
FRA’s 2014 final rule titled Track Safety
Standards; Improving Rail Integrity. 79
FR 4234, Jan. 24, 2014.
One of the most important assets to
the railroad industry is its rail
infrastructure. Historically, a primary
concern of railroads has been the
probability of rail flaw development.
Rail defects may take many forms (e.g.,
rail head surface conditions and internal
rail flaws). If defects go undetected, they
may grow to critical size, potentially
resulting in a broken rail and
subsequent derailment. Accordingly, to
prevent rail defect development,
railroads seek ways to improve their rail
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63364
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
maintenance practices, install more
wear-resistant rail, utilize improved
flaw-detection technologies, and
increase rail inspection frequencies.
The development of internal rail
defects is an inevitable consequence of
the accumulation and effects of fatigue
under repeated loading. The direct cost
of an undetected rail defect that leads to
a rail failure is the cost of replacing the
rail plus the cost of any damage and
other consequences that may result from
the failure. Rail failures can have
widespread and catastrophic
consequences (e.g., environmental
damage and potential injury and loss of
life, along with significant service
interruptions, and traffic rerouting). As
such, the cost of a rail failure is
typically considerably more than the
cost of replacing the rail containing the
defect before the rail actually fails. The
challenge for the railroad industry is to
avoid the occurrence of rail failures due
to the presence of undetected defects.
The effectiveness of a rail inspection
program depends, in part, on the test
equipment being properly designed and
capable of detecting rail defects of a
certain size and orientation reliably, and
on ensuring that the test frequencies
allow for detection of defects before
they grow to critical size. High traffic
and tonnage volumes can accelerate
defect growth, while at the same time
decreasing the time available for rail
inspection. Additionally, these high
volumes can lead to rail surface fatigue
that may impede the ability of test
equipment to detect an underlying rail
flaw.
Currently, track owners use four
general rail flaw detection methods,
each of which requires human
involvement to interpret the test data.
The four methods are:
• Portable test process, which
consists of an operator pushing a test
device over the rail at a walking pace
while visually interpreting the test data;
• Stop-and-verify process, where a
vehicle-based flaw detection system
tests at a slow speed (normally not
exceeding 20 miles per hour (m.p.h.)),
gathering data that is presented to the
operator on a test monitor for
interpretation and field verification;
• Chase car process, which consists of
a lead test vehicle performing the flaw
detection process ahead of a verification
chase car; and
• Continuous test process, which is
one of the subjects addressed in this
final rule, where a high-speed, vehiclebased, test system runs non-stop along
a designated route, the test data is
analysed at a centralized location, and
suspect defect locations are
subsequently verified.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
The main technologies utilized for the
processes listed above are ultrasonic
and induction methods. Ultrasonic
technology is the primary technology
used, with induction technology
currently used as a complementary
system. As with any non-destructive test
method, these technologies are
susceptible to physical limitations that
allow poor rail head surface conditions
(e.g., shelling or corrugation) to impair
the detection of rail flaws. Conditions,
other than poor rail head surface
conditions (e.g., heavy lubrication or
debris on the rail head), can also limit
the effectiveness of certain inspection
technologies.
Induction testing introduces a highlevel, direct current into the top of the
rail, establishing a magnetic field
around the rail head. An induction
sensor unit is then passed through the
magnetic field. The presence of a rail
flaw distorts the current flow and the
magnetic field, and it is this distortion
that is detected by the search unit.
Ultrasonic testing uses sound waves
that propagate at a frequency that is
normally between 2.25 MHz (million
cycles per second) to 5.0 MHz, above
the range of human hearing. Ultrasonic
waves are transmitted into the rail by
transducers placed at various angles
with respect to the rail surface. The
ultrasonic waves produced by these
transducers normally scan the entire rail
head and web, as well as the portion of
the base directly beneath the web.
Internal rail defects are discontinuities
in the material that constitutes the rail.
These discontinuities act as a reflector
to the ultrasonic waves, a portion of
which are reflected back to the
transducers. These conditions include
rail head surface conditions, internal
and visible rail flaws, weld upset/finish,
and known reflectors within the rail
geometry such as drillings or rail ends.
The information is then processed by
the test system and recorded in the test
data record.
FRA is amending its regulations on
inspection of rail and verification of
indications of defective rail to allow for
continuous rail testing. See § 213.240.
The current regulations require
immediate verification of certain
indications and require all others be
verified within 4 hours. 49 CFR
213.113(b). This verification timeframe
has made it practically impossible for
track owners to conduct continuous
testing. Consistent with FRA’s desire to
improve rail safety and encourage
innovation that does the same, this
rulemaking establishes procedures that,
except for indications of a broken rail,
extend the required verification
timeframes for those entities that adopt
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
continuous testing. FRA expects this
will facilitate operational efficiency and
encourage both a broader scope and
more frequent use of continuous rail
testing in the industry.
Although rail flaw detection is not an
exact science, noncritical rail flaw limits
can be difficult to estimate, and
numerous variables affect rail flaw
growth, FRA expects the procedures
adopted in this final rule are sufficient
to ensure the extended verification
timeframes are unlikely to result in
complete rail failure prior to
verification. Continuous rail testing is a
process that has been successfully
trialed under the waiver process
outlined in 49 CFR 213.17 on select rail
segments on multiple railroads in the
U.S. since 2009.2 This rulemaking
codifies the continuous rail testing
practices FRA has permitted by waiver
and allows for additional flexibility in
the rail inspection process. Track
owners that do not desire to conduct
continuous rail testing are not required
to do so.
As explained in detail in the NPRM,
the continuous rail test method consists
of a vehicle using ultrasonic testing, in
some cases augmented by other flaw
detection systems, to detect defects in
the rail. The raw test data is transmitted
from the vehicle to a centralized
location to be analyzed by a team of
experts, using multiple advanced
techniques, including comparison to
past data from the same location
(sometimes referred to as ‘‘change
detection’’). Once analyzed, suspect
locations or ‘‘indications’’ (locations
where the data indicates the possible
presence of a rail defect) are then
transmitted back to the field for on-site
verification to determine if an actual rail
flaw exists.
Under § 213.113(b), when a track
owner learns that a rail contains an
indication of one of the defects listed in
the Remedial Action Table, the track
owner must field-verify the indication
within four hours. As proposed,
§ 213.240 would exempt track owners
who elect to utilize continuous rail
testing from the requirement to fieldverify indications within four hours.
Depending on the type and severity of
an indication, as proposed § 213.240
would allow railroads up to either 36 or
84 hours to field-verify the suspect
locations. (Once a suspect location is
verified as a defect, however, the
2 See docket numbers FRA–2008–0111 (CSX),
FRA–2011–0107 (CSX), FRA–2014–0029 (CN),
FRA–2015–0019 (NS), FRA–2015–0115 (KCS),
FRA–2015–0130 (BNSF), FRA–2018–0022 (UP),
FRA–2018–0031 (LIRR), and FRA–2019–0057
(MNCW) (available online at www.regulations.gov).
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
remedial action timelines in the
Remedial Action Table would apply).
As noted in the NPRM, the increased
verification period is justified by the
logistical and safety benefits of
continuous rail testing. Because the test
vehicle does not have to stop and verify
each suspected defect, more track can be
inspected at greater speeds with
significantly less interruption to
revenue service. The more timeconsuming analysis of the test data can
be conducted off-site and reviewed at an
optimal speed not related to the speed
of the test vehicle. Additionally, the test
data can be more thoroughly compared
to past test runs over the same section
of track to better identify possible defect
propagation and growth. The decreased
interruption to revenue service allows
track owners to test track more
frequently. FRA expects that continuous
rail testing would substantially decrease
the overall cost to the railroad industry
while improving rail safety.
As noted in section IV.A of the NPRM
(see 84 FR 72528–30), since 2009, a
number of railroads have implemented
continuous rail testing programs
through limited, conditional waivers of
§ 213.113(b). As discussed above,
§ 213.113(b) requires track owners who
learn that a rail in their track contains
an indication of a defect listed in the
Remedial Action Table to verify the
indication within four hours and take
remedial action in accordance with the
Remedial Action Table. The Remedial
Action Table prescribes the required
remedial actions (and timelines for
taking those actions) based on the
severity of the defects identified. In
other words, there is a built-in safety
threshold in the Remedial Action Table
for each known defect depending on the
defect type and size. Generally, the
waivers FRA has granted to date
allowing railroads to conduct
continuous rail testing programs
provide a longer period of time to verify
indications of defects than permitted by
§ 213.113(b), thereby allowing the
railroads to prioritize the verification of
those defects based on the severity of
the indications identified.
Under the existing waivers, suspect
locations are not prioritized arbitrarily,
but are categorized based on the
ultrasonic reflective responses viewed
by the analyst. In other words, analysts
interpret the collected ultrasonic
reflective responses, estimate each
indication type and size, and, based on
that estimate, categorize the suspect
locations in terms of severity and
remedial action required by the
Remedial Action Table (typically
suspect locations are categorized as
‘‘priority one,’’ ‘‘priority two,’’ or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
‘‘priority three’’). Priority one
indications are suspected locations
above the threshold that, if verified as
a defect, would require remedial action
note ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘A2,’’ or ‘‘B’’ under the
Remedial Action Table. Thus, as
proposed, these suspect locations must
be field-verified within the timeframe
listed in § 213.240(e)(2).
Those suspected locations that, if
verified as a defect, would not require
either remedial action ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘A2,’’ or
‘‘B’’ must be field-verified within the
timeframe listed in § 213.240(e)(1), and
are commonly referred to in the
industry as either ‘‘priority two’’ or
‘‘priority three’’ indications, depending
on the clarity of the indication. Often,
when the ultrasonic test data produces
a response where the analyst believes a
defect is present because of the strength
of the ultrasonic reflective signal, but
that signal does not indicate a suspect
defect of the type and/or size requiring
remedial action ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘A2,’’ or ‘‘B,’’ the
track owner lists the indication as a
priority two. All other suspect locations
identified by the analyst as potential
defects or questionable ultrasonic
responses are often marked as priority
three suspect locations by the track
owner. These so-called ‘‘priority threes’’
are indications where the ultrasonic
reflective data does not produce a clear
indication of defect type or size, but
produces an unfamiliar or questionable
response. Because many variables affect
ultrasonic responses, the priority three
suspect type is the most commonly
indicated, requiring hand-verification to
check that location to ensure nothing is
being missed or misinterpreted that
might result in a rail failure and
subsequent derailment.
The Remedial Action Table reflects
the fact that all verified defects pose a
potential risk of sudden failure,
depending on the conditions, even with
defects deemed to be less severe than
others. Data from the existing waivers
demonstrates that, although less than
two percent of the priority three suspect
locations are found to be actual rail
defects, priority three suspect locations
account for approximately 85 percent of
the field-verified defects found as a
result of continuous testing. Priority one
and priority two suspect locations are
found to be actual rail defects in
approximately 95–99 percent and 65–70
percent of the cases, respectively. Thus,
although priority three suspect locations
have a much higher probability of a
false positive, they are also by far the
most common indication of an actual
defect. Accordingly, FRA finds that
safety necessitates continuing to require
the field verification of all defects
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63365
identified by tests carried out under
§ 213.237 or § 213.239.
Further, FRA is providing additional
flexibility in the rail flaw detection
processes to promote innovative
approaches to improving safety in
railroad operations. Section 213.240
provides track owners the option to
conduct continuous rail testing to
satisfy the rail inspection requirements
in § 213.237 or, where applicable,
§ 213.339. This section allows
additional time for verification of
indications of potential rail flaws
identified through continuous testing.
This additional time allows for
improvements in planning and
execution of rail inspections and rail
defect remediation, enabling track
owners to conduct rail inspections with
smaller impacts on railroad operations.
By reducing these impacts, more track
time may become available to conduct
inspections and maintenance.
However, as continuous testing is a
more complicated process compared to
the traditional stop-and-verify rail
inspection process, additional criteria
have been adopted to ensure that this
elective process is conducted in a
manner that is in the interest of safety,
with sufficient recordkeeping and
transparency to allow for adequate FRA
oversight. The continuous rail test
section would not modify the required
frequency of rail inspections or the
applicable procedural requirements as
set forth in §§ 213.237 and 213.339, nor
does it make any change to the remedial
actions required after field verification
of a rail defect as described in
§ 213.113(c).
B. Removal of the High-Density
Commuter Line Exception
FRA is removing what is commonly
referred to as the ‘‘high-density
commuter line exception’’ from the
track inspection requirements in
§ 213.233. This exception applies to
‘‘high density commuter railroad lines
where track time does not permit ontrack vehicle inspection and where track
centers are 15 feet or less apart’’ and
exempts those operations from 49 CFR
213.233(b)(3). Section 213.233(b)(3)
requires each main track to be traversed
by vehicle or inspected on foot at least
once every two weeks and each siding
at least once each month. Although
other provisions of § 213.233 do require
that such track be inspected,
§ 213.233(b)(3) focuses on the direct
manner of conducting those inspections
over or on the subject track.
On May 17, 2013, Metro-North
Commuter Railroad (Metro-North)
passenger train 1548 was traveling
eastbound from Grand Central Station,
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63366
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
New York, toward New Haven,
Connecticut, when it derailed in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, and was struck
by westbound Metro-North passenger
train 1581. The accident resulted in
approximately 65 injuries and damages
estimated at over $18 million. During
the investigation, a pair of broken
compromise joint bars were found at the
point of derailment. One of those broken
joint bars was located on the gage side
of the track over which train 1548 was
traveling (main track 4). NTSB’s
investigation also found that MetroNorth last inspected the track in the area
two days before the accident, but the
inspection was conducted by an
inspector in a hi-rail vehicle traveling
on main track 2, which was next to
main track 4, and the joint bars in
question would not have been visible
during that inspection. See NTSB’s
Railroad Accident Brief, October 24,
2014, available at https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/
RAB1409.pdf.
In response to the Bridgeport
accident, NTSB issued Safety
Recommendation R–14–11 to FRA,
which recommended that FRA revise
the Standards, specifically
§ 213.233(b)(3), to remove the highdensity commuter line exception.
Subsequently, in 2015, Congress
passed the FAST Act, and mandated in
section 11409 that the Secretary of
Transportation evaluate the Standards
to determine if the high-density
commuter line exception should be
retained. After considering safety,
system capacity, and other relevant
factors such as the views of the railroad
industry and relevant labor
organizations, FRA has concluded, and
the TSS Working Group unanimously
agreed, that the high-density commuter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
line exception should be removed. All
railroad operations, whether commuter
or freight, or both, should be subject to
the same inspection method
requirements in § 213.233(b)(3).
C. Incorporation of Flange-Bearing Frog
and Heavy-Point Frog Waivers
FRA is revising two sections of part
213 (§§ 213.137 and 213.143) to
incorporate longstanding waivers that,
with certain limiting conditions, permit
the use of flange-bearing frogs and
heavy-point frogs that do not comply
with current FRA standards. FRA finds
that under certain conditions, use of
these types of frogs provide safety
benefits by more evenly distributing
loads across the frogs with minimal
impact to rail surfaces, as compared to
other types of rail frogs. Incorporating
these waivers into FRA’s regulations
will result in industry cost savings that
are larger than the cost savings that
result from the waivers alone.
i. Heavy-Point Frogs
A heavy-point frog (HPF) is a unique
design that has a thicker frog point than
a traditional frog. A thicker frog point
provides more inert mass, which results
in reduced metal fatigue from impact
loading, greater durability, reduced
susceptibility to deformation of the frog
point, and better ability to guide the
wheel flange toward the proper
flangeway. In an HPF, the gage line is
11⁄32 (0.3438) of an inch thicker than a
traditional, rail-bound manganese frog
point. This reduces the standard guard
check distance from 4 feet, 65⁄8
(54.6250) inches to 4 feet, 629⁄64
(54.4531) inches, which does not
comply with minimum guard check
distance for Class 5 track.
As defined in 49 CFR 213.143, and as
shown in Figure 1 below, guard check
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
gage is the distance between the gage
line of a frog to the guard line (a line
along the side of the flangeway nearest
to the center of the track and at the same
elevation as the gage line) of its guard
rail or guarding face, measured across
the track at right angles to the gage line
(a line 5⁄8 of an inch below the top of
the center line of the head of the
running rail, or corresponding location
of the tread portion of the track
structure).
The purpose of the minimum guard
check gage is to ensure a vehicle’s
wheels are able to pass through the frog
without one of the wheels (the right
wheel in Figure 1) striking the frog
point. In Figure 1, there are two key
dimensions: ‘‘wheel check,’’ which is
the distance between the two wheels
plus the wheel flange thickness at the
gage line (5⁄8 of an inch below the
running surface); and ‘‘guard check
gage,’’ which is defined above. As
illustrated in Figure 1, guard check gage
must be greater than or equal to the
wheel check so there will be a ‘‘flange–
frog point gap’’ between the right wheel
and frog point interface, when the left
wheel flange passes against the guard
rail. As stated above and further
illustrated in Figure 1, this ensures the
right wheel does not strike the frog
point.
Figure 1 depicts a standard frog,
which has a standard guard check gage
of 54.625 inches, meeting the
requirement for Class 5 track (greater
than or equal to 54.5 inches). A heavypoint frog has a standard guard check
gage of 54.4531 inches, which does not
meet current FRA standards for Class 5
track but does meet the current
standards for Class 4 track (greater than
or equal to 54.375 inches).
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
63367
Frog Point
Wheel Check 54-1 /2"
Guard Check Gage (54-5/8")
Flange-Frog
point gap
Flangeway 1-7/8"
Guard Rail
In 2003, FRA approved a waiver
permitting operation of trains at Class 5
track speeds over certain HPFs at which
the guard check gage, under existing 49
CFR 213.143, conforms to the standards
applicable to Class 4 track. See docket
number FRA–2001–10654 (available
online at www.regulations.gov). Among
other conditions to ensure safety, the
waiver requires that the frog, and the
guard rails on both tracks through the
turnout containing the frog, be equipped
with at least three through-gage plates
(metal plates underneath the frog that
expand across the entire frog to provide
both vertical support and lateral
restraint for the frog components) with
elastic rail fasteners, and guard rail
braces that permit adjustment of the
guard check gage without removing
spikes or other fasteners from the
crossties. The waiver also requires that
track owners retain records of the
location and description of each turnout
containing an HPF, notify FRA prior to
operating trains over a new HPF, and
provide proper information and training
to any employees designated to inspect
or supervise restoration or renewal of
areas containing an HPF. The waiver
also requires that each HPF bear an
identifying mark. Since FRA initially
granted the waiver in 2003, FRA has
renewed the waiver three times, most
recently on February 15, 2018. The
waiver is currently set to expire on
February 15, 2023.
To date, no accidents have been
reported to FRA as having occurred at
or near locations where HPFs are
installed. Accordingly, FRA finds that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
the safety of HPFs have been proven. As
discussed in more detail below in the
section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.143, FRA is incorporating some of
the waiver provisions into the
regulation.
ii. Flange-Bearing Frog Crossing
Diamonds
Flange-bearing frogs (FBF) are
different from the traditional treadbearing frogs used by freight railroads in
most crossing diamonds and turnouts in
the United States. In traditional treadbearing crossing diamonds, a vehicle’s
wheels must run over the gaps in the
running rails. This creates very high
impact forces between the wheels and
rails, which can damage both the
diamond and components of the vehicle
(e.g., the vehicle’s wheels and axles).
For FBFs, the flangeway is designed to
support the wheels running on their
flanges. Ramps provide a smooth
transition from tread-bearing to flangebearing and reduce the dynamic wheel
forces significantly. This can greatly
reduce noise and vibration, increase the
service life of crossing diamonds and
vehicle components, reduce the need for
maintenance, and possibly decrease the
need for speed restrictions due to worn,
damaged, or defective crossing
diamonds.
In 2000, FRA approved a waiver
granting relief from the flangeway depth
requirements in 49 CFR 213.137(a) as
well as the limitation in 49 CFR
213.137(d) restricting FBFs to Class 1
track. See docket number FRA–1999–
5104 (available online at
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
www.regulations.gov). Among other
conditions, this initial waiver allowed
track owners to install up to five FBF
crossing diamonds in Class 2 or 3 track.
FRA limited its initial approval to five
FBF crossings under specific
operational conditions and conditions
requiring vehicle and track inspections
designed to closely monitor the
performance of the FBFs. In 2010, based
on the successful implementation of the
initial waiver and data gathered as a
result, at industry’s request, FRA
granted a revised waiver allowing
installation of FBF crossing diamonds
on Classes 2 through 5 track with
crossing angles above 20 degrees unless
movable guard rails are used. Among
other conditions, the waiver required
that newly installed FBF crossing
diamonds be inspected daily during the
first week of operation, weekly for the
month after, and monthly thereafter.
The waiver also required the track
owner to prepare maintenance manuals
and properly train its personnel. The
waiver was renewed in May 2020, and
is set to expire in May 2025.
To date, no accidents have been
reported to FRA as having occurred at
or near FBFs. Accordingly, FRA finds
that the safety benefits of FBFs have
been proven and incorporates some of
the waiver provisions into the
regulation. Because the performance of
the FBF crossing diamonds installed
under the waiver is the primary basis for
FRA’s conclusion that these frogs are
safe, FRA finds that it is in the best
interests of public safety to retain, as
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
ER07OC20.002</GPH>
Figure 1
63368
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
much as reasonable, similar limitations
imposed under the waiver.
IV. Discussion of Comments and
Conclusions
FRA received six sets of comments in
response to the NPRM. Three sets of
comments were from RSAC members
and included comments from the
National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), joint comments submitted from
the Association of American Railroads
(AAR) and the American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA) (jointly referred to as ‘‘AAR/
ASLRRA’’), and joint comments from
the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employes Division (BMWED) and the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(BRS) (jointly referred to as ‘‘BMWED/
BRS’’). FRA also received comments
from Herzog Service, Inc., and the
American Association for Laboratory
Accreditation (A2LA). Finally, FRA
received a joint comment from the
following seven entities: The American
Chemistry Council, the American Fuel &
Petrochemical Manufacturers, the
American Petroleum Institute, the
Chlorine Institute, the Fertilizer
Institute, the Renewable Fuels
Association, and the Sulphur Institute
(collectively referred to as the
‘‘Chemical, Energy, and Agricultural
Trade Associations’’).
FRA thanks the commenters for the
time and effort put into each of the
comments received. Directly below FRA
discusses the comments generally
applicable to this rulemaking.
Comments directed at specific proposed
regulatory changes are discussed below
in the section-by-section analysis. The
order in which FRA discusses the
comments below is not meant to imply
that FRA is prioritizing one commenter
over another. Rather, FRA has organized
the discussion of comments in as logical
manner as possible.
BMWED/BRS
In their comment, BMWED/BRS
raised a number of concerns with the
NPRM, primarily regarding the proposal
to allow for continuous rail testing.
Although many of BMWED/BRS’s
concerns are discussed below in the
section-by-section analysis, they
recommend that certain additional
conditions, not proposed in the NPRM,
be required for continuous rail testing.
BMWED/BRS assert that suspect
locations containing a suspect defect
that, if verified, would require remedial
action A, A2, or B identified in the
Remedial Action Table contained in
§ 213.113(c) (Remedial Action Table), as
well as indications of a ‘‘possible
transverse defect estimated to be greater
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
than 25%,’’ should require immediate
protection. Additionally, BMWED/BRS
contend that the Remedial Action Table
should be revised for continuous rail
testing. Specifically, BMWED/BRS state
that ‘‘the number of days/hours in the
Remedial Action Table’’ should be
reduced to ‘‘accommodate the
additional 36 to 84 hours for ‘field
verification’ . . . in order to maintain an
equivalent level of safety.’’ A proposed
revised Remedial Action Table was
attached to BMWED/BRS’s comment.
Finally, BMWED/BRS recommend that
FRA require railroads ‘‘opting to use
[continuous rail testing] under proposed
§ 213.240 to at least double the
frequency of inspections on each track
segment.’’
FRA disagrees that these changes are
needed or justified. As discussed in
more detail in the NPRM (see 84 FR
72528–30), continuous rail testing has
been successfully trialed under the
waiver process on select rail segments
on multiple railroads in the United
States since 2009. The data derived and
the lessons learned from over 10 years
of testing do not support the additional
conditions proposed in BMWED/BRS’s
comment. Continuous rail testing has
the potential to improve rail safety
significantly and FRA is confident that
§ 213.240, as adopted in this final rule,
successfully balances the flexibility
needed to conduct continuous rail
testing with conditions necessary to
ensure at least an equivalent level of
safety, and very likely improve it. FRA
also finds that adopting the additional
conditions proposed by BMWED/BRS
would be a significant and unjustified
disincentive to track owners’ and
railroads’ use of continuous testing.
Adopting such conditions could make
continuous rail testing more onerous
than traditional stop-and-verify testing
(e.g., by doubling the required number
of inspections, requiring immediate
protections for certain defects before
field verification, and decreasing
existing timeframes for imposing
remedial action)—all of which could
result in track owners and railroads
forgoing adoption of continuous testing,
and therefore, the associated safety
benefits discussed throughout this final
rule.
Additionally, BMWED/BRS advocate
for an interpretation of existing
§ 213.5(a) and how it relates to a suspect
location found during a rail inspection.
BMWED/BRS assert that ‘‘delayed
application of the Remedial Action
Table for suspect rail defects’’ violates
§ 213.5(a) since once ‘‘suspected defects
are identified, the carrier ‘knows or has
notice’ that the track does not comply
with the requirements of Part 213.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
BMWED/BRS contend that ‘‘[a]ll
suspected rail defects must first be
protected and then ‘verified.’ ’’ FRA
does not agree that this interpretation of
§ 213.5(a) is consistent with regulatory
language or longstanding FRA
interpretation. An indication of a
suspect defect is only that: An
indication that a defect might exist. The
track owner does not have knowledge or
notice of an actual defect until the
suspected defect is field-verified and
confirmed to be a defect. This long-held
interpretation is consistent with the
structure of § 213.113.
Section 213.113(a) lists the actions a
track owner must take when the owner
‘‘learns that a rail in the track contains
any of the defects listed in the table
contained in paragraph (c),’’ whereas
§ 213.113(b) lists the actions a track
owner must take when the owner
‘‘learns that a rail in the track contains
an indication of any of the defects listed
in the table contained in paragraph (c).’’
Thus, the plain language of the
regulation makes clear that an
indication of a defect is not the same as
a verified defect and thus § 213.5(a)
would not require immediate
remediation for an unverified indication
of a defect.
Finally, BMWED/BRS state that ‘‘FRA
must assure that all verified defects be
marked with a highly visible marking in
compliance with § 213.237(e) or
§ 213.339(c) as appropriate.’’ FRA notes
that this is already required by
§§ 213.237(e) and 213.339(c), and this
final rule does not change that.
AAR/ASLRRA
In addition to comments directed at
specific, proposed regulatory
provisions, which are discussed below
in the section-by-section analysis, AAR/
ASLRRA raise a concern about training
and qualification provisions.
Specifically, AAR/ASLRRA contend
that 49 CFR part 243, which was
originally issued in 2014 but had its
effective date delayed multiple times,
‘‘generally made obsolete the previous
need to codify scattershot training
provisions throughout the Federal
railroad safety regulations,’’ and that
any ‘‘references to training and
qualification in the final rule [are]
unnecessary and duplicative.’’ FRA
disagrees. As § 243.1 expressly states,
part 243 contains the general minimum
training and qualification requirements
for each category and subcategory of
safety-related railroad employee
(§ 243.1(b)), and the requirements of
part 243 do not exempt any other
requirements in this chapter (§ 243.1(c)).
Further, unless otherwise noted, part
243 augments other training and
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
qualification requirements contained in
this chapter (§ 243.1(d)). The clear
wording of part 243 shows that training
and qualification requirements codified
in other parts of the CFR are not
obsolete or duplicative.
A2LA
A2LA, in its comment, generally
favors utilizing International
Organization for Standardization/
International Electrotechnical
Commission (ISO/IEC) accreditation for
multiple areas of part 213, including
requiring continuous rail testing be
done by ISO/IEC accredited inspection
agencies, adopting ISO/IEC standards
for qualification requirements, and
adopting ISO/IEC accreditation for track
inspections. FRA does not believe ISO/
IEC standards are necessary for
purposes of this final rule. The
qualification requirements already
included in part 213 and adopted in this
final rule, along with continued FRA
oversight, are sufficient to ensure
railroad personnel conducting relevant
tasks are properly trained and possess
the requisite skills to complete their jobs
safely and effectively.
Chemical, Energy, and Agricultural
Trade Associations
The Chemical, Energy, and
Agricultural Trade Associations
‘‘support allowing inspection of rail
using continuous rail testing,’’ but raise
a general concern ‘‘that the proposed
revisions, particularly the extension of
the verification timeframes could lead to
a scenario where fatal flaws remained
unaddressed and subject trains to
potential derailments.’’ The
Associations go on to ‘‘caution FRA
from implementing an overly extended
verification timeframe and encourage a
conservative approach when
considering what is a critical flaw
requiring immediate attention.’’ FRA
appreciates the Associations’ concerns.
However, FRA is confident that the
procedures governing continuous rail
testing and the extension of field
verification timeframes are sufficient to
ensure railroad safety. Since 2009,
various continuous rail testing
procedures and timeframes have been
trialed and fine-tuned through the
waiver process on multiple railroads.
Waiver data indicates that as track
owners have increased their use of
continuous rail testing under the
waivers, they have realized a decrease
in broken-rail-caused accidents and an
increase in overall safety. For example,
Norfolk Southern Railway, which began
operating under a continuous test
waiver on limited territories in 2015 and
since that time has expanded its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
continuous test territory numerous
times, experienced 34 percent fewer
main line service failures (broken rails
that do not result in an accident) in
2018 as compared to 2014. Similarly,
CSX Corporation, which has been
piloting continuous test technologies
and methodologies under an FRA
waiver since 2009 and, similar to NS,
has expanded its continuous test
territories numerous times, had zero
broken rail-caused main track accidents
in 2019. FRA safety data demonstrates
a nationwide 39 percent reduction in
FRA reportable broken rail caused
accidents from June 2019 to May 2020.
In addition, since beginning continuous
rail testing under waiver in 2018, the
Long Island Railroad (LIRR) has tripled
its testing frequency with no additional
train delays. This final rule is based on
the data and experience gained through
those waivers.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 213.1
Scope of Part
Proposed rule: Section 213.1 sets forth
the scope of part 213. Paragraph (b)
specifies that subparts A through F of
part 213 apply to track Classes 1
through 5 and that subpart G and certain
individual sections of subpart A apply
to track Classes 6 through 9. FRA
proposed to amend paragraph (b) of this
section to reference proposed § 213.240
(continuous rail testing). Together with
proposed § 213.240, this change would
allow track owners to elect to use
continuous rail testing conducted under
§ 213.240 on Class 6 through Class 9
track to satisfy the requirement for
internal rail testing under § 213.339.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: The change is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.5
Compliance
Responsibility for
Proposed rule: Section 213.5 specifies
the parties responsible for compliance
with part 213. Paragraph (a)(3) of this
section addresses persons responsible
for overseeing operations over track that
is known to be not in compliance with
part 213. That paragraph requires
operations over such track to be
overseen by a person designated under
§ 213.7(a) who has ‘‘at least one year of
supervisory experience in railroad track
maintenance.’’ FRA proposed to remove
the requirement for the person
overseeing operations on non-compliant
track to have ‘‘one year of supervisory
experience in railroad track
maintenance.’’ This proposed change
would conform to the proposed changes
to § 213.7, which are discussed below.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63369
Additionally, FRA proposed to add
the following sentence to the end of
paragraph (a)(3): ‘‘If the operation is on
Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) track,
the person under whose authority
operations are conducted must also be
designated under § 213.7(c).’’ This
change is meant to clarify that in order
for a person to authorize operations over
CWR track that does not meet all the
requirements of part 213, the person
must be designated and qualified by the
track owner under § 213.7(c) to inspect
CWR track or supervise the installation,
adjustment, and maintenance of CWR
track.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: The changes are adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.7 Designation of Qualified
Persons To Supervise Certain Renewals
and Inspect Track
Proposed rule: Section 213.7 requires
track owners to designate qualified
persons to inspect track and supervise
certain track restorations and renewals,
and specifies the records related to these
designations a track owner must
maintain. The section also requires
these qualified persons to have ‘‘written
authorization’’ from the track owner to
prescribe remedial actions to address
identified nonconformities in the track.
Paragraph (a)(1) of this section
specifically requires that a person
designated to supervise the restoration
and renewal of track under traffic
conditions have, among other things,
either one year of supervisory
experience in railroad maintenance or a
combination of supervisory experience
in track maintenance and training. For
the reasons discussed in the NPRM, and
consistent with the recommendations of
the TSS Working Group, FRA agreed
that requiring supervisory experience to
qualify under paragraph (a)(1) creates a
possible conflict in the regulatory
language (an employee cannot be
qualified under that paragraph unless he
or she has supervisory experience yet an
employee would not be able to gain
supervisory experience without first
being qualified). Accordingly, FRA
proposed to remove the supervisory
requirement in the paragraph.
Paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3), (c)(4), and (e)
each require ‘‘written’’ records. The
records required in paragraphs (a)(3),
(b)(3), and (c)(4) relate to individual’s
authorization from a track owner to
prescribe remedial actions. The records
required in paragraph (e) relate to the
designation of individuals authorized to
prescribe such actions. As noted in the
NPRM, FRA finds that the term
‘‘written’’ can be interpreted to
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63370
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
encompass both physical hardcopies or
electronic versions of the required
authorizations or designations. To avoid
any possible confusion and consistent
with the TSS Working Group’s
recommendations, FRA proposed to
remove the term ‘‘written’’ from each of
these paragraphs to make clear that the
required authorizations or designations
could be recorded and conveyed either
in hardcopy or electronic form.
FRA also proposed to add new
paragraph (e)(2) to require records of
designations under § 213.7 to include
the date each designation is made. To
incorporate this revision, FRA proposed
to redesignate paragraph (e)(2) as
paragraph (e)(3). FRA also proposed to
revise the resulting new paragraph (e)(3)
to require the records to contain not
only the basis for each designation as
paragraph (e)(2) currently requires, but
also to require track owners to include
the method used to determine that the
designated person is qualified. FRA
intended this change to better conform
the section with the requirements of
§ 213.305(e) for high-speed operations,
and better describe what FRA means by
the ‘‘basis for each designation.’’ As
noted in the NPRM, to meet this
requirement, a track owner could
include information about the nature of
any training courses the designated
person participated in and how the
track owner determined that the
designated person successfully
completed the course (e.g., test scores,
demonstrated proficiency, etc.).
Paragraph (e)(3) also requires
designation records under § 213.7 to
include records of track inspections
‘‘made by each designated qualified
person.’’ FRA proposed to remove the
requirement, finding it redundant with
§ 213.241’s requirement that track
owners maintain records of track
inspections made by qualified
inspectors that are ‘‘kept available for
inspection and copying by [FRA] during
regular business hours.’’ Accordingly,
FRA proposed to redesignate paragraph
(e)(3) as new paragraph (f). FRA also
proposed rephrasing the paragraph to
require that FRA make its request for
records during normal business hours
and provide the track owner
‘‘reasonable notice’’ before requiring
production. As explained in the NPRM,
the meaning of the term ‘‘reasonable
notice’’ depends on the specific facts of
each situation and FRA does not intend
these revisions to substantively change
recordkeeping requirements or FRA’s
existing inspection practices. These
revisions are primarily intended to
clarify how FRA currently enforces the
regulation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
Comments: With regard to the
proposed introduction of the phrase
‘‘reasonable notice’’ in new proposed
paragraph (f), AAR/ASLRRA, in their
comment, state that ‘‘what constitutes
‘reasonable notice’ is inherently
subjective’’ and assert that ‘‘a railroad
acting in good faith to provide requested
records to FRA representatives upon
‘reasonable notice’ should never be
subject to civil penalties.’’ Alternatively,
AAR/ASLRRA suggest that FRA adopt
‘‘a presumptive ten days’ notice
requirement.’’
Final rule: As explained above and in
the preamble to the NPRM, the term
‘‘reasonable notice’’ depends on the
specific facts of each situation (e.g., time
of day request made, day of the week
request made, number of records
requested). FRA does not agree that it is
appropriate to adopt a blanket statement
that a railroad can never be subject to
civil penalties so long as it acts in ‘‘good
faith.’’ The subjective intent behind a
railroad’s actions is not a necessary
consideration for whether it complies
with the requirement to produce
records. Likewise, FRA declines to
adopt a blanket 10 days’ notice
requirement. Although current
§§ 213.241(b) and 213.369(b) include a
reference to a 10 days’ notice for track
inspection records, that only applies to
paper records that are not maintained at
the designated location where they are
requested. Electronic records or those
paper records maintained at the
designated location where they are
requested are not subject to the
automatic 10 days’ notice requirement
under current §§ 213.241(b) and
213.369(b). FRA received no other
comments on the proposed revisions to
this section. Accordingly, the revisions
to § 213.7 are adopted as proposed in
the NPRM.
Section 213.9 Classes of Track:
Operating Speed Limits
Proposed rule: Section 213.9 sets forth
the maximum allowable operating
speeds for both passenger and freight
trains for excepted track, and track
Classes 1 through 5 (track speeds up to
90 m.p.h. for passenger trains and up to
80 m.p.h. for freight trains). Paragraph
(b) of this section addresses situations in
which a track segment does not meet the
requirements for its intended class and
specifies that if a segment of track does
not at least meet the requirements for
Class 1 track, operations may continue
under the authority of a person designed
under § 213.7(a) ‘‘who has at least one
year of supervisory experience in
railroad track maintenance’’ for up to 30
days. Consistent with the revisions
proposed to § 213.7(a) discussed above,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
FRA proposed to revise this paragraph
to remove the requirement that a person
designated under § 213.7(a) have a least
one year of ‘‘supervisory’’ experience in
railroad track maintenance. Please see
the above discussion of § 213.7(a).
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: The change is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.11 Restoration or Renewal
of Track Under Traffic Conditions
Proposed rule: Section 213.11
requires operations over track
undergoing restoration or renewal under
traffic conditions and not meeting all
the requirements of part 213 to be
conducted under the continuous
supervision of a person designated
under § 213.7(a) with ‘‘at least one year
of supervisory experience in railroad
track maintenance.’’ Consistent with the
proposed changes to § 213.7(a), FRA
proposed to remove the requirement
that the person supervising restoration
or renewal of track under traffic
conditions have a minimum of one year
of ‘‘supervisory’’ experience in track
maintenance. Additionally, to clarify an
existing regulatory requirement, FRA
proposed to add text stating that if the
restoration or renewal is on continuous
welded rail (CWR) track, the person
must also be qualified under § 213.7(c).
To clarify that a person designated
under § 213.7(a), and (c) if applicable,
may not authorize movement over any
track not meeting all the requirements of
part 213 for its particular class, FRA
also proposed adding a sentence stating
that the ‘‘operating speed cannot be
more than the maximum allowable
speed under § 213.9 for the class of track
concerned.’’
Comments: FRA received no
comments on the proposed changes.
Final rule: The changes are adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.113
Defective Rails
Proposed rule: Section 213.113
prescribes the required actions a track
owner must take when it learns that a
rail contains an indication of a defect
and after the track owner verifies the
existence of the defect. To clarify that
the requirement that an indication of a
defect be verified within four hours
would not apply if a track owner elects
to conduct continuous testing under
proposed § 213.240, FRA proposed to
modify the second sentence in
paragraph (b) so that it would begin
with ‘‘except as provided in § 213.240,
. . . .’’
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Final rule: The change is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.137 Frogs
Proposed rule: Section 213.137
contains the standards for use of frogs.
As discussed in detail in the preamble
to the NPRM, a frog is a track
component used at the intersection of
two running rails to provide support for
wheels and passage for their flanges,
thus permitting wheels on either rail to
cross the other intersecting rail. See 84
FR 72530.
Paragraph (a) of § 213.137 prescribes
limits on the flangeway depth of a frog.
These limits effectively prohibit the use
of flange bearing frogs (FBFs) on Classes
2 through 5 track. However, since 2000,
railroads have operated under a waiver
that allowed the installation of FBFs in
crossing diamonds in track Classes 2
through 5, and exempted those
diamonds from the flangeway depth
requirements of paragraph (a), subject to
certain conditions. As discussed in
more detail in section IV.C of the NPRM
(see 84 FR 72530–32), FRA has renewed
the waiver multiple times, and currently
the waiver is set to expire in May 2025.
After careful review of safety
performance under the waiver and
analysis of track-caused derailments, as
noted in the NPRM, FRA has identified
no negative safety implications with the
use of FBFs. As such, in the NPRM, FRA
proposed to modify § 213.137 by adding
paragraph (e) that would allow the use
of FBFs in crossing diamonds in Classes
2 through 5 track consistent with the
conditions of the existing waiver. The
existing waiver limited the installation
of FBFs to locations with crossing
angles above 20 degrees unless
moveable guard rails are used and
generally required track owners to
initially inspect newly installed FBFs
more often than traditional frogs. The
waiver also required track owners to
document certain information about the
location of the installed FBFs (e.g.,
crossing angle, tonnage, speed, direction
and type of traffic), develop
maintenance manuals specific to the
frogs, and properly train all personnel
responsible for inspecting or repairing
any FBF. See proposed paragraphs
(e)(1)–(3).
Comments: FRA received comments
generally supporting the proposed
changes. AAR/ASLRRA, while strongly
supporting the incorporation of the
longstanding waiver for FBFs, disagreed
with FRA’s proposal to include ‘‘many
of the same administrative and
recordkeeping provisions found in the’’
waiver. AAR/ASLRRA contend that
those additional administrative
requirements ‘‘are no longer necessary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
or relevant once FRA has determined
the new technology is safe.’’
Final rule: FRA agrees with AAR/
ASLRRA’s statement that the
administrative requirements imposed as
conditions of the waiver are no longer
necessary given that the use of FBF’s as
proposed has been proven safe, and the
regulations already require track owners
to provide employees responsible for
inspecting or repairing FBFs to be
appropriately trained and demonstrate
appropriate knowledge, understanding,
and ability to do so. Accordingly, FRA
is not adopting proposed paragraphs
(e)(2) and (e)(3). FRA, however, is
maintaining the requirement from
proposed paragraph (e)(1) that FBFs
may only be used at locations with
crossing angles greater than 20 degrees
unless movable guard rails are used. As
noted in the NPRM, when a crossing
diamond has a smaller crossing angle,
there is a heightened risk of damage to
the rail head when the wheel flange
crosses over it.
Because FRA is not adopting
proposed paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3),
FRA is including the language proposed
for paragraph (e)(1) at the end of new
paragraph (e). The changes proposed in
the NPRM are otherwise adopted, with
the revisions discussed above.
Section 213.143 Frog Guard Rails and
Guard Faces; Gage
Proposed rule: This section prescribes
a minimum and maximum value for
guard check and guard face gages,
respectively. Guard check gage is the
distance between the gage line of a frog
and the guard line of its guardrail or
guarding face. Allowable minimum
dimensions vary with track
classification, i.e., train speed.
As discussed in more detail in section
IV.C of the NPRM (see 84 FR 72530–32),
in 2003, FRA granted a waiver (docket
number FRA–2001–10654) to members
of the railroad industry allowing
operation of trains at Class 5 speeds
over a heavy-point frog (HPF) with
guard check gage conforming to the
standards for Class 4 track frogs. FRA
granted several extensions of this
waiver, and it is currently set to expire
in February 2023.
After careful review of safety
performance under the waiver and
analysis of track-caused derailment
data, FRA identified no negative safety
implications with the use of HPFs under
the conditions outlined in the waiver.
As such, in the NPRM, FRA proposed to
modify § 213.243 to add footnote 3 to
the table in § 213.143 which, consistent
with the conditions of the waiver,
would: (1) Allow the guard check gage
for HPFs on Class 5 track to be less than
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63371
the current 4-foot, 61⁄2-inch minimum,
but not less than 4 feet, 63⁄8 inches (the
current minimum for frogs in Class 4
track); (2) require that each track owner
maintain records of the location and
description of each HPF and make that
information available to FRA upon
request during normal business hours
following reasonable notice; (3) require
that each HPF and the guard rails on
both rails through the turnout be
equipped with at least three serviceable
through-gage plates with elastic rail
fasteners and guard rail braces that
permit adjustment of the guard check
gage without removing spikes or other
fasteners from the crossties; (4) require
that each track owner provide proper
maintenance manuals, instructions, and
training to any § 213.7 designated
employees who inspect track or
supervise restoration and renewal of
track, or both, in areas that include
turnouts with HPFs; and (5) require that
each HPF bear an identifying mark that
identifies the frog as an HPF.
Comments: FRA received comments
generally supporting the proposed
changes. AAR/ASLRRA, while strongly
supporting the incorporation of the
longstanding waiver for HPFs, disagreed
with FRA’s proposal to include ‘‘many
of the same administrative and
recordkeeping provisions found in the’’
waiver. AAR/ASLRRA assert that those
additional administrative requirements
‘‘are no longer necessary or relevant
once FRA has determined the new
technology is safe.’’
Final rule: Preliminarily, for
formatting reasons, FRA is moving the
content of proposed footnote 3 to a new
paragraph (b). The existing language in
§ 213.143 will be designated as
paragraph (a), with a slight grammatical
revision to the introductory language,
and the existing table will be titled
‘‘Table 1 to § 213.143(a).’’
FRA agrees with AAR/ASLRRA’s
statement that the administrative
requirements imposed as conditions of
the waiver are no longer necessary given
that the use of HPFs as proposed has
been proven safe and the regulations
already require track owners to provide
employees responsible for inspecting or
repairing HPFs to be appropriately
trained and demonstrate appropriate
knowledge, understanding, and ability
to do so.
Accordingly, FRA is not adopting the
specific recordkeeping or training
requirements proposed in paragraphs (a)
or (c) of proposed footnote 3, and is also
not adopting the second sentence of
proposed paragraph (d). FRA is
retaining the remainder of the proposed
requirements related to HPFs, but in this
final rule, FRA is designating proposed
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63372
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
paragraphs (b) and (d) of footnote 3, as
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2). The changes
as proposed in the NPRM are otherwise
adopted, with the revisions discussed
above.
Section 213.233 Visual Track
Inspections
Proposed rule: Section 213.233 sets
forth general requirements for the
frequency and method of performing
required visual track inspections on
excepted track and track Classes 1
through 5. To better reflect the existing
scope of this section, FRA proposed to
add the word ‘‘visual’’ to the section
heading so that it would read ‘‘Visual
track inspections.’’ Because other
sections in part 213 cover different
types of inspections and inspection
methods for the same types of track
(automated inspections, inspections of
rail, etc.), this proposed change would
clarify that this section deals
specifically with visual track
inspections. This proposal would also
make § 213.233’s heading consistent
with the heading for the corresponding
high-speed track section, § 213.365,
‘‘Visual inspections.’’ As discussed
below, FRA proposed to revise the
heading for § 213.365 so that the
headings are the same for both
§§ 213.233 and 213.365.
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA contend
that, although § 213.233 ‘‘currently
contemplates human visual inspection
. . . as technology evolves in the
future,’’ these inspections ‘‘may not
always be conducted ‘visually’ by
humans.’’ AAR/ASLRRA concludes that
adding the word ‘‘visual’’ to the heading
of § 213.233 ‘‘could make them more
outdated in the future.’’
Final rule: FRA disagrees. As the
commenters note, § 213.233 currently
requires visual track inspections and the
change to the heading is meant to make
that clear, as well as make the heading
of § 213.233 consistent with the heading
of § 213.365, which applies to higherspeed tracks. If future regulatory
changes are made to § 213.233 to allow
the use of non-visual inspections
specifically under the section’s
requirements, the heading could be
updated at that time. Moreover, the
change does not affect the use of nonvisual inspection methods as provided
in other sections of this part. The
change is therefore adopted as proposed
in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Paragraph (b) requires
visual track inspections to be made on
foot or by ‘‘riding over’’ the track at a
speed allowing the inspector to visually
inspect the track structure for
compliance; and, when inspecting from
a vehicle, this section sets the vehicle’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
maximum speed at 5 m.p.h. when
‘‘passing over’’ track crossings and
turnouts. Paragraph (b) also specifies
that one inspector in a vehicle may
inspect up to two tracks at one time
under certain conditions, including that
the second track is not centered more
than 30 feet from the track upon which
the inspector ‘‘is riding.’’ Similarly, two
inspectors may inspect up to four tracks
from one vehicle under certain
conditions, including that the second
track center is within 39 feet from the
track on which the inspectors ‘‘are
riding.’’ For grammatical consistency
throughout this section, FRA proposed
revising the terms ‘‘riding over’’ and
‘‘passing over’’ to ‘‘traversing’’ in this
paragraph and, for the same reason, FRA
also proposed to revise the terms ‘‘is
riding’’ and ‘‘are riding’’ to ‘‘traverses’’
and ‘‘traverse.’’
Additionally, FRA proposed removing
the terms ‘‘upon which’’ from
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), and changing
‘‘is actually’’ to ‘‘must be’’ in paragraph
(b)(3). These changes are not meant to
affect the meaning of § 213.233, but are
instead made for grammatical
consistency.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: The changes are adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: As discussed in more
detail in section IV.B of the NPRM (see
84 FR 72530), FRA proposed to remove
the last sentence of paragraph (b)(3),
also known as the high-density
commuter line exception. Paragraph
(b)(3) requires, among other things, that
each main track be traversed by a
vehicle or inspector on foot at least once
every two weeks, and every siding at
least every month. The high-density
commuter line exception applies where
track time does not permit on-track
vehicle inspection and where track
centers are 15 feet or less apart and
exempts those operations from the
inspection method requirements of
paragraph (b)(3). FRA’s proposal to
remove this exception was directly
responsive to Congress’s direction in
sec. 11409 of the FAST Act and NTSB’s
Safety Recommendation R–14–11. In
addition, when proposed, FRA believed
no track owner currently utilized this
exception and the RSAC unanimously
voted to remove the exception, so FRA
concluded its removal would have little
to no impact on the regulated industry.
Comments: Despite affirmatively
stating during the RSAC proceedings
that none of their members currently
utilize the high-density commuter line
exception, in response to the NPRM,
AAR/ASLRRA provided comments
stating that the National Railroad
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) utilizes
the exception in three locations, Penn
Station in New York City and in the
Washington, DC and Boston terminals,
and ‘‘[c]ertain commuter railroads’’ also
utilize the exception. AAR/ASLRRA
further argue that ‘‘Amtrak is concerned
that elimination of the exemption would
result in roadway workers being
required to conduct additional
inspections at high traffic volume
locations with narrow track centers.’’
Consequently, AAR/ASLRRA assert that
FRA should not adopt this proposal
and, instead, study it further.
Final rule: FRA has considered the
new information provided by AAR/
ASLRRA and still concluded that the
high-density commuter line exception
should be removed. FRA finds that the
exception is no longer justified and it is
in the interest of safety that it be
removed, based on the 2013 MetroNorth Bridgeport, CT accident,
discussed in greater detail in the NPRM
(see 84 FR 72530), as well as internal
evaluations by FRA. Track over which
a large number of passengers traverse
should be inspected at least in the same
manner as other types of track. FRA
notes that the high-density commuter
line exception applies only to mainline
track, so it is likely that any usage by
Amtrak in Penn Station and the
Washington, DC and Boston terminals is
very limited. Additionally, FRA finds it
is highly unlikely that the removal of
the exception will result in any
additional required track inspections
since track inspectors will still be
permitted to inspect tracks adjacent to
the one they operate over. Inspectors
will simply be required to alternate
which track they traverse so that each
track is actually traversed every two
weeks, instead of always permitting the
inspection from an adjacent track. This
may require those railroads utilizing the
exception to slightly revise their
inspection practices. Combined with
effective roadway worker protection,
this should not increase the risk to
roadway workers and should improve
the quality of inspections. Thus, FRA
has determined that continuing this
exemption is not in the interest of safety
and the change is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed three
changes to paragraph (c). First, FRA
proposed to add the word ‘‘visual’’
before ‘‘track inspection’’ in the
introductory text. This was simply to
make paragraph (c) consistent with the
new heading for § 213.233 and would
have no effect on the meaning of
paragraph (c). Second, FRA proposed
adding footnote 1 after the word
‘‘weekly’’ in the table in paragraph (c).
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The proposed footnote defines the term
‘‘weekly’’ to be a seven-day period
beginning on Sunday and ending on
Saturday. This definition is consistent
with FRA’s past interpretation and
enforcement practice.
Third, FRA proposed to add footnote
2 after the term ‘‘passenger trains’’ in
the table in paragraph (c). The proposed
language was suggested to the TSS
Working Group by the Rail Heritage
Association and FRA agrees that it
would reduce unnecessary burden on
certain regulated entities without
negatively impacting safety. This
proposed footnote would exempt, in
two situations, entities from the
required twice-weekly inspection
requirement for track carrying passenger
trains if the passenger train service
consists solely of tourist, scenic,
historic, or excursion operations as
defined in 49 CFR 238.5. In the first
situation, this exemption would apply
where no passenger service is operated
over the track during the inspection
week. In the second situation, this
exemption would apply where
passenger service is operated during the
inspection week but only on a weekend
(Saturday and Sunday) or a 3-day
extended weekend (Saturday and
Sunday plus either a contiguous
Monday or Friday) and an inspection is
conducted before, but not more than one
day before, the start of the weekend or
3-day extended weekend.
FRA also proposed to revise
paragraph (d). Specifically, FRA
proposed to add the phrase ‘‘the § 213.7
qualified’’ at the beginning of the
paragraph to clarify that ‘‘the person’’
making the inspection that the rule text
refers to is the qualified track inspector
designated under § 213.7. Additionally,
FRA proposed adding a sentence at the
end of paragraph (d) stating that any
subsequent movements to facilitate
repairs on track that is out of service
must be authorized by a § 213.7
qualified person. This section is silent
as to whether or when movement over
track that is out of service is
permissible. FRA recognizes that certain
movements are necessary to facilitate
repairs and therefore does not interpret
or enforce the regulatory language to bar
such movements of equipment and
materials on track that is out of service.
The proposed revision was meant to
embody that practice and interpretation
and prevent possible confusion.
Comments: FRA received comments
supporting one of the proposed changes
and no adverse comment on any
proposed change to paragraph (c) or (d).
Final rule: The changes are adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
Section 213.240 Continuous Rail
Testing
In the NPRM, FRA proposed to add
this new section to allow track owners
to utilize continuous rail testing to
satisfy the requirements for internal rail
inspections under § 213.237 (for track
Classes 1–5), or § 213.339 (for Class 6
track and higher). As explained in the
NPRM and above, proposed § 213.240
would allow greater flexibility in the
rail flaw detection process by providing
additional time to analyze the data
collected during continuous rail testing
and field-verify indications of potential
rail flaws. This additional time would
allow for improvements in planning and
execution of rail inspections and rail
defect remediation, thereby lessening
the impact on rail operations. As a
result, more track time should become
available to conduct maintenance and
increase inspections. However, as
continuous testing is a more complex
process compared to the traditional
stop-and-verify rail inspection, FRA
proposed certain requirements related to
this elective process to ensure it is
conducted properly, which include
requirements to maintain records that
help ensure adequate FRA oversight.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (a)
would allow track owners to elect to use
continuous rail testing instead of
complying with § 213.113(b) (requiring
field verification of indications either
immediately or within 4 hours),
provided the track owner complies with
the minimum requirements of § 213.240.
Proposed paragraph (a) also makes clear
that the track owner must still comply
with all other requirements of § 213.113
(including remedial action
requirements), along with the
requirements of proposed § 213.240. In
other words, § 213.240 provides
additional time to field-verify a suspect
location, but once verified, the track
owner must take appropriate remedial
action as described in § 213.113(c).
Comments: Asserting that FRA has
not provided enough data to evaluate
the safety benefits of the proposed
change to rail testing procedures, NTSB
commented that ‘‘[u]ntil data from
continuous rail testing can be collected,
analyzed, and verified as beneficial to
safety, the FRA should require that
traditional stop-and-verify rail
inspections’’ continue. FRA received
additional comments regarding the
proposal to allow continuous testing
and those comments are discussed
either above in Section IV if they were
more general, or below in the paragraph
that they specifically concern.
Final rule: As discussed above, and in
the NPRM, continuous testing has been
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63373
conducted by multiple railroads under
FRA’s waiver process for over a decade.
FRA has reviewed and analyzed the
data received from those waivers as well
as data related to service failures and
derailments. As noted above, waiver
data indicates that as track owners have
increased their use of continuous rail
testing under the waivers, they have
realized a decrease in broken-railcaused accidents and an increase in
overall safety. FRA is confident that it
has sufficient data and experience
supporting continuous testing as
beneficial to safety. Paragraph (a) is
therefore adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (b)
outlines the minimum procedures that a
track owner must adopt to conduct
continuous rail testing under § 213.240.
Prior to starting a continuous testing
program, a track owner must adopt
procedures that comply with this
section. Rail testing is vital to the
prevention of track-caused accidents,
and documented procedures are
necessary to ensure continuous rail
testing works consistently and
effectively, and that those involved
understand their responsibilities and
have a resource they can consult if they
have any questions. These minimum
procedures are designed to allow each
track owner flexibility in determining
the best approach to conduct
continuous testing. Proposed paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) would require track
owners conducting continuous rail
testing under § 213.240 to adopt
procedures addressing how (1) test data
would be transmitted and analyzed; (2)
suspect locations would be identified
for field verification; (3) suspect
locations would be categorized and
prioritized according to their potential
severity; (4) suspect locations would be
field-verified; and (5) suspect locations
would be designated following field
verification.
Comments: NTSB commented that
FRA should provide more information
regarding the specifics of the required
minimum procedures. Specifically,
NTSB states that the ‘‘guidance should
discuss the transmittal of testing data,
and provide procedures for locating and
validating suspected defects, and
managing recordkeeping.’’
With respect to proposed paragraph
(b)(4), which would require the
procedures address how suspect
locations would be field-verified,
BMWED/BRS commented that FRA has
failed to articulate what actions must be
taken should the field verifier be unable
to reproduce the defect signature and
that FRA should require suspect
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63374
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
locations ‘‘be validated for 60 feet on
either side of the suspect defect.’’
Final rule: As discussed in more
detail below, and in the NPRM, FRA has
intentionally designed the rule to
provide track owners flexibility on how
to structure their continuous testing
procedures, while ensuring certain
standards are met. Railroad operations
are not uniform and technology
changes. Accordingly, FRA seeks to
avoid limiting railroads’ flexibility to
innovate and utilize new technology
and approaches as they are developed.
However, the procedures track owners
adopt must accomplish their purpose.
To make this clear in this final rule,
FRA is making changes throughout
paragraph (b) requiring track owners’
minimum procedures adopted under
213.240 to ensure accurate data
transmittal, analysis, and conclusions
throughout the entirety of the
continuous test process. Specifically,
FRA is revising proposed paragraph
(b)’s introductory text and paragraphs
(b)(1), (2), and (4).
First, FRA is revising the last sentence
of paragraph (b)’s introductory text to
specify that a railroad’s continuous
testing procedures must conform with
the requirements of § 213.240 and
ensure the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) are met.
FRA is revising proposed paragraph
(b)(1) to specify that a track owner’s
procedures must ensure that test data
will be ‘‘timely and accurately’’
transmitted and analyzed. Procedures
that do not accomplish the timely and
accurate transmittal and analysis of the
test data will not comply with the
requirements of paragraph (b)(1). For
example, data integrity must be
maintained throughout the collection,
analysis, and verification process, and
transmitted in a manner and speed
sufficient to meet the field-verification
timeframes discussed below.
FRA is revising proposed paragraph
(b)(2) to make clear that the procedures
must ensure suspect locations are
‘‘accurately’’ identified for field
verification. Procedures that do not
result in the accurate identification of
suspect locations for field verification
will not comply with the requirements
of this paragraph (b)(2). For example,
the data must reflect the true position of
the suspect location and contain
sufficient data to allow the field verifier
to successfully identify the suspect
location. With this change, paragraph
(b)(2) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.
FRA is revising proposed paragraph
(b)(4) to make clear that the procedures
must ensure suspect locations are
‘‘accurately’’ field-verified. As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
explained in more detail in the NPRM,
accurate field verification is vitally
important to continuous testing, and rail
testing in general, because it is the
process by which the track owner
determines whether a rail defect exists
or not, and if so, how serious. FRA
recognizes, however, that defect
signatures will always differ to some
degree even when the same equipment
is used over the same defect. That is the
nature of the technology. FRA does not
intend to require a railroad to
implement procedures that would
ensure field verifiers can reproduce
exact defect signatures. FRA recognizes
this is simply not feasible. FRA also
believes that requirements adopted in
this final rule cover this issue by
requiring track owners to document
suspect locations with repeatable
accuracy so that they may be located for
field verification. However, to
emphasize the general point discussed
above (i.e., that the procedures adopted
by track owners must accomplish their
purpose), FRA is revising proposed
paragraph (b)(4) to make clear that the
procedures must address how suspect
locations will be ‘‘accurately’’ fieldverified. FRA intends the addition of
‘‘accurately’’ to more clearly convey the
requirement. For example, the
procedures must enable the field verifier
to locate the suspect location and take
appropriate action to determine whether
the suspect location contains an actual
rail defect. Procedures that do not
accomplish the accurate field
verification of a suspect location, which
would implicitly also require accurately
locating that suspect location, will not
comply with the requirements of
§ 213.240(b)(4).
FRA disagrees with BMWED/BRS’s
comment that it is necessary to require
a track owner validate each suspect
location for 60 feet on either side.
Paragraph (b)(4) requires the track
owner have procedures for the effective
and accurate field verification of a
suspect location. Additionally,
paragraph (f) of this section, discussed
below, requires that track owners record
suspect locations with repeatable
accuracy that allows for the location to
be accurately located for subsequent
verification. Requiring each suspect
location to be validated for 60 feet on
each side would be redundant and
would create a substantial amount of
extra, unnecessary work. Additionally,
because such a condition would apply
only to track owners conducting
continuous testing, it would serve as a
significant disincentive for railroads to
adopt continuous rail testing, because it
would apply only to continuous testing
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and not tradition stop-and-verify testing.
Paragraph (b)(4) is therefore adopted as
proposed in the NPRM, with the change
noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (c)
would require the track owner to
designate and record the type of rail test
to be conducted, whether continuous or
stop-and-verify, prior to commencing
the testing. As proposed, track owners
could elect to conduct continuous
testing in conjunction with stop-andverify rail testing, but a determination
would need to be made prior to
commencement of the test as to which
type of test will be conducted on a given
section of track. The decision as to what
type of test is being conducted on a
given section of track must be properly
documented to ensure that the
effectiveness of the inspection can be
adequately evaluated for efficacy and
reporting requirements. If the type of
rail testing changes after the test has
commenced, FRA proposed to require
the track owner to document that
change, including the time the test was
initially started, the time it was
changed, the milepost where the test
started, the milepost where the test
changed, and the reason for the change.
As proposed, these records would need
to be made available to FRA upon
request during regular business hours
following reasonable notice. To conduct
oversight and ensure safety, FRA must
know the type of test utilized on a
section of track, because the type of test
will dictate both the necessary
procedures and, more importantly, the
required time period for field
verification of any suspected defects
identified.
Additionally, proposed paragraph (c)
would require a track owner to
designate and document, at least 10
days prior to commencing a continuous
rail test, whether the test is being
conducted to satisfy the requirement for
an internal rail inspection under
§ 213.237 or § 213.339. As discussed in
greater detail above, track owners are
required to conduct a sufficient number
of internal rail inspections to satisfy the
requirements of § 213.237 or § 213.339.
Under FRA’s proposal, a continuous rail
test conducted to meet the minimum
number of required internal rail
inspections would need to comply with
§ 213.240, including the fieldverification requirements under
paragraph (e). Track owners are, of
course, permitted to conduct continuous
rail tests above and beyond the
minimum requirements of § 213.237 or
§ 213.339. As proposed, those additional
rail tests (that are not intended to meet
the minimum number required by
§ 213.237 or § 213.339) would not be
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
required to meet the field-verification
timeframe requirements of § 213.240,
and the track owner therefore cannot
rely on such tests to demonstrate
compliance with either § 213.237 or
§ 213.339. As proposed, the track owner
must designate and record whether the
test is being conducted to satisfy the
minimum frequency requirements of
§ 213.237 or § 213.339, at least 10 days
in advance of the test to allow FRA the
opportunity to oversee the testing and
ensure the proper procedures are being
followed.
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA request
two changes to the proposed rule. First,
AAR/ASLRRA state that the proposed
10-day advance designation of whether
a continuous test is being conducted to
satisfy the minimum frequency
requirements of § 213.237, or § 213.339,
‘‘may actually detract from safety by
preventing a continuous test run from
occurring when an opportunity to
conduct such testing arises within the
ten-day window.’’ Accordingly, AAR/
ASLRRA asks that FRA remove the
proposed requirement. Second, AAR/
ASLRRA oppose the requirement that,
when the type of test (continuous or
stop-and-verify) changes after a test
commences, the track owner must
document the reason for the change.
AAR/ASLRRA contend that ‘‘the reason
a track owner may decide to change a
test may be a result of a business
decision not within FRA’s regulatory
purview,’’ and that the ‘‘proposal
appears to serve no required safety
purpose.’’ Finally, AAR/ASLRRA
comment on the use of the term
‘‘reasonable notice,’’ which is discussed
in more detail in the section-by-section
analysis for § 213.7, above.
Final rule: Whether a continuous test
is done to satisfy the inspection
frequency required under this part
affects what procedures the track owner
must follow. Thus, for FRA to conduct
effective oversight, and for track owner
inspection personnel to know what
procedures apply, the track owner must
articulate whether the test is being
conducted to satisfy the inspection
frequency required under part 213.
However, FRA agrees that the 10 days’
advance notice is unnecessary and
could prevent a track owner from
conducting a continuous test if the
equipment becomes available within the
10-day window. Thus, FRA is not
adopting the 10-day notice requirement
and instead will require that the track
owner designate the type of test prior to
the start of the test. This revision will
ensure that FRA and track owner
personnel know whether the procedures
required under this part apply to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
test, while addressing AAR/ASLRRA’s
concern regarding advanced notice.
As for the proposed requirement that
a track owner document the reason for
a change in the type of test after
commencing the rail test, although FRA
does not believe it is burdensome, FRA
agrees that the information is not vital
to FRA’s ability to conduct oversight
and ensure safety. Accordingly, FRA is
not adopting the proposed requirement
that a track owner document the reason
for such a change. However, the track
owner must document the change and
include the time the test was started and
when it changed, and the milepost
where the test started and where it was
changed. Further, if a track owner
switches from a continuous rail test to
a stop-and-verify test, regardless of
whether the continuous rail test was
being conducted to satisfy the minimum
frequency requirements of § 213.237, or
§ 213.339 where applicable, all
requirements of § 213.113 will
immediately apply and any suspect
locations found during the stop-andverify test must be field-verified within
4 hours.
See the section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.7 for FRA’s response to AAR/
ASLRRA’s comment regarding the use
of the term ‘‘reasonable notice.’’
Paragraph (c) is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM, with the changes noted
above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (d)
lists required qualifications for certain
persons involved in key aspects of the
continuous testing program. Proposed
paragraph (d)(1) would require
operators of continuous rail test vehicles
be qualified under § 213.238. Section
213.238 lists the qualification
requirements for operators of rail test
vehicles conducting stop-and-verify rail
testing. FRA proposed that the same
qualification requirements apply to
operators of continuous test vehicles,
stating that, like operators of stop-andverify test vehicles, operators of
continuous test vehicles must ensure
that the vehicles conduct a valid search
and function as intended, and be
capable of interpreting relevant
equipment responses and determining
that a continuous, valid search has been
conducted.
Comments: Herzog Services, Inc.
asserts that ‘‘the data collection phase of
the Continuous Test Process only
requires an operator whose sole
function is to ensure the test equipment
is functioning properly, and that a valid
search for internal defects is being
conducted.’’ Herzog goes on to state that
the ‘‘operator is not performing
interpretation of the test data for the
purpose of identifying a suspect defect
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63375
location,’’ and that accordingly, the
operator need not be qualified under all
elements of § 213.238(b), specifically,
Herzog asserts that a continuous rail test
inspection vehicle operator should not
be required to be qualified under
§ 213.238(b)(3), which requires the
operator be trained to ‘‘[i]nterpret
equipment responses and institute
appropriate action in accordance with
the employer’s procedures and
instructions.’’
Final rule: FRA generally agrees with
Herzog’s comment and, in this final
rule, is revising paragraph (d)(1) to
require the continuous rail test
inspection vehicle operator be qualified
under § 213.238, with the exception of
§ 213.238(b)(3). However, FRA makes
clear that if the operator of a continuous
rail test inspection vehicle is not fully
qualified under § 213.238, including
§ 213.238(b)(3), then it will not be
possible for that inspection to change
from a continuous test to a stop-andverify test, because the operator will not
be qualified under § 213.238 to conduct
a stop-and-verify test. Paragraph (d)(1) is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM, with
the changes noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph
(d)(2) would require that the internal
rail inspection data be reviewed and
interpreted by a person qualified to
interpret the equipment responses. FRA
intentionally did not propose specific
qualification requirements but instead
proposed to leave it up to the track
owner to ensure the necessary
procedures are in place for its specific
system so that the persons reviewing
and interpreting the data have been
properly trained and tested. As noted in
the NPRM, an analyst may not
necessarily need to have intimate
knowledge of the inner workings of the
test equipment, but must be trained on
how to properly assess the equipment
responses, to determine when a possible
rail defect exists and field verification is
necessary. Accordingly, the track owner
or a designee must have a process in
place to ensure all persons responsible
for the interpretation of the data are
competent and capable of that task. By
using the word ‘‘qualified,’’ FRA does
not simply mean that the track owner
has designated an individual as
qualified. To be ‘‘qualified,’’ the person
must be properly trained and tested, and
thus possess the necessary knowledge
and ability to accurately and
competently review and interpret the
rail test data and properly identify
suspected rail defects.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposal.
Final rule: After further review of the
proposed language, FRA realizes that by
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63376
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
not incorporating specific training
requirements such as in § 213.238 and
instead giving track owners flexibility in
how to train and qualify, there is no
express requirement that the track
owner provide relevant training and
qualification records to FRA upon
request. Although FRA recognizes that
track owners would likely maintain
records of operators’ qualifications to
demonstrate compliance with the rule,
without such a requirement, FRA would
not be able to provide any meaningful
oversight of proposed paragraph (d)’s
requirement that operators be qualified
to interpret the equipment responses.
Accordingly, in adopting paragraph
(d)(2), FRA is including the following
language:
Each employer of a person qualified to
interpret equipment responses shall maintain
written or electronic records of each
qualification in effect, including the name of
the employee, the equipment to which the
qualification applies, the date of
qualification, and the date of the most recent
reevaluation of the qualification, if any.
Records concerning these qualifications,
including copies of training programs,
training materials, and recorded
examinations, shall be kept at a location
designated by the employer and available for
inspection and copying by FRA during
regular business hours, following reasonable
notice.
This language is consistent with the
current requirements of § 213.238. See
the section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.7 above, for FRA’s response to
AAR/ASLRRA’s comment regarding the
use of the term ‘‘reasonable notice.’’
Paragraph (d)(2) is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM, with the changes noted
above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph
(d)(3) would require that all suspected
locations be field-verified by a person
qualified under § 213.238. FRA is aware
that this is the same qualification
required for continuous test vehicle
operators and believes that an
understanding of the vehicle’s systems
is necessary to understand the test data
accurately, find the suspected location,
and field-verify the suspected defect
successfully.
Comments: BMWED/BRS assert that
track owners should be required to
‘‘maintain and make available to FRA
training records identifying persons
qualified to perform field-verification
tests, the basis for such qualifications,
and the type(s) of field-verification
instruments they are qualified to
operate.’’
Final rule: As proposed, paragraph
(d)(3) would already require that
persons conducting field verification be
qualified under § 213.238. Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
213.238(g) itself requires that track
owners make qualification and training
records available to FRA, and
§ 213.238(e) requires that track owners
keep a list of each qualification in effect,
including the name of the employee, the
equipment to which the qualification
applies, the date of qualification, and
the date of the most recent reevaluation.
FRA expects that the referenced
qualification requirements are sufficient
to allow proper oversight and ensure
safety. Accordingly, paragraph (d)(3) is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (e)
would require that the continuous test
process, at a minimum, produce a report
containing a systematic listing of all
suspected locations that may contain
any defect listed in the Remedial Action
Table. The suspect location must be
identified with sufficient information so
that a qualified person under § 213.238
can locate and field-verify each
suspected defect accurately. FRA
intentionally did not prescribe how a
suspect location is identified and
proposed to leave it up to the track
owner because the identification
process may be affected by specific
circumstances facing each track owner.
FRA notes that when proposed
paragraph (e) is read in conjunction
with proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (f),
the suspect location must be identified
and recorded in a manner that allows
the qualified person under § 213.238 to
locate the suspect location with
repeatable accuracy. This could include
using Global Positioning System (GPS)
coordinates, but for locations where
GPS does not work, such as tunnels, the
track owner must have another
procedure in place to accurately identify
the exact location of the suspected
defects. FRA also recognizes that the
locations likely cannot be listed with
perfect accuracy and that there must be
some acceptable margin of error.
Although FRA does not quantify the
exact size of an allowable margin of
error, it cannot be of a size that would
affect the ability of the qualified person
under § 213.238 to locate the suspected
defect noted on the report accurately.
For example, if the margin of error is too
large, there is a risk that the qualified
person may confuse the suspected
defect noted on the report with another
condition present in or on the rail in the
vicinity of the actual suspected defect.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (e) is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraphs
(e)(1) and (2) contain specific
timeframes in which field verification of
suspected locations must be conducted.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
For purposes of the verification
timeframes, the indications are
classified into two categories: Those
suspected defects that, if verified, would
require remedial action note ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘A2,’’
or ‘‘B’’ in the Remedial Action Table
(addressed in proposed paragraph
(e)(2)); and all other defects (addressed
in proposed paragraph (e)(1)).
Additionally, under proposed paragraph
(e)(3), indications of a possible broken
rail with rail separation must be
protected immediately. Proposed
paragraph (e)(1) would require, subject
to the requirements of proposed
paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), that the track
owner field-verify any suspect location
within 72 hours after completing the
test run, or within 84 hours of the
detection of the suspect location,
whichever is earlier. This, along with
proposed paragraphs (e)(2) and (3),
would take the place of the current
requirement that suspect locations be
field-verified within 4 hours. Proposed
paragraph (e)(1) would apply to any
suspect location that does not indicate
a broken rail with rail separation or
indicate a suspected defect that, if
verified, requires remedial action note
‘‘A,’’ ‘‘A2,’’ or ‘‘B’’ under the Remedial
Action Table. In other words, this
proposed paragraph would apply to
suspected defects that pose less of an
immediate safety risk than the ones
covered in proposed paragraphs (e)(2)
and (3).
Comments: FRA received multiple
comments on this proposal. AAR/
ASLRRA assert that having two different
time periods ‘‘presents tracking issues
that would be difficult and burdensome
for railroads to monitor and would
introduce unnecessary confusion
regarding whether the appropriate time
permitted for field verification was
met.’’ BMWED/BRS further comment
that ‘‘completion of the test run’’ is
ambiguous and FRA should ‘‘provide a
clear and unambiguous definition as to
when that is.’’ For their part, AAR/
ASLRRA advocate that track owners
have 84 hours from the completion of
the test run for field verification.
NTSB comments that the proposed
field-verification timeframe could allow
‘‘certain hazardous rail defects . . . to
go ‘unverified’ for longer than 12
hours,’’ presenting a ‘‘public safety
concern’’ and states that FRA should
enact ‘‘[p]rocedures for mitigating
risks.’’ Likewise, the Chemical, Energy,
and Agricultural Trade Associations
comment that they ‘‘are concerned that
the proposed revisions, particularly the
extension of the verification timeframes
could lead to a scenario where fatal
flaws remained unaddressed and subject
trains to potential derailments.’’
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Finally, Herzog notes a typographical
error in proposed paragraph (e)(1)
wherein it references paragraphs (c)(2)
and (3) when it should reference
paragraphs (e)(2) and (3). Additionally,
Herzog requests that FRA use the term
‘‘indication’’ as opposed to ‘‘detection’’
in paragraph (e)(1) because the
‘‘collection vehicle is only collecting the
test data and the location is an
‘indication’ at that time.’’
Final rule: In adopting this paragraph
(e)(1) in the final rule, FRA has
corrected the inadvertent typographical
error so that paragraph (e)(1) references
paragraphs (e)(2) and (3). FRA also
agrees that ‘‘indication’’ is a more
suitable term than ‘‘detection’’ and has
changed paragraph (e)(1) accordingly.
FRA makes clear that a track owner
receives the indication of the suspect
location, for purposes of the fieldverification timeframe, when the
collection vehicle passes over the
suspect location.
FRA agrees that use of a single time
period may allow track owners to more
efficiently and accurately track when a
suspect location must be field-verified
without negatively impacting safety.
However, FRA does not agree that this
time period should begin upon
completion of the test run, because
‘‘completion of the test run’’ could be
hard to define and raises the possibility
that a test run could continue for a
lengthy and unpredictable period,
potentially resulting in the fieldverification clock not starting until after
a significant period of time passes. In
this final rule, FRA is instead adopting
a single timeframe that requires suspect
locations be field-verified within 84
hours of their indication, i.e., when the
collection vehicle passes over the
suspect location. This change will
address the concern raised about the
different proposed timeframes while
also ensuring that suspect locations are
field-verified within a defined period of
time that is not fluid or dependent on
when a test run may end, thereby
addressing possible ambiguity as to the
meaning of ‘‘completion of the test run.’’
As for the concerns raised by NTSB
and the Chemical, Energy, and
Agricultural Trade Associations, as
explained in greater detail above and in
the NPRM (see 84 FR 72528–30), FRA
has trialed continuous rail testing under
the waiver process for over a decade and
the regulatory changes adopted here are
based on the lessons learned and
procedures used under the waiver
process. FRA is confident, based on the
data and experience gained from those
waivers, that the field-verification
timeframes adopted here are sufficient
to ensure safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
Finally, in adopting paragraph (e)(1),
FRA is adding ‘‘Except as provided in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section’’ to the
beginning of the paragraph. This change
is meant to account for the addition of
paragraph (e)(6), discussed below,
codifying the interpretation articulated
in the NPRM preamble that the
applicable timeframes for field
verification apply only to continuous
rail tests conducted to meet the
minimum inspection frequency required
by § 213.237, or § 213.339 where
applicable. Paragraph (e)(1) is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM, with the
changes noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph
(e)(2) would require that any suspect
location containing a suspected defect
that, if verified, would require remedial
action note ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘A2,’’ or ‘‘B’’ under the
Remedial Action Table be field-verified
no more than 24 hours after completion
of the test run, or 36 hours after
detection of the suspect location,
whichever is earlier. The remedial
action need not be the only required
remedial action, just one of those cited.
Thus, if remedial action note ‘‘A,’’
‘‘A2,’’ or ‘‘B’’ is cited in the remedial
action column (the last column) of the
Remedial Action Table, the defects
associated with those remedial actions
would be covered under proposed
paragraph (e)(2) and any suspect
location possibly containing one of
those defects must be field-verified
within the time required by proposed
paragraph (e)(2). Based on the table in
§ 213.113(c), the covered defects
include:
• All compound fissures;
• Transverse fissures 60 percent or
greater;
• Detail fractures 60 percent or
greater;
• Engine burn fractures 60 percent or
greater;
• Defective welds 60 percent or
greater;
• Horizontal split head greater than 4
inches or where there is a break out in
the rail head;
• Vertical split head greater than 4
inches or where there is a break out in
the rail head;
• Split web greater than 4 inches or
where there is a break out in the rail
head;
• Piped rail greater than 4 inches or
where there is a break out in the rail
head;
• Head web separation greater than 4
inches or where there is a break out in
the rail head;
• Defective weld greater than 4 inches
or where there is a break out in the rail
head;
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63377
• Bolt hole crack greater than 1.5
inches or where there is a break out in
the rail head;
• Broken base greater than 6 inches;
and
• Ordinary breaks.
Comments: The same comments
discussed above for paragraph (e)(1) are
applicable here. See the above
summary.
Final rule: Please see the relevant FRA
responses to the comments above on
paragraph (e)(1). For the reasons
discussed above, in adopting the final
rule, paragraph (e)(2) uses the term
‘‘indication’’ instead of ‘‘detection’’;
does not reference ‘‘completion of the
test run’’; and requires field verification
within 36 hours of the indication, i.e.,
within 36 hours of the collection car
passing over the suspect location.
Consistent with the change in
paragraph (e)(1), FRA is also making an
additional change by adding ‘‘Except as
provided in paragraph (e)(6) of this
section’’ to the beginning of paragraph
(e)(2). This change is meant to account
for the addition of paragraph (e)(6),
discussed below, codifying the
interpretation articulated in the NPRM
preamble that the applicable timeframes
for field verification apply only to
continuous rail tests conducted to meet
the minimum number required by
§ 213.237, or § 213.339 where
applicable. Finally, FRA is making a
further change by adding ‘‘and subject
to the requirement of paragraph (e)(3)’’
to make paragraph (e)(2) clearer and
consistent with (e)(1). Paragraph (e)(2) is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM, with
the changes noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph
(e)(3) would require that track owners
have procedures in place to ensure
adequate protection is immediately
implemented when continuous rail test
inspection vehicles indicate a possible
broken rail with rail separation. As
explained in the NPRM, FRA
intentionally does not specify what
needs to be included in the procedures
but expects the track owners to
determine what is appropriate for their
individual operations. At a minimum,
these procedures would need to include
specific communication channels, open
at all times continuous rail testing is
conducted and data is being analyzed,
among the personnel who can take the
necessary steps to implement adequate
protection immediately. A track owner
may not wait until the suspected broken
rail with rail separation is field-verified.
The visual indication received by the
analyst alone is sufficient.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63378
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Final rule: Paragraph (e)(3) is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph
(e)(4) states that a suspect location is not
considered an actual rail defect under
§ 213.113(c) until it has been fieldverified by a person qualified under
§ 213.238. Thus, as proposed, a track
owner would not be required to
implement the remedial actions listed in
the Remedial Action Table until a
suspect location is field-verified, or, as
provided in proposed paragraph (e)(5),
the required time period to conduct
field verification has elapsed. Proposed
paragraph (e)(4) goes on to state that
once a suspect location is field-verified
and determined to be a defect, the track
owner must immediately perform all
remedial actions required by
§ 213.113(a).
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: FRA notes that the
inclusion of paragraph (e)(4) is simply
the codification of an existing FRA
interpretation regarding rail inspections.
Under § 213.113, an indication of a
suspect location is not considered a
defect, and thus the track owner is not
required to take remedial action, until
the suspect location is field-verified and
an actual defect is found. Paragraph
(e)(4) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.
Proposed rule: Under proposed
paragraph (e)(5), if a suspect location is
not field-verified within the time
required by proposed paragraph (e)(1) or
(2), it must be immediately protected by
applying the most restrictive remedial
action in the Remedial Action Table for
the suspected type and size of the
suspected defect. The protection must
cover a sufficient segment of track to
assure coverage of the suspected
location until field verification. Thus, if
the size of a defect is not immediately
clear, the protection must provide a
safety margin and cover a larger segment
of track to ensure the limits of the
suspected defect are included in the
protection.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (e)(5) is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: In the NPRM
preamble, FRA stated that a continuous
rail test conducted to meet the
minimum number of required internal
rail inspections under § 213.237, or
§ 213.339 where applicable, also called
regulatory tests, must comply with
§ 213.240. FRA further explained that
continuous rail tests conducted above
and beyond the minimum frequency
requirements of § 213.237, or § 213.339
where applicable, or on track not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
required to be tested under § 213.237, or
§ 213.339 where applicable, i.e., nonregulatory tests, are not required to meet
all requirements of § 213.240.
Comments: BMWED/BRS assert there
should be no difference between the
rules applicable to regulatory and nonregulatory tests. According to BMWED/
BRS, time limits for remedial action,
field verification, and inspection
records should apply to every
continuous test regardless whether it is
conducted to meet the minimum
number of required internal rail
inspections under § 213.237, or
§ 213.339 where applicable. BMWED/
BRS contend that not requiring nonregulatory tests to comply with
§ 213.240 means that track owners ‘‘will
be given ‘carte blanche’ by FRA to delay
verification and protection of suspected
rail defects indefinitely.’’
AAR/ASLRRA request clarification on
FRA’s discussion in the NPRM on
regulatory and non-regulatory tests.
AAR/ASLRRA ‘‘understand this to
mean that when track owners
proactively choose to conduct
additional continuous tests that are not
intended to fulfill the Federally required
[track safety standards (TSS)] inspection
requirements, that associated TSS
testing intervals and deadlines, and data
collection and other administrative
requirements do not apply to the
conduct of those tests.’’
In addition, NTSB believes that the
proposed regulatory text may not
accomplish what FRA intended by its
preamble discussion, stating that
proposed § 213.240 would only exempt
track owners from the 4-hour fieldverification timeframe in § 213.113(b) if
the continuous test is conducted under
the procedures listed in § 213.240.
Final rule: FRA agrees with NTSB that
the proposed rule, as written, may not
accomplish effectively what was
intended. Thus, FRA is adding
paragraph (e)(6), which states: ‘‘A
continuous rail test that is not
conducted to satisfy the requirements
for an internal rail inspection under
§ 213.237, or § 213.339 if applicable,
and has been properly designated and
recorded by the track owner under
paragraph (c) of this section, is exempt
from the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(1), (2), and (5) of this section.’’
This new paragraph also responds to
the comment submitted by AAR/
ASLRRA. A non-regulatory test is
exempt only from the required
timeframes for field verification. The
track owner must still comply with all
other regulatory requirements under this
part, including recordkeeping, data
collection, procedural, and reporting
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
FRA agrees with BMWED/BRS that
the time limits for implementing
remedial actions under § 213.113(a)
apply to all tests, whether regulatory or
non-regulatory, once a suspect location
is field-verified and a defect is found.
However, FRA does not agree that such
suspect locations identified during nonregulatory tests should be subject to the
same field-verification timeframes.
Doing so would create a disincentive for
track owners to conduct continuous
tests above and beyond the minimum
requirements, including on track where
rail inspections are not required, such as
yard track. Further, by not imposing the
rule’s field-verification timeframes on
suspect locations found during nonregulatory tests, track owners have
greater flexibility to prioritize field
verification of suspect locations that
pose a higher risk of derailment.
Although the final rule allows track
owners to leave some suspected defects
in certain track, FRA expects it will
result in track owners conducting tests
where they otherwise would not, and
ultimately result in more rail defects
being found and remediated.
Accordingly, paragraph (e)(6) is adopted
as stated above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (f)
would require each suspect location be
recorded with repeatable accuracy so
that the location can be accurately
located for subsequent field verification
and remedial action. As the continuous
testing process allows track owners to
conduct field verifications well after the
inspection equipment traverses a track
segment, it is critical that each suspect
location be dependably and accurately
identified. Recording each suspect
location with this repeatable accuracy is
a cornerstone of the entire process, and
can be accomplished through a variety
or combination of methods, including
use of GPS and measuring from known
reference points. When GPS is used,
procedures must be adopted that allow
field-verifiers to accurately find those
suspect locations in areas where the
signals for GPS are compromised or
otherwise rendered unreliable, such as
in tunnels, cut sections, or near
buildings. When determining the
appropriate procedures to follow, track
owners should be particularly mindful
of scenarios in which GPS is unreliable
and few track features exist for
reference, such as can result from some
rail that is rolled in weld-free segments
that exceed one-tenth of a mile in
length.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (f) is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (g)
would require track owners utilizing
continuous rail testing to submit an
annual report to the FRA Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer no later than 45 days
following the end of each calendar year.
This would apply only to track owners
that have conducted continuous rail
testing under § 213.240 within the
previous calendar year. Continuous
testing programs have been trialed
through temporary waivers granted to
several railroads throughout the
country; however, it is important to
continue monitoring the overall impacts
and efficacy of the process. This
proposed reporting requirement is
designed to provide sufficient data to
enable a comparison of the results and
effectiveness of continuous rail testing
to the results and effectiveness of
inspections by track owners not
utilizing continuous rail testing. The
annual report will also allow FRA to
monitor the effectiveness of individual
track owners’ specific continuous
testing processes and programs, and
compare results on a micro level for
specific track owners. Further, as
innovation and technology evolve, it is
critical to the success of the safety
improvement process to collect and
analyze this data for positive trend
exploration.
FRA will use the data provided in
each track owner’s annual report to
match service failure rates with testing
frequencies to estimate the correlation
between increased testing frequencies to
the accident rate. This will help confirm
that the anticipated safety
improvements are realized. In addition,
FRA intends to utilize traditional and
new methods of analysis to, among
other things, study defect risk and track
health and will share data with the track
owners to inform continuous process
improvement, as was done during the
waiver process for continuous rail
testing. The information should also
serve as valuable input to FRA’s
ongoing research on potential
commonalities in rail geometry and rail
defect growth patterns, to aid the
industry in its continuous effort to
mitigate the risk of track-caused
derailments.
The annual report must be in a
reasonably usable format, or its native
electronic format, and contain at least
all the information required by
proposed paragraphs (g)(1) through (10)
for each track segment requiring internal
rail inspection under either § 213.237 or
§ 213.339. Specifically, the submission
must include the track owner’s name
((g)(1)); the name of the railroad division
and subdivision ((g)(2)); the segment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
identifier, milepost limits, and length of
each segment ((g)(3)); the track number
((g)(4)); the class of track ((g)(5)); the
annual million gross tons over that
segment of track ((g)(6)); the total
number of internal rail tests conducted
over each track ((g)(7)); the type of
internal rail test conducted on the
segment, whether continuous rail test or
stop-and-verify ((g)(8)); and the total
number of defects identified over each
track segment ((g)(9)), which would
include only the defects that have been
field-verified and determined to be
actual defects. Proposed paragraph
(g)(10) would also require the total
number of service failures on each track
segment.
This information is necessary for FRA
to ensure safe operations and monitor
the effectiveness of continuous rail
testing and the requirements of this
regulation. For FRA to fulfill its
responsibilities to oversee railroad
safety and the implementation of
continuous testing, the agency must
receive sufficient data to effectively
perform its functions, while not placing
undue burden on the industry.
Accordingly, the annual reporting
requirement is intended to provide FRA
with information needed to ensure that
the continuous testing process is
consistently carried out in a proper
manner.
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA ask for
clarification on the intended meaning of
‘‘service failure’’ as used in proposed
paragraph (g)(10) and whether it is
meant to be defined the same as in
§ 213.237(j)(3). In commenting, NTSB
asserts that ‘‘to more effectively monitor
the programs, the proposed regulation
should require separately listing the
quantity of each type of internal rail test
on each segment.’’ NTSB also suggests
the regulation include ‘‘[p]rocedures for
monitoring rail inspection program,’’
indicating that allowance of ‘‘multiple
rail inspection processes on a given
segment in a given year . . . could be
more complex to monitor.’’
Final rule: FRA is confident the
annual reporting requirement under
paragraph (g), together with FRA’s
general oversight authority, is sufficient
to monitor the safety and effectiveness
of track owners’ rail inspection
programs. FRA agrees that requiring a
listing of the quantity and type of each
rail inspection on a segment is vitally
important information and proposed
paragraphs (g)(7) and (8) to accomplish
that. To make this intent clearer, FRA is
combining proposed paragraphs (g)(7)
and (8) into paragraph (g)(7) to read:
‘‘The total number of stop-and-verify
rail tests and the total number of
continuous rail tests over each track
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63379
segment.’’ In conformance with this
change, FRA has renumbered proposed
paragraphs (g)(9) and (10) as paragraphs
(g)(8) and (9) in this final rule.
Finally, FRA confirms the term
‘‘service failure’’ as used in proposed
paragraph (g)(10), now paragraph (g)(9),
is intended to have the same meaning as
in § 213.237(j)(3). Paragraph (g) is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM, with
the changes noted above.
Section 213.241 Inspection Records
Proposed rule: Section 213.241
requires track owners to keep a record
of each inspection required to be
performed under part 213, subpart F.
Paragraph (b) of this section requires
that each record of inspection under
certain sections include specific
information, be prepared on the day the
inspection is made, and be signed by the
person making the inspection. FRA
proposed revising paragraph (b) by
adding § 213.137 to those enumerated
sections for which inspection records
must comply with the requirements of
paragraph (b), because of the
incorporation of the waiver allowing the
use of FBFs. One of the proposed
requirements for the use of FBFs under
§ 213.137(e)(3) is that they must be
inspected at specific intervals, records
of which must be kept and comply with
§ 213.241(b).
FRA also proposed adding the phrase
‘‘or otherwise certified’’ after ‘‘signed’’
in paragraph (b), and thus require that
records be ‘‘signed or otherwise certified
by the person making the inspection.’’
This is meant to clarify that a record
does not have to be physically signed by
the person making the inspection. The
track owner can choose to use other
methods to allow an inspector to certify
an inspection record, provided the
method chosen accurately and securely
identifies the person making the
inspection. Further, FRA proposed
adding three elements to the list of
information that must be included in an
inspection record: The author of the
record, the type of track inspected, and
the location of the inspection. FRA
expects this information is already
included in most, if not all, of the
inspection records currently prepared
by the railroad industry. The proposal is
therefore intended to emphasize the
importance of this information and
should have little, if any, impact on
recordkeeping practices. The remaining
edits to paragraph (b) are simply
technical edits that have no effect on the
intent of the paragraph. Specifically,
FRA would change ‘‘owner’’ to ‘‘track
owner’’ at the beginning of the last two
sentences, remove ‘‘either’’ before the
word ‘‘maintained’’ in the last sentence,
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63380
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
and change ‘‘10 days notice’’ to ‘‘10
days’ notice.’’
Comments: FRA received no
comments on the proposed changes to
paragraph (b).
Final rule: FRA is not adopting the
proposed reference to § 213.137 in
§ 213.241(b). FRA had originally
considered adopting the increased
inspection frequency for FBFs included
in the long-standing waiver but decided
against that approach. Because FBFs are
inspected in the same manner as other
frogs in this final rule, a reference to
§ 213.137 is not needed. Section
213.241(b) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM, with the change noted above.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed revising
paragraph (f) and redesignating it as
paragraph (i) and adding new paragraph
(f). Proposed paragraph (f) would list the
recordkeeping requirements for
continuous testing performed under
§ 213.240. These are similar to the
current recordkeeping requirements for
internal rail inspections conducted
under § 213.237. Proposed paragraph
(f)(1) would require the track owner’s
continuous rail testing records include
all information required under
§ 213.240(e). Broadly, this would
require the track owner to produce a
report containing a systematic listing of
all suspected locations, and is explained
in greater detail above. Proposed
paragraph (f)(2) would require that the
records state whether the test is being
conducted to satisfy the requirements
for an internal rail inspection under
§ 213.237. As discussed in more detail
above, this is necessary information
because it is relevant to whether the
track owner must comply with the fieldverification time limits in § 213.240(e).
Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would require
that the continuous rail testing records
include the date and time of the
beginning and end of each continuous
test run, as well as the date and time
each suspect location was identified and
field-verified. Proposed paragraph (f)(4)
would require that the continuous
testing records include the
determination made for each suspect
location after field verification
(including, at a minimum, the location
and type of defect, the size of the defect,
and the initial remedial action taken, if
required, and the date of that remedial
action). Finally, proposed paragraph
(f)(5) would require that these records
be kept for two years from the date of
the inspection, or one year after initial
remedial action, whichever is later.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (f) is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (g)
is similar to paragraph (e). As proposed,
the paragraph would require any track
owner that elects to conduct continuous
testing under § 213.240 to maintain
records sufficient for monitoring and
determining compliance with all
applicable regulations and make those
records available to FRA during regular
business hours following reasonable
notice. For example, as proposed, a
track owner must keep sufficient
records of procedures developed to
comply with § 213.240(b), as well as
qualification procedures under
§ 213.238. The meaning of the term
‘‘reasonable notice’’ would depend on
the specific facts of each situation (e.g.,
time of day, day of the week, number of
records requested, etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA’s comment
on the use of the term ‘‘reasonable
notice’’ is discussed in more detail in
the section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section
analysis for § 213.7 for FRA’s response
to AAR/ASLRRA’s comment regarding
the use of the term ‘‘reasonable notice.’’
Paragraph (g) is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (h)
states that track inspection records,
meaning each inspection record created
under § 213.241, shall be available to
persons who performed the inspections
and to persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment. This is
vitally important to help ensure the
quality and effectiveness of track
inspections, and FRA expects that in
most cases this is already being done, as
it is required, at least for electronic
inspection records, under existing
§ 213.241(g)(7). A person performing a
subsequent inspection must have an
understanding of the track condition
during previous inspections to
effectively recognize significant changes
in the track condition as well as ensure
that previously noted defects are
adequately protected, have been
adequately remediated, or have not
degraded to a degree that requires
further action.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (h) is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed
paragraph (i) to be redesignated as
paragraph (f) and revised to include the
phrase ‘‘during regular business hours
following reasonable notice’’ at the end
of the paragraph. The meaning of the
term ‘‘reasonable notice’’ would depend
on the specific facts of each situation
(e.g., time of day, day of the week,
number of records requested, etc.).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA’s comment
on the use of the term ‘‘reasonable
notice’’ is discussed in more detail in
the section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section
analysis for § 213.7 for FRA’s response
to AAR/ASLRRA’s comment regarding
the use of the term ‘‘reasonable notice.’’
Paragraph (i) is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed
paragraph (j) to be a revised and
redesignated version of existing
paragraph (g). First, FRA proposed to
reword the introductory language of the
paragraph to make it clearer that a track
owner may create, retain, transmit,
store, and retrieve records by electronic
means for purposes of complying with
this section. The proposed change is not
meant to affect the meaning or intent of
this paragraph.
Next, in redesignating paragraph (g) as
paragraph (j), FRA would remove
existing paragraphs (g)(5) through (7).
Existing paragraph (g)(1) would be
redesignated as paragraph (j)(3), existing
paragraph (g)(2) would be redesignated
as paragraph (j)(5), and existing
paragraph (g)(3) would be redesignated
as paragraph (j)(4). Proposed new
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) would be
added. FRA finds the proposal would
help ensure the integrity of electronic
records, while increasing clarity and
allowing track owners additional
flexibility without negatively impacting
safety.
Under proposed paragraph (j)(1), the
system used to generate the electronic
records must meet all the requirements
and include all the information required
under subpart F. Proposed paragraph
(j)(2) would require the track owner to
monitor its electronic records database
to ensure record accuracy, and FRA
would intentionally leave it up to the
track owner to determine the best way
to monitor, protect, and maintain the
integrity and accuracy of its records
database effectively. FRA proposed that
existing paragraph (g)(1) be redesignated
as paragraph (j)(3) and revised to require
that the electronic system be designed to
identify the author of each record
uniquely and prohibit two persons from
having the same electronic identity.
This is a simplified rephrasing of the
requirements of existing paragraph
(g)(1).
FRA proposed that existing paragraph
(g)(3) be redesignated as paragraph (j)(4)
and slightly revised. Proposed
paragraph (j)(4) would require that the
electronic system ensure each record
cannot be modified or replaced in the
system once the record is completed.
Proposed paragraph (j)(4) would
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
prohibit modification once the record is
completed, while existing paragraph
(g)(3) prohibits modification once the
record is transmitted and stored. FRA
recognizes that there are times when an
inspection record may include
information that cannot be entered until
a later date, such as the date of final
repair. Proposed paragraph (j)(4) would,
therefore, allow for modification of a
record, provided the modification is
made by the original author of the
record or the author of the modification
is identified in the record, after the
record has been transmitted but before
the record has been fully completed.
This would not permit someone other
than the author of the record to modify
existing information at a later date, such
as track measurements or listings of
reported defects.
FRA proposed that existing paragraph
(g)(2) be redesignated as paragraph (j)(5)
and revised to require that electronic
storage of records be initiated by the
person making the inspection within 72
hours following completion of the
inspection. Existing paragraph (g)(2)
requires that electronic storage be
initiated within 24 hours of completion
of the inspection. FRA finds that giving
track owners an additional 48 hours to
upload inspection records would
provide needed flexibility without
negatively impacting safety. For
example, where an inspector does not
have internet connection or experiences
computer failure, it may take more than
24 hours to upload the inspection
report. The new 72-hour requirement
would also take into account the
possibility of technical issues occurring
late on a Friday that cannot be remedied
until the following Monday, due to
limited availability of technical support
personnel.
FRA proposed removing existing
paragraph (g)(5), which requires that the
electronic system provide for
maintenance of the inspection records
without corruption or loss of data. FRA
finds that proposed paragraph (j)(2),
which would require that the track
owner monitor the database to ensure
record accuracy, would make existing
paragraph (g)(5) redundant. FRA also
proposed removing as redundant
existing paragraph (g)(6), which
generally requires that track owners
make paper copies of electronic records
available to FRA. Existing paragraph (f)
already requires track owners to make
records available to FRA for inspection
and copying upon request, and would
continue to do so as redesignated
paragraph (i). Finally, FRA proposed
removing existing paragraph (g)(7),
which requires electronic track
inspection records to be kept available
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
to persons who performed the
inspections and to persons performing
subsequent inspections. FRA finds
removal is justified because the addition
of proposed paragraph (h) would require
the same for all records, and therefore
make the paragraph redundant.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on the proposed changes to
§ 213.241.
Final rule: Section 213.241 is revised
as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.305 Designation of
Qualified Individuals; General
Qualifications
Proposed rule: Proposed revisions to
this section are intended to mirror the
relevant proposed revisions to § 213.7,
discussed above. Section 213.305
addresses the qualification of
individuals responsible for the
maintenance and inspection of Class 6
and above track. Currently, paragraphs
(a)(3), (b)(3), and (c)(4) each require that
a qualified person ‘‘[b]e authorized in
writing’’ or possess ‘‘[w]ritten
authorization from the track owner.’’
Although FRA expects that the term
‘‘written’’ and ‘‘in writing’’ can be
interpreted to encompass both physical
hardcopies of an authorization as well
as electronic versions, to avoid any
possible confusion FRA proposed to
remove the terms ‘‘written’’ and ‘‘in
writing.’’ These changes would make
clear that the required authorizations
under these paragraphs may be recorded
and conveyed either in hardcopy or
electronic form.
Further, FRA proposed to revise and
reorganize paragraph (e) to clarify the
type of information track owners must
include in their records of designations
made under paragraphs (a) through (d).
First, for the reasons stated above, the
term ‘‘written’’ would be removed.
Records of designations made under
§ 213.305 can be either in physical or
electronic form. FRA proposed to add
new paragraph (e)(2) to require records
of designations include the date each
designation was made. The date of an
individual’s designation is relevant and
important information both to the track
owner and to FRA, and FRA expects
most, if not all, track owners already
include this in their designation
records. To incorporate this proposed
revision, existing paragraph (e)(2) would
be redesignated as paragraph (e)(3).
FRA also proposed to remove the first
sentence of existing paragraph (e)(3),
because it is redundant when
considering the requirements of
§ 213.369. The second sentence of
existing paragraph (e)(3) would be
redesignated as paragraph (f) and
revised. As under the existing
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63381
regulation, a track owner would be
required to make the records kept under
paragraph (e) available for inspection
and copying by FRA. FRA proposed
rephrasing the sentence to require that
FRA make its request for records during
normal business hours and give the
track owner ‘‘reasonable notice’’ before
requiring production. The meaning of
the term ‘‘reasonable notice’’ would
depend on the specific facts of each
situation (e.g., time of day, day of the
week, number of records requested,
etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA’s comment
on the use of the term ‘‘reasonable
notice’’ is discussed in more detail in
the section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section
analysis for § 213.7 for FRA’s response
to AAR/ASLRRA’s comment regarding
the use of the term ‘‘reasonable notice.’’
Additionally, FRA has identified a
technical error in paragraphs (a)(3),
(b)(3), and (c)(4) and will change
‘‘successful completion of’’ to
‘‘successfully completed.’’ This change
is not meant to alter the intent or
meaning of the section. Accordingly,
§ 213.305 is revised as proposed in the
NPRM, with the changes noted above.
Section 213.365 Visual Track
Inspections
Proposed rule: FRA proposed
revisions to this section intended to
mirror the relevant proposed revisions
to § 213.233, discussed above. FRA first
proposed to revise the heading for
§ 213.365 by adding the word ‘‘track’’
after ‘‘visual’’ so that the heading reads
‘‘Visual track inspections.’’ Because
other sections in part 213 cover different
types of inspections (e.g., automated
inspections, inspections of rail, etc.), the
proposed heading change is simply
intended to clarify that this section
deals specifically with visual track
inspections. This proposal would also
make the heading for § 213.365
consistent with the proposed revision to
the heading for the corresponding nonhigh-speed track section, § 213.233. As
discussed above, FRA proposes to revise
the heading for § 213.233 so that the
headings are the same for both
§§ 213.233 and 213.365.
FRA also proposed revising paragraph
(b) to change the terms ‘‘riding over’’
and ‘‘passing over’’ to ‘‘traversing,’’ and
‘‘is riding’’ and ‘‘are riding’’ to
‘‘traverses’’ and ‘‘traverse.’’
Additionally, FRA proposed changing
‘‘is actually’’ to ‘‘must be’’ in paragraph
(b)(3). These changes are not meant to
affect the meaning of § 213.365, but
instead are made for grammatical
consistency.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63382
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
FRA proposed removing the last
sentence of paragraph (b)(3), also known
as the high-density commuter line
exception. It was FRA’s understanding
that no railroads currently utilize this
exception. Paragraph (b)(3) requires,
among other things, that each main
track be traversed by a vehicle or
inspector on foot at least once every two
weeks, and every siding at least every
month. The high-density commuter line
exception applies where track time does
not permit on-track vehicle inspection
and where track centers are 15 feet or
less apart and exempts those operations
from the inspection method
requirements of paragraph (b)(3). FRA’s
proposal to remove this exception is
consistent with NTSB recommendation
R–14–11, section 11409 of the FAST
Act, and the proposal to remove the
counterpart to this section in
§ 213.233(b)(3), as discussed above in
the section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.233(b)(3) and in section IV.B.i of
the NPRM (see 84 FR 72530).
Comments: FRA received a comment
from AAR/ASLRRA objecting to the
removal of the high-density commuter
line exception. For a more complete
summary of the comment, please see the
discussion in the section-by-section
analysis for § 213.233(b)(3), above.
Final rule: FRA has decided to adopt
the proposal in the NPRM to remove the
high-density commuter line exception
from part 213, as explained in the
section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.233(b)(3). Paragraph (b) is revised
as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed two
revisions to paragraph (c). First, FRA
proposed to add the word ‘‘visual’’
before ‘‘track inspection’’ in the
introductory text. This would simply
make paragraph (c) consistent with the
heading for § 213.365 and would have
no effect on the meaning of paragraph
(c). Second, FRA proposed adding
footnote 1 after the word ‘‘weekly’’ in
the table in paragraph (c). The footnote
defines the term ‘‘weekly’’ to be any
seven-day period beginning on Sunday
and ending on Saturday. This definition
is consistent with FRA’s past
interpretation and enforcement practice.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (c) is revised as
proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA also proposed to
revise paragraph (d). Specifically, FRA
would add the phrase ‘‘the § 213.305
qualified’’ at the beginning of the
paragraph to clarify that ‘‘the person’’
making the inspection that the existing
rule text refers to is the qualified track
inspector designated under § 213.305.
Additionally, FRA proposed adding a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
sentence at the end of paragraph (d)
stating that any subsequent movements
to facilitate repairs on track that is out
of service must be authorized by a
§ 213.305 qualified person. This section
is silent as to whether or when
movement over track that is out of
service is permissible. FRA recognizes
that certain movements are necessary to
facilitate repairs and therefore does not
interpret or enforce the regulatory
language to bar such movements of
equipment and materials on track that is
out of service. The proposed revision is
meant to embody that practice and
interpretation and prevent possible
confusion.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (d) is revised as
proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.369
Inspection Records
Proposed rule: Proposed revisions are
intended to mirror the relevant
proposed revisions to § 213.241,
discussed above. FRA proposed adding
the phrase ‘‘or otherwise certified’’ after
‘‘signed’’ in paragraph (b), and thus
require that records be ‘‘signed or
otherwise certified by the person
making the inspection.’’ This is meant
to clarify that a record does not have to
be physically signed by the person
making the inspection. The track owner
can choose to use other methods to
allow an inspector to certify an
inspection record, provided that the
method chosen accurately and securely
identifies the person making the
inspection.
Next, FRA proposed to add three
elements to the list of information that
must be included in an inspection
record: The author of the record, the
type of track inspected, and the location
of the inspection. FRA expects this
information is already included in most,
if not all, of the inspection records
currently prepared by the railroad
industry. The proposal is therefore
intended to emphasize the importance
of this information and should have
little, if any, impact on recordkeeping
practice. The remaining edits to
paragraph (b) are simply technical edits
that have no effect on the intent or effect
of the paragraph. Specifically, FRA
would change ‘‘owner’’ to ‘‘track
owner’’ at the beginning of the last two
sentences. FRA would also remove
‘‘either’’ before the word ‘‘maintained’’
in the last sentence and change ‘‘10 days
notice’’ to ‘‘10 days’ notice.’’
Comments: FRA received no
comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (b) is therefore
revised as proposed in the NPRM.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Proposed rule: FRA proposed
redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)
as paragraphs (g), (h), and (i),
respectively, and revising them, and
adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
Proposed paragraph (d) would list the
recordkeeping requirements for
continuous testing performed under
§ 213.240. These are similar to the
current recordkeeping requirements for
internal rail inspections conducted
under § 213.339. Proposed paragraph
(d)(1) would require the track owner’s
continuous rail testing records include
all information required under proposed
§ 213.240(e). Broadly, this would
require the track owner to produce a
report containing a systematic listing of
all suspected locations, and is explained
in greater detail above. Proposed
paragraph (d)(2) would require that the
records state whether the test is being
conducted to satisfy the requirements
for an internal rail inspection under
§ 213.339. As discussed in more detail
above, this is necessary information
because it is relevant to whether the
track owner must comply with the fieldverification time limits in proposed
§ 213.240(e). Proposed paragraph (d)(3)
would require that the continuous rail
testing records include the date and
time for the beginning and end of each
continuous test run, as well as the date
and time each suspect location was
identified and field-verified. Proposed
paragraph (d)(4) would require that the
continuous testing records include the
determination made for each suspect
location after field verification
(including, at a minimum, the location
and type of defect, the size of the defect,
and the initial remedial action taken, if
required, and the date thereof). Finally,
proposed paragraph (d)(5) would
require that these records be kept for
two years from the date of the
inspection, or one year after initial
remedial action, whichever is later.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (d) is revised as
proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (e)
would require any track owner that
elects to conduct continuous testing
under § 213.240 to maintain records
sufficient for monitoring and
determining compliance with all
applicable regulations and make those
records available to FRA during regular
business hours following reasonable
notice. For example, the track owner
must keep sufficient records of
procedures developed to comply with
§ 213.240(b), as well as qualification
procedures under § 213.238. The
meaning of the term ‘‘reasonable notice’’
would depend on the specific facts of
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
each situation (e.g., time of day, day of
the week, number of records requested,
etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA’s comment
on the use of the term ‘‘reasonable
notice’’ is discussed in more detail in
the section-by-section analysis for
§ 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section
analysis for § 213.7 for FRA’s response
to AAR/ASLRRA’s comment regarding
the use of the term ‘‘reasonable notice.’’
Paragraph (e) is revised as proposed in
the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (f)
states that track inspection records,
meaning each inspection record created
under § 213.369, shall be available to
persons who performed the inspections
and to persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment. This is
vitally important to ensure the quality
and effectiveness of track inspections,
and FRA expects that in most cases this
is already being done, as it is required,
at least for electronic inspection records,
under existing § 213.369(e)(7). A person
performing a subsequent inspection
must have an understanding of the track
condition during previous inspections
to recognize significant changes in the
track condition effectively as well as
ensure that previously noted defects are
adequately protected, have been
adequately remediated, or have not
degraded to a degree that requires
further action.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (f) is revised as
proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: As noted above, FRA
proposed redesignating existing
paragraph (d) as paragraph (g), and
revising it, principally by adding to the
end of the paragraph ‘‘upon request
during regular business hours following
reasonable notice.’’ The meaning of the
term ‘‘reasonable notice’’ would depend
on the specific facts of each situation
(e.g., time of day, day of the week,
number of records requested, etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA comment
on the use of the term ‘‘reasonable
notice,’’ which is discussed in more
detail in the section-by-section analysis
for § 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section
analysis for § 213.7 for FRA’s response
to AAR/ASLRRA’s comment regarding
the use of the term ‘‘reasonable notice.’’
Paragraph (g) is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA also proposed
redesignating existing paragraph (e) as
paragraph (h), and revising it. First, FRA
first proposed to reword the
introductory language of existing
paragraph (e) to make it clearer that a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
track owner may create, retain, transmit,
store, and retrieve records by electronic
means for purposes of complying with
this section. The proposed change is not
meant to affect the meaning or intent of
this paragraph. Further, in redesignating
paragraph (e) as paragraph (h), FRA
would remove existing paragraphs (e)(5)
through (7). Existing paragraph (e)(1)
would be redesignated as paragraph
(h)(3), existing paragraph (e)(2) would
be redesignated as paragraph (h)(5), and
existing paragraph (e)(3) would be
redesignated as paragraph (h)(4).
Proposed new paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)
would be added. FRA finds the proposal
would help ensure the integrity of
electronic records, while increasing
clarity and allowing track owners
additional flexibility without negatively
impacting safety.
Under proposed paragraph (h)(1), the
system used to generate the electronic
records must meet all the requirements
and include all the information required
under subpart G. Proposed paragraph
(h)(2) would require the track owner to
monitor its electronic records database
to ensure record accuracy, and FRA
would leave it up to the track owner
intentionally to determine the best way
to effectively monitor, protect, and
maintain the integrity and accuracy of
its records database. FRA proposed that
existing paragraph (e)(1) be redesignated
as paragraph (h)(3) and revised to
require that the electronic system be
designed to uniquely identify the author
of each record and prohibit two persons
from having the same electronic
identity. This is a simplified rephrasing
of the requirements of existing
paragraph (e)(1).
FRA proposed that existing paragraph
(e)(3) be redesignated as paragraph
(h)(4) and slightly revised. Proposed
paragraph (h)(4) would require that the
electronic system ensures each record
cannot be modified or replaced in the
system once the record is completed.
The one meaningful change is that
proposed paragraph (h)(4) would
prohibit modification once the record is
completed, while existing paragraph
(e)(3) prohibits modification once the
record is transmitted and stored. FRA
recognizes that there are times when an
inspection record may include
information that cannot be entered until
a later date, such as the date of final
repair. Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would
therefore allow for modification of a
record, provided the modification is
made by the original author of the
record or the author of the modification
is identified in the record, after the
record has been transmitted but before
the record has been fully completed.
This would not permit someone other
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63383
than the author of the record to modify
existing information at a later date, such
as track measurements or listings of
reported defects.
FRA proposed that existing paragraph
(e)(2) be redesignated as paragraph
(h)(5) and revised to require that
electronic storage of records be initiated
by the person making the inspection
within 72 hours following completion of
the inspection. Existing paragraph (e)(2)
requires that electronic storage be
initiated within 24 hours of completion
of the inspection. FRA finds that giving
track owners an additional 48 hours to
upload inspection records would
provide needed flexibility without
negatively impacting safety. For
example, where an inspector does not
have internet connection or experiences
computer failure, it may take more than
24 hours to upload the inspection
report. The new 72-hour requirement
would also take into account the
possibility of technical issues occurring
late on a Friday that cannot be remedied
until the following Monday, due to
limited availability of technical support
personnel.
FRA proposed removing existing
paragraph (e)(5), which requires that the
electronic system provide for
maintenance of the inspection records
without corruption or loss of data. FRA
finds that proposed paragraph (h)(2),
which would require that the track
owner monitor the database to ensure
record accuracy, would make existing
paragraph (e)(5) redundant. FRA also
proposed removing as redundant
existing paragraph (e)(6), which
generally requires that track owners
make paper copies of electronic records
available to FRA. Existing paragraph (d)
already requires track owners to make
records available to FRA for inspection
and copying upon request, and would
continue to do so as redesignated
paragraph (g). Finally, FRA proposed
removing existing paragraph (e)(7),
which requires electronic track
inspection records to be kept available
to persons who performed the
inspections and to persons performing
subsequent inspections. FRA finds
removal is justified because the addition
of proposed paragraph (f) would require
the same for all records, and therefore
make the paragraph redundant.
FRA is redesignating paragraph (f) as
paragraph (i) and slightly revising it for
punctuation; no substantive change is
intended.
Comments: FRA received no
comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraphs (h) and (i) are
adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63384
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) and
DOT’s Administrative Rulemaking,
Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures
in 49 CFR part 5. This rule is considered
an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Details on the estimated cost savings of
this rule can be found in the rule’s
bearing frogs in crossing diamonds;
relaxing the guard check gage limits on
heavy-point frogs used in Class 5 track;
removing the high-density commuter
line exception; and other miscellaneous
revisions.
The revisions will benefit railroad
track owners and the public by reducing
unnecessary costs and incentivizing
innovation, while improving rail safety.
The following table shows the net cost
savings of this rule, over the 10-year
analysis.
Regulatory Impact Analysis, which FRA
has prepared and placed in the docket
(docket number FRA–2018–0104). The
analysis details estimated costs and cost
savings the railroad track owners
regulated by the rule are likely to see
over a 10-year period.
FRA is revising its regulations
governing the minimum safety
requirements for railroad track. The
changes include: Permitting the
inspection of rail using continuous rail
testing; allowing the use of flange-
NET COST SAVINGS, IN MILLIONS
[2019 Dollars]
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
Costs ................................................................................................................
Cost Savings ....................................................................................................
$27.44
149.30
$33.24
180.99
$3.91
21.26
$3.90
21.22
Net Cost Savings ......................................................................................
121.86
147.75
17.35
17.32
The annualized net cost savings will
be $17.4 million (7%) and $17.3 million
(3%).
The additional flexibility of this rule
will result in cost savings for railroad
track owners. Continuous rail testing
will reduce overtime hours for
maintenance-of-way employees. The
flange-bearing frog changes will
eliminate the required inspection time
during the first week when compared to
current conditions under the FRA
waiver. The continuous testing, flangebearing frog, and heavy-point frog
changes will eliminate the need for and
costs of applying for waivers to
implement such a testing practice and
Annualized
7%
Annualized
3%
track components. In fact, fewer slow
orders, which are temporary speed
restrictions, will be needed with
continuous testing, which will result in
cost savings.
The table below presents the
estimated cost savings associated with
the rule, over the 10-year analysis.
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COST SAVINGS, IN MILLIONS
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
Government Cost Savings ...............................................................................
FBF Inspections ...............................................................................................
Frog Waiver Savings .......................................................................................
Continuous Testing Labor Cost Savings .........................................................
Slow Orders .....................................................................................................
Continuous Testing Waiver Savings ................................................................
$0.194
0.184
0.013
7.452
141.329
0.132
$0.229
0.215
0.016
9.034
171.340
0.157
$0.028
0.026
0.002
1.061
20.122
0.019
$0.027
0.025
0.002
1.059
20.086
0.018
Total ..........................................................................................................
149.305
180.991
21.258
21.218
Section
The annualized cost savings of this
final rule will be $21.3 million (7%) and
$21.2 million (3%).
If railroad track owners choose to take
advantage of the cost savings from this
rule, they will incur additional labor
costs associated with continuous rail
testing. These costs are voluntary
because track owners will only incur
Annualized
7%
Annualized
3%
them if they choose to operate
continuous rail testing vehicles. The
table below presents the estimated costs,
over the 10-year analysis.
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS, IN MILLIONS
Present value
7%
Present value
3%
Annualized
7%
Annualized
3%
$27.4
$33.2
$3.9
$3.9
Continuous Testing ..........................................................................................
The annualized costs of this final rule
will be $3.9 million (at both 7 percent
and 3 percent).
The rule will also encourage the use
of continuous rail testing, which may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
reduce certain types of derailments.
FRA does not have sufficient data to
estimate the reduction in derailments.
However, FRA expects the final rule to
result in safety benefits from fewer
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
injuries, fatalities, and property and
track damage.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63385
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
((RFA) 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and
Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461,
Aug. 16, 2002) require agency review of
proposed and final rules to assess their
impacts on small entities. When an
agency issues a rulemaking proposal,
the RFA requires the agency to ‘‘prepare
and make available for public comment
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis’’
which will ‘‘describe the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.’’ (5
U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA
allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu
of preparing an analysis, if the proposed
rulemaking is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Out of an abundance of caution, FRA
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis to accompany the NPRM,
which noted no expected significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities; no comments
were received on this analysis.
In this final rule, FRA is revising its
regulations governing the minimum
safety requirements for railroad track.
The changes include: Permitting
railroad track owners to inspect rail
using continuous rail testing; allowing
the use of flange-bearing frogs in
crossing diamonds; relaxing the guard
check gage limits on heavy point frogs
used in Class 5 track; removing the
high-density commuter line exception;
and other miscellaneous revisions. The
revisions will benefit railroad track
owners and the public by reducing
unnecessary costs and incentivizing
innovation, while improving rail safety.
FRA estimates this final rule will only
minimally impact small railroads and
any impact will likely be beneficial.
Consistent with the findings in FRA’s
initial regulatory flexibility analysis,
and the lack of any comments received
on it, the Administrator of FRA hereby
certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule are being
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The sections that
contain the current and new
information collection requirements and
the estimated time to fulfill each
requirement are as follows:
Total
annual
burden
hours
CFR section
Respondent universe
Total annual responses
Average time per
responses
213.4(f)—Excepted track—Notification to FRA
about removal of excepted track.
213.5(c)—Responsibility for compliance—Notification of assignment to FRA.
213.7(a)–(b)—Designations: Names on list with written authorizations.
213.17(a)—Waivers ..................................................
213.57(e)—Curves, elevation and speed limitations—Request to FRA for vehicle type approval.
—(f) Written notification to FRA prior to implementation of higher curving speeds.
—(g) Written consent of track owners obtained
by railroad providing service over that track.
213.110(a)—Gage restraint measurement systems
(GRMS)—Implementing GRMS—notices & reports.
—(g) GRMS vehicle output reports ...................
—(h) GRMS vehicle exception reports ..............
—(j) GRMS/PTLF—procedures for data integrity.
—(n) GRMS inspection records .........................
213.118(a)–(c)—Continuous welded rail (CWR)—
Revised plans w/procedures for CWR.
—(d) Notification to FRA and RR employees of
CWR plan effective date.
—(e) Written submissions after plan disapproval.
—(e) Final FRA disapproval and plan amendment.
213.234(f)—Automated inspection of track constructed with concrete crossties—Recordkeeping
requirements.
213.237(b)(2)—Inspection of Rail—Detailed request
to FRA to change designation of a rail inspection
segment or establish a new segment.
213.237(b)(3)—Notification to FRA and all affected
employees of designation’s effective date after
FRA’s approval/conditional approval.
—(d) Notice to FRA that service failure rate target in paragraph (a) of this section is not
achieved.
—(d) Explanation to FRA as to why performance target was not achieved and provision
to FRA of remedial action plan.
213.238—Qualified operators—Written or electronic
of qualification 4.
213.240(b)—Continuous Rail Testing—Procedures
for conducting continuous testing (New requirement).
—(c) Type of rail test (continuous or stop-andverify)—Record (New requirement).
746 railroads ...................
15 notices .......................
10 minutes ......................
2.5
$190
746 railroads ...................
15 notices .......................
1 hour .............................
15
1,140
746 railroads ...................
2,500 documents ............
10 minutes ......................
416.7
31,669
746 railroads ...................
746 railroads ...................
10 petitions .....................
4 requests .......................
2 hours ............................
8 hours ............................
20
32
1,520
2,432
746 railroads ...................
4 notifications ..................
2 hours ............................
8
608
746 railroads ...................
4 written consents ..........
45 minutes ......................
3
228
746 railroads ...................
1 notification ...................
45 minutes ......................
.8
61
746 railroads ...................
746 railroads ...................
746 railroads ...................
1 report ...........................
1 report ...........................
1 documented procedure
5 minutes ........................
5 minutes ........................
1 hour .............................
.1
.1
1
8
8
76
746 railroads ...................
438 railroads ...................
2 records .........................
10 plans ..........................
30 minutes ......................
4 hours ............................
1
40
76
3,040
438 railroads ...................
15 seconds .....................
3.1
236
438 railroads ...................
750 notifications to employees.
5 written submissions .....
2 hours ............................
10
760
438 railroads ...................
5 amended plans ............
1 hour .............................
5
380
30 railroads .....................
2,000 records ..................
30 minutes ......................
1,000
76,000
65 railroads .....................
4 requests .......................
15 minutes ......................
1
76
65 railroads .....................
1 notice to FRA + 15 bulletins.
15 minutes ......................
4
304
65 railroads .....................
4 notices .........................
15 minutes ......................
1
76
65 railroads .....................
4 letters of explanation/
Plans.
15 minutes ......................
1
76
3 railroads + 5 Testing
Entities.
12 railroads .....................
250 records .....................
5 minutes ........................
20.8
1,581
4 procedures ...................
8 hours ............................
32
2,432
25,000 documents/
records.
2 seconds .......................
14
1,064
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
12 railroads .....................
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Total cost
equivalent 3
63386
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Total
annual
burden
hours
CFR section
Respondent universe
Total annual responses
Average time per
responses
—(c) Type of rail test (continuous or stop-andverify)—Documented changes (New requirement).
—(g) Annual reports to FRA (New requirement)
213.241—Inspection records 5 ..................................
213.303(b)—Responsibility for compliance—Notification of assignment to FRA.
213.305(a)–(c)—Designation of qualified individuals;
general qualifications—Written authorization for
remedial actions.
—(e) Recordkeeping requirements for designations.
213.317(a)–(b)—Waivers ..........................................
213.329(e)—Curves, elevation and speed limitations—FRA approval of qualified vehicle types
based on results of testing.
—(f) Written notification to FRA 30 days prior
to implementation of higher curving speeds.
—(g) Written consent of other affected track
owners by railroad.
213.333(d)—Automated vehicle-based inspection
systems—Track Geometry Measurement System
(TGMS) output/exception reports.
213.341(b)–(d)—Initial inspection of new rail &
welds—Inspection records.
213.343(a)–(e)—Continuous welded rail (CWR)—
Procedures for installations and adjustments of
CWR.
—(h) Recordkeeping requirements ....................
213.345(a)–(c)—Vehicle qualification testing—Vehicle qualification program for all vehicle types operating at track Class 6 speeds or above.
—(d) Previously qualified vehicle types qualification programs.
—(h) Written consent of other affected track
owners by railroad.
213.369(d)—Inspection Records—Record of inspection of track.
12 railroads .....................
100 documents ...............
1 minute ..........................
1.7
129
12 railroads .....................
746 railroads ...................
2 railroads .......................
12 reports .......................
1,375,000 records ...........
5 notices .........................
4 hours ............................
10 minutes ......................
30 minutes ......................
48
229,166.7
2.5
3,648
17,416,669
190
2 railroads .......................
20 written documents .....
30 minutes ......................
10
760
2 railroads .......................
200 records .....................
10 minutes ......................
33.3
2,531
2 railroads .......................
2 railroads .......................
8 hours ............................
30 minutes + 16 hours +
15 minutes.
16
33.5 hours
1,216
2,546
2 railroads .......................
2 petitions .......................
2 cover letters + 2 technical reports + 2 diagrams.
2 notices .........................
2 hours ............................
4
304
2 railroads .......................
2 written consents ..........
45 minutes ......................
1.5
114
7 railroads .......................
7 reports .........................
1 hour .............................
7
532
2 railroads .......................
800 records .....................
2 minutes ........................
26.7
2,029
2 railroads .......................
2 plans ............................
4 hours ............................
8
608
2 railroads .......................
2 railroads .......................
8,000 records ..................
2 program plans .............
2 minutes ........................
120 hours ........................
266.7
240
20,269
18,240
2 railroads .......................
2 program plans .............
8 hours ............................
16
1,216
4 railroads .......................
4 written consents ..........
30 minutes ......................
2
230
2 railroads .......................
15,000 records ................
10 minutes ......................
2,500
190,000
746 railroads ...................
1,429,776 responses ......
N/A ..................................
234,016
17,785,272
Total ...................................................................
All estimates include the time for
reviewing instructions; searching
existing data sources; gathering or
maintaining the needed data; and
reviewing the information. For
information or a copy of the paperwork
package submitted to OMB, contact Ms.
Hodan Wells, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad
Safety, Federal Railroad Administration,
at 202–493–0440.
Organizations and individuals
desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements
should direct them to Ms. Hodan Wells,
Federal Railroad Administration, via
email to Ms. Wells at Hodan.Wells@
dot.gov.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this rule
3 The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the
Surface Transportation Board’s Full Year Wage A&B
data series using the appropriate employee group
hourly wage rate that includes a 75-percent
overhead charge.
4 Includes burdens associated with proposed
§ 213.240(d)(2).
5 Note: Each record of an inspection under
§§ 213.4, 213.119, 213.233, 213.235, and 213.237 is
covered under § 213.241.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication. FRA did not receive any
OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in the NPRM.
FRA is not authorized to impose a
penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements that
do not display a current OMB control
number, if required. The current OMB
control number for part 213 is 2130–
0010.
D. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this final rule
consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council of
Environmental Quality’s NEPA
implementing regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA
implementing regulations at 23 CFR part
771 and determined that it is
categorically excluded from
environmental review and therefore
does not require the preparation of an
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Total cost
equivalent 3
environmental assessment (EA) or
environmental impact statement (EIS).
Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions
identified in an agency’s NEPA
implementing regulations that do not
normally have a significant impact on
the environment and therefore do not
require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR
1508.4. Specifically, FRA has
determined that this final rule is
categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to 23
CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘[p]romulgation of
rules, the issuance of policy statements,
the waiver or modification of existing
regulatory requirements, or
discretionary approvals that do not
result in significantly increased
emissions of air or water pollutants or
noise.’’
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
revise FRA’s Track Safety Standards to
reduce unnecessary costs and
incentivize innovation, while improving
rail safety. This rule does not directly or
indirectly impact any environmental
resources and will not result in
significantly increased emissions of air
or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the
final rule is likely to result in safety
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
benefits. In analyzing the applicability
of a CE, FRA must also consider
whether unusual circumstances are
present that would warrant a more
detailed environmental review. See 23
CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that
no such unusual circumstances exist
with respect to this final regulation and
it meets the requirements for categorical
exclusion under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
Pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and
its implementing regulations, FRA has
determined this undertaking has no
potential to affect historic properties.
See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also
determined that this rulemaking does
not approve a project resulting in a use
of a resource protected by Section 4(f).
See Department of Transportation Act of
1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80
Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
E. Executive Order 12898
(Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898, Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, and DOT
Order 5610.2(a) (91 FR 27534 May 10,
2012) require DOT agencies to achieve
environmental justice as part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects, including
interrelated social and economic effects,
of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and
low-income populations. The DOT
Order instructs DOT agencies to address
compliance with Executive Order 12898
and requirements within the DOT Order
in rulemaking activities, as appropriate.
FRA has evaluated this final rule under
Executive Order 12898 and the DOT
Order and has determined it would not
cause disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority
populations or low-income populations.
F. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
(64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), requires
FRA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ are
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ Under Executive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
Order 13132, the agency may not issue
a regulation with federalism
implications that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments or the agency consults
with State and local government
officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. Where a
regulation has federalism implications
and preempts State law, the agency
seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
FRA has analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. FRA has determined that this
final rule has no federalism
implications, other than the possible
preemption of State laws under 49
U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply,
and preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement for the
proposed rule is not required.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Pursuant to section 201 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each
Federal agency shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of
Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector (other than to the extent
that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in
law). Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C.
1532) further requires that before
promulgating any general notice of
proposed rulemaking that is likely to
result in the promulgation of any rule
that includes any Federal mandate that
may result in expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year,
and before promulgating any final rule
for which a general notice of proposed
rulemaking was published, the agency
shall prepare a written statement
detailing the effect on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector. This final rule will not result in
such an expenditure, and thus
preparation of such a statement is not
required.
H. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement
of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63387
energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001). FRA evaluated this final rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13211
and determined that this regulatory
action is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ within the meaning of the
Executive Order.
Executive Order 13783, ‘‘Promoting
Energy Independence and Economic
Growth,’’ requires Federal agencies to
review regulations to determine whether
they potentially burden the
development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with
particular attention to oil, natural gas,
coal, and nuclear energy resources. See
82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017). FRA
determined this final rule will not
burden the development or use of
domestically produced energy
resources.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The Final Rule
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, FRA amends part 213 of
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 213—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR
part 213 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and
20142; Sec. 403, Div. A, Pub. L. 110–432, 122
Stat. 4885; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR
1.89.
Subpart A—General
2. Amend § 213.1 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 213.1
Scope of part.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Subparts A through F apply to
track Classes 1 through 5. Subpart G and
213.2, 213.3, 213.15, and 213.240 apply
to track over which trains are operated
at speeds in excess of those permitted
over Class 5 track.
■ 3. Amend § 213.5 by revising
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
§ 213.5
Responsibility for compliance.
(a) * * *
(3) Operate under authority of a
person designated under § 213.7(a),
subject to conditions set forth in this
part. If the operation is on continuous
welded rail (CWR) track, the person
under whose authority operations are
conducted must also be designated
under § 213.7(c).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 213.7 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii), (a)(3), (b)(3),
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63388
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(c)(4), and (e) and adding paragraph (f)
to read as follows:
§ 213.7 Designation of qualified persons to
supervise certain renewals and inspect
track.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) 1 year of experience in railroad
track maintenance under traffic
conditions; or
(ii) A combination of experience in
track maintenance and training from a
course in track maintenance or from a
college level educational program
related to track maintenance.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Authorization from the track
owner to prescribe remedial actions to
correct or safely compensate for
deviations from the requirements of this
part.
(b) * * *
(3) Authorization from the track
owner to prescribe remedial actions to
correct or safely compensate for
deviations from the requirements of this
part, pending review by a qualified
person designated under paragraph (a)
of this section.
(c) * * *
(4) Authorization from the track
owner to prescribe remedial actions to
correct or safely compensate from
deviation from the requirements in
these procedures and successfully
completed a recorded examination on
those procedures as part of the
qualification process.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) With respect to designations under
paragraph (a) through (d) of this section,
each track owner shall maintain records
of—
(1) Each designation in effect;
(2) The date each designation was
made; and
(3) The basis for each designation,
including the method used to determine
that the designated person is qualified.
(f) Each track owner shall keep
designation records required under
paragraph (e) of this section readily
available for inspection or copying by
the Federal Railroad Administration
during regular business hours, following
reasonable notice.
■ 5. Amend § 213.9 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 213.9
limits.
Classes of track: operating speed
area, it is not necessary that each phase
of the work be done under the visual
supervision of that person.
Subpart D—Track Structure
7. Amend § 213.113 by revising the
second sentence of paragraph (b)
introductory text to read as follows:
■
§ 213.113
Defective rails.
*
*
*
*
*
*
(b) If a segment of track does not meet
all of the requirements of its intended
class, it is reclassified to the next lowest
class of track for which it does meet all
of the requirements of this part.
However, if the segment of track does
not at least meet the requirements of
Class 1 track, operations may continue
at Class 1 speeds for a period of not
more than 30 days without bringing the
track into compliance, under the
authority of a person designated under
§ 213.7(a), after that person determines
that operations may safely continue and
subject to any limiting conditions
specified by such person.
■ 6. Revise § 213.11 to read as follows:
§ 213.11 Restoration or renewal of track
under traffic conditions.
If during a period of restoration or
renewal, track is under traffic
conditions and does not meet all of the
requirements prescribed in this part, the
work on the track shall be under the
continuous supervision of a person
designated under § 213.7(a) and, as
applicable, § 213.7(c). The work on the
track shall also be subject to any
limiting conditions specified by such
person. The operating speed cannot be
more than the maximum allowable
speed under § 213.9 for the class of track
concerned. The term ‘‘continuous
supervision’’ as used in this section
means the physical presence of that
person at the job site. However, since
the work may be performed over a large
*
*
*
*
(b) * * * Except as provided in
§ 213.240, the track owner must verify
the indication within four hours, unless
the track owner has an indication of the
existence of a defect that requires
remedial action A, A2, or B identified in
the table contained in paragraph (c) of
this section, in which case the track
owner must immediately verify the
indication. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Amend § 213.137 by revising
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (e)
to read as follows:
§ 213.137
Frogs.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, the flangeway depth
measured from a plane across the
wheel-bearing area of a frog on Class 1
track shall not be less than 13⁄8 inches,
or less than 11⁄2 inches on Classes 2
through 5 track.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The flange depth requirements in
paragraph (a) do not apply to a frog
designed as a flange-bearing frog (FBF)
used in a crossing diamond in Classes
2 through 5 track, provided that the
crossing angle is greater than 20 degrees
unless movable guard rails are used.
■ 9. Revise § 213.143 to read as follows:
§ 213.143 Frog guard rails and guard
faces; gage.
(a) The guard check and guard face
gages in frogs shall be within the
following limits—
TABLE 1 TO § 213.143(a)
Class of track
Class
Class
Class
Class
1A
1
2
3
5
track ............................................................................................................................
track ............................................................................................................................
and 4 track .................................................................................................................
track ............................................................................................................................
Guard check gage
Guard face gage
The distance between
the gage line of a frog to
the guard line 1 of its
guard rail or guarding
face, measured across
the track at right angles
to the gage line,2 may
not be less than—
The distance between
guard lines,1 measured
across the track at right
angles to the gage line,2
may not be more than—
4′61⁄8″
4′61⁄4″
4′63⁄8″
3 4′61⁄2″
4′51⁄4″
4′51⁄8″
4′51⁄8″
4′5″
line along that side of the flangeway which is nearer to the center of the track and at the same elevation as the gage line.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63389
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
2 A line five-eighths of an inch below the top of the center line of the head of the running rail, or corresponding location of the tread portion of
the track structure.
3 See paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) For any heavy-point frog (HPF) on
Class 5 track, the guard check gage may
be less than 4′61⁄2″ but not be less than
4′63⁄8″, provided that:
(1) Each HPF and guard rails on both
rails through the turnout are equipped
with at least three serviceable throughgage plates with elastic rail fasteners
and guard rail braces that permit
adjustment of the guard check gage
without removing spikes or other
fasteners from the crossties; and
(2) Each HPF bears an identifying
mark applied by either the track owner,
railroad, or the frog manufacturer that
identifies the frog as an HPF.
Subpart F—Inspection
10. Amend § 213.233 by revising the
section heading, paragraph (b), the first
entry in the table in paragraph (c), and
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 213.233
Visual track inspections.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each inspection shall be made on
foot or by traversing the track in a
vehicle at a speed that allows the person
making the inspection to visually
inspect the track structure for
compliance with this part. However,
mechanical, electrical, and other track
inspection devices may be used to
supplement visual inspection. If a
vehicle is used for visual inspection, the
speed of the vehicle may not be more
than 5 m.p.h. when traversing track
crossings and turnouts; otherwise, the
inspection vehicle speed shall be at the
sole discretion of the inspector, based
on track conditions and inspection
requirements. When traversing the track
in a vehicle, the inspection will be
subject to the following conditions—
(1) One inspector in a vehicle may
inspect up to two tracks at one time
provided that the inspector’s visibility
remains unobstructed by any cause and
that the second track is not centered
more than 30 feet from the track the
inspector traverses;
(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may
inspect up to four tracks at a time
provided that the inspectors’ visibility
remains unobstructed by any cause and
that each track being inspected is
centered within 39 feet from the track
the inspectors traverse;
(3) Each main track must be traversed
by the vehicle or inspected on foot at
least once every two weeks, and each
siding must be traversed by the vehicle
or inspected on foot at least once every
month; and
(4) Track inspection records shall
indicate which track(s) are traversed by
the vehicle or inspected on foot as
outlined in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(c) * * *
Class of track
Type of track
Required frequency
Excepted track, and Class 1, 2, and 3 track ....................
Main track and sidings .......
Weekly 1 with at least 3 calendar days’ interval between
inspections, or before use, if the track is used less
than once a week, or twice weekly with at least 1
calendar day interval between inspections, if the
track carries passenger trains 2 or more than 10 million gross tons of traffic during the preceding calendar year.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1 An
inspection week is defined as a seven (7) day period beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday.
weekly’’ inspection requirement for track carrying regularly scheduled passenger trains does not apply where passengers train service
consists solely of tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations as defined in 49 CFR 238.5 and the following conditions are met for an inspection week: (1) No passenger service is operated during the inspection week, or (2) if passenger service is operated during the inspection week:
(i) The passenger service is operated only on a weekend or a 3-day extended weekend (weekend plus a contiguous Monday or Friday), and (ii)
an inspection is conducted no more than 1 calendar day before a weekend or 3-day extended weekend on which passenger service is to be
operated.
2 ‘‘Twice
(d) If the § 213.7 qualified person
making the inspection finds a deviation
from the requirements of this part, the
inspector shall immediately initiate
remedial action. Any subsequent
movements to facilitate repairs on track
that is out of service must be authorized
by a § 213.7 qualified person.
■
11. Add § 213.240 to read as follows:
§ 213.240
Continuous rail testing.
(a) Track owners may elect to use
continuous rail testing to satisfy the
requirements for conducting internal
rail inspections under § 213.237 or
§ 213.339. When a track owner utilizes
the continuous rail test inspection
process under the requirements of this
section, the track owner is exempt from
the requirements of § 213.113(b); all
other requirements of § 213.113 apply.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
(b) Track owners shall adopt the
necessary procedures for conducting
continuous testing. At a minimum, the
procedures must conform to the
requirements of this section and ensure
the following:
(1) Test data is timely and accurately
transmitted and analyzed;
(2) Suspect locations are accurately
identified for field verification;
(3) Suspect locations are categorized
and prioritized according to their
potential severity;
(4) Suspect locations are accurately
field-verified; and
(5) Suspect locations will be
designated following field verification.
(c) The track owner must designate
and record the type of rail test
(continuous or stop-and-verify) to be
conducted prior to commencing the test
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
over a track segment and make those
records available to FRA upon request
during regular business hours following
reasonable notice. If the type of rail test
changes following commencement of
the test, the change must be
documented and include the time the
test was started and when it was
changed, and the milepost where the
test started and where it was changed.
If the track owner intends to conduct a
continuous test, the track owner must
designate and record whether the test is
being conducted to satisfy the
requirements for an internal rail
inspection under § 213.237 or § 213.339.
This documentation must be provided
to FRA upon request during regular
business hours following reasonable
notice.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63390
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(d)(1) Continuous rail test inspection
vehicle operators must be qualified
under § 213.238, with the exception of
§ 213.238(b)(3).
(2) Internal rail inspection data
collected during continuous rail tests
must be reviewed and interpreted by a
person qualified to interpret the
equipment responses. Each employer of
a person qualified to interpret
equipment responses shall maintain
written or electronic records of each
qualification in effect, including the
name of the employee, the equipment to
which the qualification applies, the date
of qualification, and the date of the most
recent reevaluation of the qualification,
if any. Records concerning these
qualifications, including copies of
training programs, training materials,
and recorded examinations shall be kept
at a location designated by the employer
and available for inspection and
copying by FRA during regular business
hours, following reasonable notice.
(3) All suspect locations must be
field-verified by a person qualified
under § 213.238.
(e) At a minimum, the continuous rail
test process must produce a report
containing a systematic listing of all
suspected locations that may contain
any of the defects listed in the table in
§ 213.113(c), identified so that a person
qualified under § 213.238 can accurately
locate and field-verify each suspected
defect.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(e)(6) of this section, and subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) and
(3) of this section, if the continuous rail
test inspection vehicle indicates a
suspect location, field verification must
be conducted within 84 hours of the
indication of the suspect location.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(e)(6) of this section, and subject to the
requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this
section, if the continuous rail test
inspection vehicle indicates a suspect
location containing a suspected defect
that, if verified, requires remedial action
A, A2, or B identified in the table
contained in § 213.113(c), the track
owner must field-verify the suspect
location no more than 36 hours from
indication of the suspect location.
(3) If the continuous rail test
inspection vehicle indicates a broken
rail with rail separation, the track owner
must have procedures to ensure that
adequate protection is immediately
implemented.
(4) A suspect location is not
considered a defect under § 213.113(c)
until it has been field-verified by a
person qualified under § 213.238. After
the suspect location is field-verified and
determined to be a defect, the track
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
owner must immediately perform all
required remedial actions prescribed in
§ 213.113(a).
(5) Any suspected location not fieldverified within the time required under
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section
must be protected by applying the most
restrictive remedial action under
§ 213.113(c) for the suspected type and
size of the suspected defect. The
remedial action must be applied over a
sufficient segment of track to assure
coverage of the suspected defect
location until field-verified.
(6) A continuous rail test that is not
conducted to satisfy the requirements
for an internal rail inspection under
§ 213.237 or § 213.339, and has been
properly designated and recorded by the
track owner under paragraph (c) of this
section, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1), (2),
and (5) of this section.
(f) Each suspect location must be
recorded with repeatable accuracy that
allows for the location to be accurately
located for subsequent verification and,
as necessary, remedial action.
(g) Within 45 days following the end
of each calendar year, each track owner
utilizing continuous rail testing must
provide the FRA Associate
Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief
Safety Officer with an annual report, in
a reasonably usable format, or its native
electronic format, containing at least the
following information for each track
segment requiring internal rail
inspection under § 213.237 or § 213.339:
(1) The track owner’s name;
(2) The railroad division and
subdivision;
(3) The segment identifier, milepost
limits, and length of each segment;
(4) The track number;
(5) The class of track;
(6) The annual million gross tons over
the track;
(7) The total number of stop-andverify rail tests and the total number of
continuous rail tests over each track
segment;
(8) The total number of defects
identified over each track segment; and
(9) The total number of service
failures on each track segment.
■ 12. Amend § 213.241 by revising
paragraphs (b), (f), and (g) and adding
paragraphs (h) through (j) to read as
follows:
§ 213.241
Inspection records.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each record of an inspection under
§§ 213.4, 213.119, 213.233, and 213.235
shall be prepared on the day the
inspection is made and signed or
otherwise certified by the person
making the inspection. Records shall
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
specify the author of the record, the type
of track inspected, date and location of
inspection, location and nature of any
deviation from the requirements of this
part, and the remedial action taken by
the person making the inspection. The
track owner shall designate the
location(s) where each original record
shall be maintained for at least one year
after the inspection covered by the
record. The track owner shall also
designate one location, within 100 miles
of each State in which it conducts
operations, where copies of records that
apply to those operations are
maintained or can be viewed following
10 days’ notice by the Federal Railroad
Administration.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Records of continuous rail testing
under § 213.240 shall—
(1) Include all information required
under § 213.240(e);
(2) State whether the test is being
conducted to satisfy the requirements
for an internal rail inspection under
§ 213.237;
(3) List the date(s) and time(s) of the
continuous rail test data collection,
including the date and time of the start
and end of the test run, and the date and
time each suspect location was
identified and field-verified;
(4) Include the determination made
after field verification of each suspect
location, including the:
(i) Location and type of defect found;
(ii) Size of defect; and
(iii) Initial remedial action taken, if
required, and the date thereof; and
(5) Be retained for at least two years
after the inspection and for at least one
year after initial remedial action is
taken, whichever is later.
(g) Track owners that elect to utilize
continuous rail testing under § 213.240
shall maintain records of all continuous
rail testing operations sufficient for
monitoring and determining compliance
with all applicable regulations and shall
make those records available to FRA
during regular business hours following
reasonable notice.
(h) Track inspection records shall be
kept available to persons who
performed the inspections and to
persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment.
(i) Each track owner required to keep
inspection records under this section
shall make those records available for
inspection and copying by FRA upon
request during regular business hours
following reasonable notice.
(j) For purposes of complying with the
requirements of this section, a track
owner may create, retain, transmit,
store, and retrieve records by electronic
means provided that—
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(1) The system used to generate the
electronic record meets all requirements
and contains the information required
under this subpart;
(2) The track owner monitors its
electronic records database to ensure
record accuracy;
(3) The electronic system is designed
to uniquely identify the author of the
record. No two persons shall have the
same electronic identity;
(4) The electronic system ensures that
each record cannot be modified in any
way, or replaced, once the record is
completed;
(5) The electronic storage of each
record shall be initiated by the person
making the inspection within 72 hours
following the completion of that
inspection; and
(6) Any amendment to a record shall
be electronically stored apart from the
record which it amends. Each
amendment to a record shall be
uniquely identified as to the person
making the amendment.
Subpart G—Train Operations at Track
Classes 6 and Higher
13. Amend § 213.305 by revising
paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3), (c)(4), and (e)
and adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
■
§ 213.305 Designation of qualified
individuals; general qualifications.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(3) Be authorized by the track owner
to prescribe remedial actions to correct
or safely compensate for deviations from
the requirements of this subpart and
successfully completed a recorded
examination on this subpart as part of
the qualification process.
(b) * * *
(3) Be authorized by the track owner
to prescribe remedial actions to correct
or safely compensate for deviations from
the requirements in this subpart and
successfully completed a recorded
examination on this subpart as part of
the qualification process.
(c) * * *
(4) Authorization from the track
owner to prescribe remedial actions to
correct or safely compensate for
deviations from the requirements in
those procedures and successfully
completed a recorded examination on
those procedures as part of the
qualification process. The recorded
examination may be written, or it may
be a computer file with the results of an
interactive training course.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) With respect to designations under
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
section, each track owner shall maintain
records of:
(1) Each designation in effect;
(2) The date each designation was
made; and
(3) The basis for each designation,
including but not limited to:
(i) The exact nature of any training
courses attended and the dates thereof;
and
(ii) The manner in which the track
owner has determined a successful
completion of that training course,
including test scores or other qualifying
results.
(f) Each track owner shall keep these
designation records readily available for
inspection or copying by the Federal
Railroad Administration during regular
business hours, following reasonable
notice.
■ 14. Amend § 213.365 by revising the
section heading and paragraphs (b)
through (d) to read as follow:
§ 213.365
Visual track inspections.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each inspection shall be made on
foot or by traversing the track in a
vehicle at a speed that allows the person
making the inspection to visually
inspect the track structure for
compliance with this part. However,
mechanical, electrical, and other track
inspection devices may be used to
supplement visual inspection. If a
vehicle is used for visual inspection, the
speed of the vehicle may not be more
than 5 m.p.h. when traversing track
crossings and turnouts; otherwise, the
inspection vehicle speed shall be at the
sole discretion of the inspector, based
on track conditions and inspection
requirements. When traversing the track
in a vehicle, the inspection will be
subject to the following conditions—
(1) One inspector in a vehicle may
inspect up to two tracks at one time
provided that the inspector’s visibility
remains unobstructed by any cause and
that the second track is not centered
more than 30 feet from the track upon
which the inspector traverses;
(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may
inspect up to four tracks at a time
provided that the inspectors’ visibility
remains unobstructed by any cause and
that each track being inspected is
centered within 39 feet from the track
upon which the inspectors traverse;
(3) Each main track must be traversed
by a vehicle or inspected on foot at least
once every two weeks, and each siding
must be traversed by a vehicle or
inspected on foot at least once every
month; and
(4) Track inspection records shall
indicate which track(s) are traversed by
the vehicle or inspected on foot as
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
63391
outlined in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(c) Each visual track inspection shall
be made in accordance with the
following schedule—
TABLE 1 TO § 213.365(c)
Class of
track
Required frequency
6, 7, and 8 ..
Twice weekly 1 with at least a 2 calendar day’s interval between inspections.
Three times per week.
9 .................
1 An inspection week is defined as a seven (7) day
period beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday.
(d) If the § 213.305 qualified person
making the inspection finds a deviation
from the requirements of this part, the
person shall immediately initiate
remedial action. Any subsequent
movements to facilitate repairs on track
that is out of service must be authorized
by a § 213.305 qualified person.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 15. Amend § 213.369 by revising
paragraphs (b) and (d) through (f) and
adding paragraphs (g) through (i) to read
as follows:
§ 213.369
Inspection records.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, each record of an
inspection under § 213.365 shall be
prepared on the day the inspection is
made and signed or otherwise certified
by the person making the inspection.
Records shall specify the author of the
record, the type of track inspected, date
of inspection, location of inspection,
nature of any deviation from the
requirements of this part, and the
remedial action taken by the person
making the inspection. The track owner
shall designate the location(s) where
each original record shall be maintained
for at least one year after the inspection
covered by the record. The track owner
shall also designate one location, within
100 miles of each State in which it
conducts operations, where copies of
records that apply to those operations
are maintained or can be viewed
following 10 days’ notice by the Federal
Railroad Administration.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Records of continuous rail testing
under § 213.240 shall—
(1) Include all information required
under § 213.240(e);
(2) State whether the test is being
conducted to satisfy the requirements
for an internal rail inspection under
§ 213.339;
(3) List the date(s) and time(s) of the
continuous rail test data collection,
including the date and time of the start
and end of the test run, and the date and
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
63392
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
time each suspect location was
identified and field-verified;
(4) Include the determination made
after field verification of each suspect
location, including the:
(i) Location and type of defect found;
(ii) Size of defect; and
(iii) Initial remedial action taken, if
required, and the date thereof; and
(5) Be retained for at least two years
after the inspection and for at least one
year after initial remedial action is
taken, whichever is later.
(e) Track owners that elect to utilize
continuous rail testing under § 213.240
shall maintain records of all continuous
rail testing operations sufficient for
monitoring and determining compliance
with all applicable regulations and shall
make those records available to FRA
during regular business hours following
reasonable notice.
(f) Track inspection records shall be
kept available to persons who perform
the inspections and to persons
performing subsequent inspections.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Oct 06, 2020
Jkt 253001
(g) Each track owner required to keep
inspection records under this section
shall make those records available for
inspection and copying by the Federal
Railroad Administration upon request
during regular business hours following
reasonable notice.
(h) For purposes of compliance with
the requirements of this section, a track
owner may create, retain, transmit,
store, and retrieve records by electronic
means provided that—
(1) The system used to generate the
electronic record meets all requirements
and contains the information required
under this subpart;
(2) The track owner monitors its
electronic records database to ensure
record accuracy;
(3) The electronic system is designed
to uniquely identify the author of the
record. No two persons shall have the
same electronic identity;
(4) The electronic system ensures that
each record cannot be modified in any
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
way, or replaced, once the record is
completed;
(5) The electronic storage of each
record shall be initiated by the person
making the inspection within 72 hours
following the completion of that
inspection; and
(6) Any amendment to a record shall
be electronically stored apart from the
record which it amends. Each
amendment to a record shall be
uniquely identified as to the person
making the amendment.
(i) Each vehicle/track interaction
safety record required under
§ 213.333(g) and (m) shall be made
available for inspection and copying by
the FRA at the locations specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Quintin Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020–18339 Filed 10–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
E:\FR\FM\07OCR2.SGM
07OCR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63362-63392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18339]
[[Page 63361]]
Vol. 85
Wednesday,
No. 195
October 7, 2020
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Railroad Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 213
Rail Integrity and Track Safety Standards; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 7, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 63362]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 213
[Docket No. FRA-2018-0104, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC53
Rail Integrity and Track Safety Standards
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is revising its regulations governing the minimum safety
requirements for railroad track. The changes include allowing
inspection of rail using continuous rail testing; allowing the use of
flange-bearing frogs in crossing diamonds; relaxing the guard check
gage limits on heavy-point frogs used in Class 5 track; removing an
inspection-method exception for high-density commuter lines; and other
miscellaneous revisions. Overall, the revisions will benefit track
owners, railroads, and the public by reducing unnecessary costs and
incentivizing innovation, while improving rail safety.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 7, 2020 in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the docket to read background
documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any
time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yu-Jiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track
and Structures Division, Office of Railroad Safety, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W33-302, Washington, DC
20590, telephone: 202-493-6460; or Aaron Moore, Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, W31-216, Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202-493-7009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Rulemaking Authority and Background
III. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule
A. Continuous Rail Testing
B. Removal of the High-Density Commuter Line Exception
C. Incorporation of Flange-Bearing Frog and Heavy-Point Frog
Waivers
i. Heavy-Point Frogs
ii. Flange-Bearing Frog Crossing Diamonds
IV. Discussion of Comments and Conclusions
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Environmental Impact
E. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
F. Federalism Implications
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Energy Impact
I. Executive Summary
Beginning in 2015, the Track Safety Standards Working Group (TSS
Working Group) of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) met
numerous times to ``consider specific improvements to the Track Safety
Standards . . . designed to enhance rail safety by improving track
inspection methods, frequency, and documentation.'' On December 31,
2019, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that was
informed by the RSAC's recommendations and FRA's own review and
analysis of the Track Safety Standards (TSS or Standards) (49 CFR part
213). See 84 FR 72526. In the NPRM, FRA proposed to amend subparts A,
D, F, and G of the TSS to: (1) Allow for continuous rail testing, (2)
incorporate longstanding waivers related to track frogs,\1\ (3) remove
the exception for high-density commuter lines from certain track
inspection method requirements, and (4) incorporate several consensus-
based, RSAC recommendations. For a more in-depth discussion of the
proposals and their development, please see the NPRM (84 FR 72526).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A frog is a track component used at the intersection of two
running rails to provide support for wheels and passage for their
flanges, thus permitting wheels on either rail to cross the other
intersecting rail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA analyzed the economic impact of this rule over a 10-year period
and estimated its costs and cost savings. If railroad track owners
choose to take advantage of the cost savings from this rule, they will
incur additional labor costs associated with continuous rail testing.
These costs are voluntary because railroad track owners will only incur
them if they choose to operate continuous rail testing vehicles. The
following table shows the net cost savings of this rule, over the 10-
year analysis.
Net Cost Savings, in Millions
[2019 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
7% 3% Annualized 7% Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs........................................... $27.44 $33.24 $3.91 $3.90
Cost Savings.................................... 149.30 180.99 21.26 21.22
Net Cost Savings................................ 121.86 147.75 17.35 17.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule will result in cost savings for railroad track owners.
The cost savings are in the table below.
Cost Savings, in Millions
[Over a 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
Section 7% 3% Annualized 7% Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Cost Savings......................... $0.194 $0.229 $0.028 $0.027
Flange Bearing Frog Inspections................. 0.184 0.215 0.026 0.025
Frog Waiver Savings............................. 0.013 0.016 0.002 0.002
[[Page 63363]]
Continuous Testing Labor Cost Savings........... 7.452 9.034 1.061 1.059
Slow Orders..................................... 141.329 171.340 20.122 20.086
Continuous Testing Waiver Savings............... 0.132 0.157 0.019 0.018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 149.305 180.991 21.258 21.218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table below presents the estimated costs, over the 10-year
analysis.
Estimated Costs, in Millions
[Over a 10-year period of analysis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
7% 3% Annualized 7% Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous Testing.......................... $27.4 $33.2 $3.9 $3.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Rulemaking Authority and Background
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13771. E.O. 13771 seeks to ``manage the costs associated with the
governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations'' and directs each executive department or agency
to identify for elimination two existing regulations for every new
regulation issued. E.O. 13771 also requires any new incremental cost
associated with a new regulation, to the extent permitted by law, be at
least offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at
least two prior regulations.
In response to E.O. 13771, FRA initiated a review of its existing
regulations with the goal of identifying regulations that it could
amend or eliminate to reduce the overall regulatory, paperwork, and
cost burden on entities subject to FRA jurisdiction. FRA identified
part 213 as a regulation FRA could amend and thereby reduce the
railroad industry's overall regulatory and cost burden while improving
rail safety. Also, in response to a DOT request for public comment on
existing rules ripe for repeal or modification, the Association of
American Railroads and other industry participants encouraged FRA to
revise part 213 to allow for the use of innovations in rail inspection
technology, specifically the use of non-stop rail inspection vehicles.
See docket number DOT-OST-2017-0069 (available online at
www.regulations.gov). This rule responds to those comments by providing
railroads with the flexibility to use continuous rail testing in a way
that will facilitate operational efficiency and enhance safety.
Section 20103 of title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
provides that, ``[t]he Secretary of Transportation, shall prescribe
regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety.'' This
statutory section codifies the authority granted to the Secretary of
Transportation under the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970.
The Secretary's authority to act under section 20103 is delegated to
the Federal Railroad Administrator. See 49 CFR 1.89.
FRA published the first Standards on October 20, 1971. The most
comprehensive revision of the Standards resulted from the Rail Safety
Enforcement and Review Act of 1992, Public Law 102-365, 106 Stat. 972
(Sept. 3, 1992), later amended by the Federal Railroad Safety
Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-440, 108 Stat. 4615 (Nov. 2,
1994), which led to FRA issuing a final rule amending the Standards in
1998. See 63 FR 34029, June 22, 1998; 63 FR 54078, Oct. 8, 1998.
As noted in the NPRM, this final rule is based, in part, on the
consensus recommendations of the TSS Working Group. Specifically, this
final rule implements the TSS Working Group's recommendations to remove
the high-density commuter line inspection-method exception and to
revise certain recordkeeping requirements and the qualification
requirements for certain railroad employees.
III. Summary of Major Provisions of the Final Rule
A. Continuous Rail Testing
FRA sponsors railroad safety research, including research on rail
integrity. The general objectives of FRA rail integrity research have
been to improve railroad safety by reducing rail failures and the
associated risks of train derailment, and to do so more efficiently
through maintenance practices that increase rail service life.
Generally, FRA's rail integrity research focuses on four distinct
areas: Analysis of rail defects; residual stresses in rail; strategies
for rail testing; and other related issues (e.g., advances in
nondestructive inspection techniques; feasibility of advanced materials
for rail, rail lubrication, rail grinding and wear; etc.). FRA's rail
integrity research is an ongoing effort, and is particularly important
as annual tonnages and average axle loads continue to increase on the
nation's railroads. For more discussion of rail integrity generally,
see FRA's 2014 final rule titled Track Safety Standards; Improving Rail
Integrity. 79 FR 4234, Jan. 24, 2014.
One of the most important assets to the railroad industry is its
rail infrastructure. Historically, a primary concern of railroads has
been the probability of rail flaw development. Rail defects may take
many forms (e.g., rail head surface conditions and internal rail
flaws). If defects go undetected, they may grow to critical size,
potentially resulting in a broken rail and subsequent derailment.
Accordingly, to prevent rail defect development, railroads seek ways to
improve their rail
[[Page 63364]]
maintenance practices, install more wear-resistant rail, utilize
improved flaw-detection technologies, and increase rail inspection
frequencies.
The development of internal rail defects is an inevitable
consequence of the accumulation and effects of fatigue under repeated
loading. The direct cost of an undetected rail defect that leads to a
rail failure is the cost of replacing the rail plus the cost of any
damage and other consequences that may result from the failure. Rail
failures can have widespread and catastrophic consequences (e.g.,
environmental damage and potential injury and loss of life, along with
significant service interruptions, and traffic rerouting). As such, the
cost of a rail failure is typically considerably more than the cost of
replacing the rail containing the defect before the rail actually
fails. The challenge for the railroad industry is to avoid the
occurrence of rail failures due to the presence of undetected defects.
The effectiveness of a rail inspection program depends, in part, on
the test equipment being properly designed and capable of detecting
rail defects of a certain size and orientation reliably, and on
ensuring that the test frequencies allow for detection of defects
before they grow to critical size. High traffic and tonnage volumes can
accelerate defect growth, while at the same time decreasing the time
available for rail inspection. Additionally, these high volumes can
lead to rail surface fatigue that may impede the ability of test
equipment to detect an underlying rail flaw.
Currently, track owners use four general rail flaw detection
methods, each of which requires human involvement to interpret the test
data. The four methods are:
Portable test process, which consists of an operator
pushing a test device over the rail at a walking pace while visually
interpreting the test data;
Stop-and-verify process, where a vehicle-based flaw
detection system tests at a slow speed (normally not exceeding 20 miles
per hour (m.p.h.)), gathering data that is presented to the operator on
a test monitor for interpretation and field verification;
Chase car process, which consists of a lead test vehicle
performing the flaw detection process ahead of a verification chase
car; and
Continuous test process, which is one of the subjects
addressed in this final rule, where a high-speed, vehicle-based, test
system runs non-stop along a designated route, the test data is
analysed at a centralized location, and suspect defect locations are
subsequently verified.
The main technologies utilized for the processes listed above are
ultrasonic and induction methods. Ultrasonic technology is the primary
technology used, with induction technology currently used as a
complementary system. As with any non-destructive test method, these
technologies are susceptible to physical limitations that allow poor
rail head surface conditions (e.g., shelling or corrugation) to impair
the detection of rail flaws. Conditions, other than poor rail head
surface conditions (e.g., heavy lubrication or debris on the rail
head), can also limit the effectiveness of certain inspection
technologies.
Induction testing introduces a high-level, direct current into the
top of the rail, establishing a magnetic field around the rail head. An
induction sensor unit is then passed through the magnetic field. The
presence of a rail flaw distorts the current flow and the magnetic
field, and it is this distortion that is detected by the search unit.
Ultrasonic testing uses sound waves that propagate at a frequency
that is normally between 2.25 MHz (million cycles per second) to 5.0
MHz, above the range of human hearing. Ultrasonic waves are transmitted
into the rail by transducers placed at various angles with respect to
the rail surface. The ultrasonic waves produced by these transducers
normally scan the entire rail head and web, as well as the portion of
the base directly beneath the web. Internal rail defects are
discontinuities in the material that constitutes the rail. These
discontinuities act as a reflector to the ultrasonic waves, a portion
of which are reflected back to the transducers. These conditions
include rail head surface conditions, internal and visible rail flaws,
weld upset/finish, and known reflectors within the rail geometry such
as drillings or rail ends. The information is then processed by the
test system and recorded in the test data record.
FRA is amending its regulations on inspection of rail and
verification of indications of defective rail to allow for continuous
rail testing. See Sec. 213.240. The current regulations require
immediate verification of certain indications and require all others be
verified within 4 hours. 49 CFR 213.113(b). This verification timeframe
has made it practically impossible for track owners to conduct
continuous testing. Consistent with FRA's desire to improve rail safety
and encourage innovation that does the same, this rulemaking
establishes procedures that, except for indications of a broken rail,
extend the required verification timeframes for those entities that
adopt continuous testing. FRA expects this will facilitate operational
efficiency and encourage both a broader scope and more frequent use of
continuous rail testing in the industry.
Although rail flaw detection is not an exact science, noncritical
rail flaw limits can be difficult to estimate, and numerous variables
affect rail flaw growth, FRA expects the procedures adopted in this
final rule are sufficient to ensure the extended verification
timeframes are unlikely to result in complete rail failure prior to
verification. Continuous rail testing is a process that has been
successfully trialed under the waiver process outlined in 49 CFR 213.17
on select rail segments on multiple railroads in the U.S. since
2009.\2\ This rulemaking codifies the continuous rail testing practices
FRA has permitted by waiver and allows for additional flexibility in
the rail inspection process. Track owners that do not desire to conduct
continuous rail testing are not required to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See docket numbers FRA-2008-0111 (CSX), FRA-2011-0107 (CSX),
FRA-2014-0029 (CN), FRA-2015-0019 (NS), FRA-2015-0115 (KCS), FRA-
2015-0130 (BNSF), FRA-2018-0022 (UP), FRA-2018-0031 (LIRR), and FRA-
2019-0057 (MNCW) (available online at www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in detail in the NPRM, the continuous rail test method
consists of a vehicle using ultrasonic testing, in some cases augmented
by other flaw detection systems, to detect defects in the rail. The raw
test data is transmitted from the vehicle to a centralized location to
be analyzed by a team of experts, using multiple advanced techniques,
including comparison to past data from the same location (sometimes
referred to as ``change detection''). Once analyzed, suspect locations
or ``indications'' (locations where the data indicates the possible
presence of a rail defect) are then transmitted back to the field for
on-site verification to determine if an actual rail flaw exists.
Under Sec. 213.113(b), when a track owner learns that a rail
contains an indication of one of the defects listed in the Remedial
Action Table, the track owner must field-verify the indication within
four hours. As proposed, Sec. 213.240 would exempt track owners who
elect to utilize continuous rail testing from the requirement to field-
verify indications within four hours. Depending on the type and
severity of an indication, as proposed Sec. 213.240 would allow
railroads up to either 36 or 84 hours to field-verify the suspect
locations. (Once a suspect location is verified as a defect, however,
the
[[Page 63365]]
remedial action timelines in the Remedial Action Table would apply).
As noted in the NPRM, the increased verification period is
justified by the logistical and safety benefits of continuous rail
testing. Because the test vehicle does not have to stop and verify each
suspected defect, more track can be inspected at greater speeds with
significantly less interruption to revenue service. The more time-
consuming analysis of the test data can be conducted off-site and
reviewed at an optimal speed not related to the speed of the test
vehicle. Additionally, the test data can be more thoroughly compared to
past test runs over the same section of track to better identify
possible defect propagation and growth. The decreased interruption to
revenue service allows track owners to test track more frequently. FRA
expects that continuous rail testing would substantially decrease the
overall cost to the railroad industry while improving rail safety.
As noted in section IV.A of the NPRM (see 84 FR 72528-30), since
2009, a number of railroads have implemented continuous rail testing
programs through limited, conditional waivers of Sec. 213.113(b). As
discussed above, Sec. 213.113(b) requires track owners who learn that
a rail in their track contains an indication of a defect listed in the
Remedial Action Table to verify the indication within four hours and
take remedial action in accordance with the Remedial Action Table. The
Remedial Action Table prescribes the required remedial actions (and
timelines for taking those actions) based on the severity of the
defects identified. In other words, there is a built-in safety
threshold in the Remedial Action Table for each known defect depending
on the defect type and size. Generally, the waivers FRA has granted to
date allowing railroads to conduct continuous rail testing programs
provide a longer period of time to verify indications of defects than
permitted by Sec. 213.113(b), thereby allowing the railroads to
prioritize the verification of those defects based on the severity of
the indications identified.
Under the existing waivers, suspect locations are not prioritized
arbitrarily, but are categorized based on the ultrasonic reflective
responses viewed by the analyst. In other words, analysts interpret the
collected ultrasonic reflective responses, estimate each indication
type and size, and, based on that estimate, categorize the suspect
locations in terms of severity and remedial action required by the
Remedial Action Table (typically suspect locations are categorized as
``priority one,'' ``priority two,'' or ``priority three''). Priority
one indications are suspected locations above the threshold that, if
verified as a defect, would require remedial action note ``A,'' ``A2,''
or ``B'' under the Remedial Action Table. Thus, as proposed, these
suspect locations must be field-verified within the timeframe listed in
Sec. 213.240(e)(2).
Those suspected locations that, if verified as a defect, would not
require either remedial action ``A,'' ``A2,'' or ``B'' must be field-
verified within the timeframe listed in Sec. 213.240(e)(1), and are
commonly referred to in the industry as either ``priority two'' or
``priority three'' indications, depending on the clarity of the
indication. Often, when the ultrasonic test data produces a response
where the analyst believes a defect is present because of the strength
of the ultrasonic reflective signal, but that signal does not indicate
a suspect defect of the type and/or size requiring remedial action
``A,'' ``A2,'' or ``B,'' the track owner lists the indication as a
priority two. All other suspect locations identified by the analyst as
potential defects or questionable ultrasonic responses are often marked
as priority three suspect locations by the track owner. These so-called
``priority threes'' are indications where the ultrasonic reflective
data does not produce a clear indication of defect type or size, but
produces an unfamiliar or questionable response. Because many variables
affect ultrasonic responses, the priority three suspect type is the
most commonly indicated, requiring hand-verification to check that
location to ensure nothing is being missed or misinterpreted that might
result in a rail failure and subsequent derailment.
The Remedial Action Table reflects the fact that all verified
defects pose a potential risk of sudden failure, depending on the
conditions, even with defects deemed to be less severe than others.
Data from the existing waivers demonstrates that, although less than
two percent of the priority three suspect locations are found to be
actual rail defects, priority three suspect locations account for
approximately 85 percent of the field-verified defects found as a
result of continuous testing. Priority one and priority two suspect
locations are found to be actual rail defects in approximately 95-99
percent and 65-70 percent of the cases, respectively. Thus, although
priority three suspect locations have a much higher probability of a
false positive, they are also by far the most common indication of an
actual defect. Accordingly, FRA finds that safety necessitates
continuing to require the field verification of all defects identified
by tests carried out under Sec. 213.237 or Sec. 213.239.
Further, FRA is providing additional flexibility in the rail flaw
detection processes to promote innovative approaches to improving
safety in railroad operations. Section 213.240 provides track owners
the option to conduct continuous rail testing to satisfy the rail
inspection requirements in Sec. 213.237 or, where applicable, Sec.
213.339. This section allows additional time for verification of
indications of potential rail flaws identified through continuous
testing. This additional time allows for improvements in planning and
execution of rail inspections and rail defect remediation, enabling
track owners to conduct rail inspections with smaller impacts on
railroad operations. By reducing these impacts, more track time may
become available to conduct inspections and maintenance.
However, as continuous testing is a more complicated process
compared to the traditional stop-and-verify rail inspection process,
additional criteria have been adopted to ensure that this elective
process is conducted in a manner that is in the interest of safety,
with sufficient recordkeeping and transparency to allow for adequate
FRA oversight. The continuous rail test section would not modify the
required frequency of rail inspections or the applicable procedural
requirements as set forth in Sec. Sec. 213.237 and 213.339, nor does
it make any change to the remedial actions required after field
verification of a rail defect as described in Sec. 213.113(c).
B. Removal of the High-Density Commuter Line Exception
FRA is removing what is commonly referred to as the ``high-density
commuter line exception'' from the track inspection requirements in
Sec. 213.233. This exception applies to ``high density commuter
railroad lines where track time does not permit on-track vehicle
inspection and where track centers are 15 feet or less apart'' and
exempts those operations from 49 CFR 213.233(b)(3). Section
213.233(b)(3) requires each main track to be traversed by vehicle or
inspected on foot at least once every two weeks and each siding at
least once each month. Although other provisions of Sec. 213.233 do
require that such track be inspected, Sec. 213.233(b)(3) focuses on
the direct manner of conducting those inspections over or on the
subject track.
On May 17, 2013, Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Metro-North)
passenger train 1548 was traveling eastbound from Grand Central
Station,
[[Page 63366]]
New York, toward New Haven, Connecticut, when it derailed in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, and was struck by westbound Metro-North
passenger train 1581. The accident resulted in approximately 65
injuries and damages estimated at over $18 million. During the
investigation, a pair of broken compromise joint bars were found at the
point of derailment. One of those broken joint bars was located on the
gage side of the track over which train 1548 was traveling (main track
4). NTSB's investigation also found that Metro-North last inspected the
track in the area two days before the accident, but the inspection was
conducted by an inspector in a hi-rail vehicle traveling on main track
2, which was next to main track 4, and the joint bars in question would
not have been visible during that inspection. See NTSB's Railroad
Accident Brief, October 24, 2014, available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1409.pdf.
In response to the Bridgeport accident, NTSB issued Safety
Recommendation R-14-11 to FRA, which recommended that FRA revise the
Standards, specifically Sec. 213.233(b)(3), to remove the high-density
commuter line exception.
Subsequently, in 2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, and mandated
in section 11409 that the Secretary of Transportation evaluate the
Standards to determine if the high-density commuter line exception
should be retained. After considering safety, system capacity, and
other relevant factors such as the views of the railroad industry and
relevant labor organizations, FRA has concluded, and the TSS Working
Group unanimously agreed, that the high-density commuter line exception
should be removed. All railroad operations, whether commuter or
freight, or both, should be subject to the same inspection method
requirements in Sec. 213.233(b)(3).
C. Incorporation of Flange-Bearing Frog and Heavy-Point Frog Waivers
FRA is revising two sections of part 213 (Sec. Sec. 213.137 and
213.143) to incorporate longstanding waivers that, with certain
limiting conditions, permit the use of flange-bearing frogs and heavy-
point frogs that do not comply with current FRA standards. FRA finds
that under certain conditions, use of these types of frogs provide
safety benefits by more evenly distributing loads across the frogs with
minimal impact to rail surfaces, as compared to other types of rail
frogs. Incorporating these waivers into FRA's regulations will result
in industry cost savings that are larger than the cost savings that
result from the waivers alone.
i. Heavy-Point Frogs
A heavy-point frog (HPF) is a unique design that has a thicker frog
point than a traditional frog. A thicker frog point provides more inert
mass, which results in reduced metal fatigue from impact loading,
greater durability, reduced susceptibility to deformation of the frog
point, and better ability to guide the wheel flange toward the proper
flangeway. In an HPF, the gage line is \11/32\ (0.3438) of an inch
thicker than a traditional, rail-bound manganese frog point. This
reduces the standard guard check distance from 4 feet, 6\5/8\ (54.6250)
inches to 4 feet, 6\29/64\ (54.4531) inches, which does not comply with
minimum guard check distance for Class 5 track.
As defined in 49 CFR 213.143, and as shown in Figure 1 below, guard
check gage is the distance between the gage line of a frog to the guard
line (a line along the side of the flangeway nearest to the center of
the track and at the same elevation as the gage line) of its guard rail
or guarding face, measured across the track at right angles to the gage
line (a line \5/8\ of an inch below the top of the center line of the
head of the running rail, or corresponding location of the tread
portion of the track structure).
The purpose of the minimum guard check gage is to ensure a
vehicle's wheels are able to pass through the frog without one of the
wheels (the right wheel in Figure 1) striking the frog point. In Figure
1, there are two key dimensions: ``wheel check,'' which is the distance
between the two wheels plus the wheel flange thickness at the gage line
(\5/8\ of an inch below the running surface); and ``guard check gage,''
which is defined above. As illustrated in Figure 1, guard check gage
must be greater than or equal to the wheel check so there will be a
``flange-frog point gap'' between the right wheel and frog point
interface, when the left wheel flange passes against the guard rail. As
stated above and further illustrated in Figure 1, this ensures the
right wheel does not strike the frog point.
Figure 1 depicts a standard frog, which has a standard guard check
gage of 54.625 inches, meeting the requirement for Class 5 track
(greater than or equal to 54.5 inches). A heavy-point frog has a
standard guard check gage of 54.4531 inches, which does not meet
current FRA standards for Class 5 track but does meet the current
standards for Class 4 track (greater than or equal to 54.375 inches).
[[Page 63367]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC20.002
In 2003, FRA approved a waiver permitting operation of trains at
Class 5 track speeds over certain HPFs at which the guard check gage,
under existing 49 CFR 213.143, conforms to the standards applicable to
Class 4 track. See docket number FRA-2001-10654 (available online at
www.regulations.gov). Among other conditions to ensure safety, the
waiver requires that the frog, and the guard rails on both tracks
through the turnout containing the frog, be equipped with at least
three through-gage plates (metal plates underneath the frog that expand
across the entire frog to provide both vertical support and lateral
restraint for the frog components) with elastic rail fasteners, and
guard rail braces that permit adjustment of the guard check gage
without removing spikes or other fasteners from the crossties. The
waiver also requires that track owners retain records of the location
and description of each turnout containing an HPF, notify FRA prior to
operating trains over a new HPF, and provide proper information and
training to any employees designated to inspect or supervise
restoration or renewal of areas containing an HPF. The waiver also
requires that each HPF bear an identifying mark. Since FRA initially
granted the waiver in 2003, FRA has renewed the waiver three times,
most recently on February 15, 2018. The waiver is currently set to
expire on February 15, 2023.
To date, no accidents have been reported to FRA as having occurred
at or near locations where HPFs are installed. Accordingly, FRA finds
that the safety of HPFs have been proven. As discussed in more detail
below in the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.143, FRA is
incorporating some of the waiver provisions into the regulation.
ii. Flange-Bearing Frog Crossing Diamonds
Flange-bearing frogs (FBF) are different from the traditional
tread-bearing frogs used by freight railroads in most crossing diamonds
and turnouts in the United States. In traditional tread-bearing
crossing diamonds, a vehicle's wheels must run over the gaps in the
running rails. This creates very high impact forces between the wheels
and rails, which can damage both the diamond and components of the
vehicle (e.g., the vehicle's wheels and axles). For FBFs, the flangeway
is designed to support the wheels running on their flanges. Ramps
provide a smooth transition from tread-bearing to flange-bearing and
reduce the dynamic wheel forces significantly. This can greatly reduce
noise and vibration, increase the service life of crossing diamonds and
vehicle components, reduce the need for maintenance, and possibly
decrease the need for speed restrictions due to worn, damaged, or
defective crossing diamonds.
In 2000, FRA approved a waiver granting relief from the flangeway
depth requirements in 49 CFR 213.137(a) as well as the limitation in 49
CFR 213.137(d) restricting FBFs to Class 1 track. See docket number
FRA-1999-5104 (available online at www.regulations.gov). Among other
conditions, this initial waiver allowed track owners to install up to
five FBF crossing diamonds in Class 2 or 3 track. FRA limited its
initial approval to five FBF crossings under specific operational
conditions and conditions requiring vehicle and track inspections
designed to closely monitor the performance of the FBFs. In 2010, based
on the successful implementation of the initial waiver and data
gathered as a result, at industry's request, FRA granted a revised
waiver allowing installation of FBF crossing diamonds on Classes 2
through 5 track with crossing angles above 20 degrees unless movable
guard rails are used. Among other conditions, the waiver required that
newly installed FBF crossing diamonds be inspected daily during the
first week of operation, weekly for the month after, and monthly
thereafter. The waiver also required the track owner to prepare
maintenance manuals and properly train its personnel. The waiver was
renewed in May 2020, and is set to expire in May 2025.
To date, no accidents have been reported to FRA as having occurred
at or near FBFs. Accordingly, FRA finds that the safety benefits of
FBFs have been proven and incorporates some of the waiver provisions
into the regulation. Because the performance of the FBF crossing
diamonds installed under the waiver is the primary basis for FRA's
conclusion that these frogs are safe, FRA finds that it is in the best
interests of public safety to retain, as
[[Page 63368]]
much as reasonable, similar limitations imposed under the waiver.
IV. Discussion of Comments and Conclusions
FRA received six sets of comments in response to the NPRM. Three
sets of comments were from RSAC members and included comments from the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), joint comments submitted
from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American Short
Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) (jointly referred to as
``AAR/ASLRRA''), and joint comments from the Brotherhood of Maintenance
of Way Employes Division (BMWED) and the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen (BRS) (jointly referred to as ``BMWED/BRS''). FRA also
received comments from Herzog Service, Inc., and the American
Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA). Finally, FRA received
a joint comment from the following seven entities: The American
Chemistry Council, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the
American Petroleum Institute, the Chlorine Institute, the Fertilizer
Institute, the Renewable Fuels Association, and the Sulphur Institute
(collectively referred to as the ``Chemical, Energy, and Agricultural
Trade Associations'').
FRA thanks the commenters for the time and effort put into each of
the comments received. Directly below FRA discusses the comments
generally applicable to this rulemaking. Comments directed at specific
proposed regulatory changes are discussed below in the section-by-
section analysis. The order in which FRA discusses the comments below
is not meant to imply that FRA is prioritizing one commenter over
another. Rather, FRA has organized the discussion of comments in as
logical manner as possible.
BMWED/BRS
In their comment, BMWED/BRS raised a number of concerns with the
NPRM, primarily regarding the proposal to allow for continuous rail
testing. Although many of BMWED/BRS's concerns are discussed below in
the section-by-section analysis, they recommend that certain additional
conditions, not proposed in the NPRM, be required for continuous rail
testing. BMWED/BRS assert that suspect locations containing a suspect
defect that, if verified, would require remedial action A, A2, or B
identified in the Remedial Action Table contained in Sec. 213.113(c)
(Remedial Action Table), as well as indications of a ``possible
transverse defect estimated to be greater than 25%,'' should require
immediate protection. Additionally, BMWED/BRS contend that the Remedial
Action Table should be revised for continuous rail testing.
Specifically, BMWED/BRS state that ``the number of days/hours in the
Remedial Action Table'' should be reduced to ``accommodate the
additional 36 to 84 hours for `field verification' . . . in order to
maintain an equivalent level of safety.'' A proposed revised Remedial
Action Table was attached to BMWED/BRS's comment. Finally, BMWED/BRS
recommend that FRA require railroads ``opting to use [continuous rail
testing] under proposed Sec. 213.240 to at least double the frequency
of inspections on each track segment.''
FRA disagrees that these changes are needed or justified. As
discussed in more detail in the NPRM (see 84 FR 72528-30), continuous
rail testing has been successfully trialed under the waiver process on
select rail segments on multiple railroads in the United States since
2009. The data derived and the lessons learned from over 10 years of
testing do not support the additional conditions proposed in BMWED/
BRS's comment. Continuous rail testing has the potential to improve
rail safety significantly and FRA is confident that Sec. 213.240, as
adopted in this final rule, successfully balances the flexibility
needed to conduct continuous rail testing with conditions necessary to
ensure at least an equivalent level of safety, and very likely improve
it. FRA also finds that adopting the additional conditions proposed by
BMWED/BRS would be a significant and unjustified disincentive to track
owners' and railroads' use of continuous testing. Adopting such
conditions could make continuous rail testing more onerous than
traditional stop-and-verify testing (e.g., by doubling the required
number of inspections, requiring immediate protections for certain
defects before field verification, and decreasing existing timeframes
for imposing remedial action)--all of which could result in track
owners and railroads forgoing adoption of continuous testing, and
therefore, the associated safety benefits discussed throughout this
final rule.
Additionally, BMWED/BRS advocate for an interpretation of existing
Sec. 213.5(a) and how it relates to a suspect location found during a
rail inspection. BMWED/BRS assert that ``delayed application of the
Remedial Action Table for suspect rail defects'' violates Sec.
213.5(a) since once ``suspected defects are identified, the carrier
`knows or has notice' that the track does not comply with the
requirements of Part 213.'' BMWED/BRS contend that ``[a]ll suspected
rail defects must first be protected and then `verified.' '' FRA does
not agree that this interpretation of Sec. 213.5(a) is consistent with
regulatory language or longstanding FRA interpretation. An indication
of a suspect defect is only that: An indication that a defect might
exist. The track owner does not have knowledge or notice of an actual
defect until the suspected defect is field-verified and confirmed to be
a defect. This long-held interpretation is consistent with the
structure of Sec. 213.113.
Section 213.113(a) lists the actions a track owner must take when
the owner ``learns that a rail in the track contains any of the defects
listed in the table contained in paragraph (c),'' whereas Sec.
213.113(b) lists the actions a track owner must take when the owner
``learns that a rail in the track contains an indication of any of the
defects listed in the table contained in paragraph (c).'' Thus, the
plain language of the regulation makes clear that an indication of a
defect is not the same as a verified defect and thus Sec. 213.5(a)
would not require immediate remediation for an unverified indication of
a defect.
Finally, BMWED/BRS state that ``FRA must assure that all verified
defects be marked with a highly visible marking in compliance with
Sec. 213.237(e) or Sec. 213.339(c) as appropriate.'' FRA notes that
this is already required by Sec. Sec. 213.237(e) and 213.339(c), and
this final rule does not change that.
AAR/ASLRRA
In addition to comments directed at specific, proposed regulatory
provisions, which are discussed below in the section-by-section
analysis, AAR/ASLRRA raise a concern about training and qualification
provisions. Specifically, AAR/ASLRRA contend that 49 CFR part 243,
which was originally issued in 2014 but had its effective date delayed
multiple times, ``generally made obsolete the previous need to codify
scattershot training provisions throughout the Federal railroad safety
regulations,'' and that any ``references to training and qualification
in the final rule [are] unnecessary and duplicative.'' FRA disagrees.
As Sec. 243.1 expressly states, part 243 contains the general minimum
training and qualification requirements for each category and
subcategory of safety-related railroad employee (Sec. 243.1(b)), and
the requirements of part 243 do not exempt any other requirements in
this chapter (Sec. 243.1(c)). Further, unless otherwise noted, part
243 augments other training and
[[Page 63369]]
qualification requirements contained in this chapter (Sec. 243.1(d)).
The clear wording of part 243 shows that training and qualification
requirements codified in other parts of the CFR are not obsolete or
duplicative.
A2LA
A2LA, in its comment, generally favors utilizing International
Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical
Commission (ISO/IEC) accreditation for multiple areas of part 213,
including requiring continuous rail testing be done by ISO/IEC
accredited inspection agencies, adopting ISO/IEC standards for
qualification requirements, and adopting ISO/IEC accreditation for
track inspections. FRA does not believe ISO/IEC standards are necessary
for purposes of this final rule. The qualification requirements already
included in part 213 and adopted in this final rule, along with
continued FRA oversight, are sufficient to ensure railroad personnel
conducting relevant tasks are properly trained and possess the
requisite skills to complete their jobs safely and effectively.
Chemical, Energy, and Agricultural Trade Associations
The Chemical, Energy, and Agricultural Trade Associations ``support
allowing inspection of rail using continuous rail testing,'' but raise
a general concern ``that the proposed revisions, particularly the
extension of the verification timeframes could lead to a scenario where
fatal flaws remained unaddressed and subject trains to potential
derailments.'' The Associations go on to ``caution FRA from
implementing an overly extended verification timeframe and encourage a
conservative approach when considering what is a critical flaw
requiring immediate attention.'' FRA appreciates the Associations'
concerns. However, FRA is confident that the procedures governing
continuous rail testing and the extension of field verification
timeframes are sufficient to ensure railroad safety. Since 2009,
various continuous rail testing procedures and timeframes have been
trialed and fine-tuned through the waiver process on multiple
railroads. Waiver data indicates that as track owners have increased
their use of continuous rail testing under the waivers, they have
realized a decrease in broken-rail-caused accidents and an increase in
overall safety. For example, Norfolk Southern Railway, which began
operating under a continuous test waiver on limited territories in 2015
and since that time has expanded its continuous test territory numerous
times, experienced 34 percent fewer main line service failures (broken
rails that do not result in an accident) in 2018 as compared to 2014.
Similarly, CSX Corporation, which has been piloting continuous test
technologies and methodologies under an FRA waiver since 2009 and,
similar to NS, has expanded its continuous test territories numerous
times, had zero broken rail-caused main track accidents in 2019. FRA
safety data demonstrates a nationwide 39 percent reduction in FRA
reportable broken rail caused accidents from June 2019 to May 2020. In
addition, since beginning continuous rail testing under waiver in 2018,
the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) has tripled its testing frequency with
no additional train delays. This final rule is based on the data and
experience gained through those waivers.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 213.1 Scope of Part
Proposed rule: Section 213.1 sets forth the scope of part 213.
Paragraph (b) specifies that subparts A through F of part 213 apply to
track Classes 1 through 5 and that subpart G and certain individual
sections of subpart A apply to track Classes 6 through 9. FRA proposed
to amend paragraph (b) of this section to reference proposed Sec.
213.240 (continuous rail testing). Together with proposed Sec.
213.240, this change would allow track owners to elect to use
continuous rail testing conducted under Sec. 213.240 on Class 6
through Class 9 track to satisfy the requirement for internal rail
testing under Sec. 213.339.
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: The change is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.5 Responsibility for Compliance
Proposed rule: Section 213.5 specifies the parties responsible for
compliance with part 213. Paragraph (a)(3) of this section addresses
persons responsible for overseeing operations over track that is known
to be not in compliance with part 213. That paragraph requires
operations over such track to be overseen by a person designated under
Sec. 213.7(a) who has ``at least one year of supervisory experience in
railroad track maintenance.'' FRA proposed to remove the requirement
for the person overseeing operations on non-compliant track to have
``one year of supervisory experience in railroad track maintenance.''
This proposed change would conform to the proposed changes to Sec.
213.7, which are discussed below.
Additionally, FRA proposed to add the following sentence to the end
of paragraph (a)(3): ``If the operation is on Continuous Welded Rail
(CWR) track, the person under whose authority operations are conducted
must also be designated under Sec. 213.7(c).'' This change is meant to
clarify that in order for a person to authorize operations over CWR
track that does not meet all the requirements of part 213, the person
must be designated and qualified by the track owner under Sec.
213.7(c) to inspect CWR track or supervise the installation,
adjustment, and maintenance of CWR track.
Comments: FRA received no comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: The changes are adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.7 Designation of Qualified Persons To Supervise Certain
Renewals and Inspect Track
Proposed rule: Section 213.7 requires track owners to designate
qualified persons to inspect track and supervise certain track
restorations and renewals, and specifies the records related to these
designations a track owner must maintain. The section also requires
these qualified persons to have ``written authorization'' from the
track owner to prescribe remedial actions to address identified
nonconformities in the track.
Paragraph (a)(1) of this section specifically requires that a
person designated to supervise the restoration and renewal of track
under traffic conditions have, among other things, either one year of
supervisory experience in railroad maintenance or a combination of
supervisory experience in track maintenance and training. For the
reasons discussed in the NPRM, and consistent with the recommendations
of the TSS Working Group, FRA agreed that requiring supervisory
experience to qualify under paragraph (a)(1) creates a possible
conflict in the regulatory language (an employee cannot be qualified
under that paragraph unless he or she has supervisory experience yet an
employee would not be able to gain supervisory experience without first
being qualified). Accordingly, FRA proposed to remove the supervisory
requirement in the paragraph.
Paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3), (c)(4), and (e) each require ``written''
records. The records required in paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3), and (c)(4)
relate to individual's authorization from a track owner to prescribe
remedial actions. The records required in paragraph (e) relate to the
designation of individuals authorized to prescribe such actions. As
noted in the NPRM, FRA finds that the term ``written'' can be
interpreted to
[[Page 63370]]
encompass both physical hardcopies or electronic versions of the
required authorizations or designations. To avoid any possible
confusion and consistent with the TSS Working Group's recommendations,
FRA proposed to remove the term ``written'' from each of these
paragraphs to make clear that the required authorizations or
designations could be recorded and conveyed either in hardcopy or
electronic form.
FRA also proposed to add new paragraph (e)(2) to require records of
designations under Sec. 213.7 to include the date each designation is
made. To incorporate this revision, FRA proposed to redesignate
paragraph (e)(2) as paragraph (e)(3). FRA also proposed to revise the
resulting new paragraph (e)(3) to require the records to contain not
only the basis for each designation as paragraph (e)(2) currently
requires, but also to require track owners to include the method used
to determine that the designated person is qualified. FRA intended this
change to better conform the section with the requirements of Sec.
213.305(e) for high-speed operations, and better describe what FRA
means by the ``basis for each designation.'' As noted in the NPRM, to
meet this requirement, a track owner could include information about
the nature of any training courses the designated person participated
in and how the track owner determined that the designated person
successfully completed the course (e.g., test scores, demonstrated
proficiency, etc.).
Paragraph (e)(3) also requires designation records under Sec.
213.7 to include records of track inspections ``made by each designated
qualified person.'' FRA proposed to remove the requirement, finding it
redundant with Sec. 213.241's requirement that track owners maintain
records of track inspections made by qualified inspectors that are
``kept available for inspection and copying by [FRA] during regular
business hours.'' Accordingly, FRA proposed to redesignate paragraph
(e)(3) as new paragraph (f). FRA also proposed rephrasing the paragraph
to require that FRA make its request for records during normal business
hours and provide the track owner ``reasonable notice'' before
requiring production. As explained in the NPRM, the meaning of the term
``reasonable notice'' depends on the specific facts of each situation
and FRA does not intend these revisions to substantively change
recordkeeping requirements or FRA's existing inspection practices.
These revisions are primarily intended to clarify how FRA currently
enforces the regulation.
Comments: With regard to the proposed introduction of the phrase
``reasonable notice'' in new proposed paragraph (f), AAR/ASLRRA, in
their comment, state that ``what constitutes `reasonable notice' is
inherently subjective'' and assert that ``a railroad acting in good
faith to provide requested records to FRA representatives upon
`reasonable notice' should never be subject to civil penalties.''
Alternatively, AAR/ASLRRA suggest that FRA adopt ``a presumptive ten
days' notice requirement.''
Final rule: As explained above and in the preamble to the NPRM, the
term ``reasonable notice'' depends on the specific facts of each
situation (e.g., time of day request made, day of the week request
made, number of records requested). FRA does not agree that it is
appropriate to adopt a blanket statement that a railroad can never be
subject to civil penalties so long as it acts in ``good faith.'' The
subjective intent behind a railroad's actions is not a necessary
consideration for whether it complies with the requirement to produce
records. Likewise, FRA declines to adopt a blanket 10 days' notice
requirement. Although current Sec. Sec. 213.241(b) and 213.369(b)
include a reference to a 10 days' notice for track inspection records,
that only applies to paper records that are not maintained at the
designated location where they are requested. Electronic records or
those paper records maintained at the designated location where they
are requested are not subject to the automatic 10 days' notice
requirement under current Sec. Sec. 213.241(b) and 213.369(b). FRA
received no other comments on the proposed revisions to this section.
Accordingly, the revisions to Sec. 213.7 are adopted as proposed in
the NPRM.
Section 213.9 Classes of Track: Operating Speed Limits
Proposed rule: Section 213.9 sets forth the maximum allowable
operating speeds for both passenger and freight trains for excepted
track, and track Classes 1 through 5 (track speeds up to 90 m.p.h. for
passenger trains and up to 80 m.p.h. for freight trains). Paragraph (b)
of this section addresses situations in which a track segment does not
meet the requirements for its intended class and specifies that if a
segment of track does not at least meet the requirements for Class 1
track, operations may continue under the authority of a person designed
under Sec. 213.7(a) ``who has at least one year of supervisory
experience in railroad track maintenance'' for up to 30 days.
Consistent with the revisions proposed to Sec. 213.7(a) discussed
above, FRA proposed to revise this paragraph to remove the requirement
that a person designated under Sec. 213.7(a) have a least one year of
``supervisory'' experience in railroad track maintenance. Please see
the above discussion of Sec. 213.7(a).
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: The change is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.11 Restoration or Renewal of Track Under Traffic Conditions
Proposed rule: Section 213.11 requires operations over track
undergoing restoration or renewal under traffic conditions and not
meeting all the requirements of part 213 to be conducted under the
continuous supervision of a person designated under Sec. 213.7(a) with
``at least one year of supervisory experience in railroad track
maintenance.'' Consistent with the proposed changes to Sec. 213.7(a),
FRA proposed to remove the requirement that the person supervising
restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions have a minimum
of one year of ``supervisory'' experience in track maintenance.
Additionally, to clarify an existing regulatory requirement, FRA
proposed to add text stating that if the restoration or renewal is on
continuous welded rail (CWR) track, the person must also be qualified
under Sec. 213.7(c).
To clarify that a person designated under Sec. 213.7(a), and (c)
if applicable, may not authorize movement over any track not meeting
all the requirements of part 213 for its particular class, FRA also
proposed adding a sentence stating that the ``operating speed cannot be
more than the maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9 for the class
of track concerned.''
Comments: FRA received no comments on the proposed changes.
Final rule: The changes are adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.113 Defective Rails
Proposed rule: Section 213.113 prescribes the required actions a
track owner must take when it learns that a rail contains an indication
of a defect and after the track owner verifies the existence of the
defect. To clarify that the requirement that an indication of a defect
be verified within four hours would not apply if a track owner elects
to conduct continuous testing under proposed Sec. 213.240, FRA
proposed to modify the second sentence in paragraph (b) so that it
would begin with ``except as provided in Sec. 213.240, . . . .''
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
[[Page 63371]]
Final rule: The change is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.137 Frogs
Proposed rule: Section 213.137 contains the standards for use of
frogs. As discussed in detail in the preamble to the NPRM, a frog is a
track component used at the intersection of two running rails to
provide support for wheels and passage for their flanges, thus
permitting wheels on either rail to cross the other intersecting rail.
See 84 FR 72530.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 213.137 prescribes limits on the flangeway
depth of a frog. These limits effectively prohibit the use of flange
bearing frogs (FBFs) on Classes 2 through 5 track. However, since 2000,
railroads have operated under a waiver that allowed the installation of
FBFs in crossing diamonds in track Classes 2 through 5, and exempted
those diamonds from the flangeway depth requirements of paragraph (a),
subject to certain conditions. As discussed in more detail in section
IV.C of the NPRM (see 84 FR 72530-32), FRA has renewed the waiver
multiple times, and currently the waiver is set to expire in May 2025.
After careful review of safety performance under the waiver and
analysis of track-caused derailments, as noted in the NPRM, FRA has
identified no negative safety implications with the use of FBFs. As
such, in the NPRM, FRA proposed to modify Sec. 213.137 by adding
paragraph (e) that would allow the use of FBFs in crossing diamonds in
Classes 2 through 5 track consistent with the conditions of the
existing waiver. The existing waiver limited the installation of FBFs
to locations with crossing angles above 20 degrees unless moveable
guard rails are used and generally required track owners to initially
inspect newly installed FBFs more often than traditional frogs. The
waiver also required track owners to document certain information about
the location of the installed FBFs (e.g., crossing angle, tonnage,
speed, direction and type of traffic), develop maintenance manuals
specific to the frogs, and properly train all personnel responsible for
inspecting or repairing any FBF. See proposed paragraphs (e)(1)-(3).
Comments: FRA received comments generally supporting the proposed
changes. AAR/ASLRRA, while strongly supporting the incorporation of the
longstanding waiver for FBFs, disagreed with FRA's proposal to include
``many of the same administrative and recordkeeping provisions found in
the'' waiver. AAR/ASLRRA contend that those additional administrative
requirements ``are no longer necessary or relevant once FRA has
determined the new technology is safe.''
Final rule: FRA agrees with AAR/ASLRRA's statement that the
administrative requirements imposed as conditions of the waiver are no
longer necessary given that the use of FBF's as proposed has been
proven safe, and the regulations already require track owners to
provide employees responsible for inspecting or repairing FBFs to be
appropriately trained and demonstrate appropriate knowledge,
understanding, and ability to do so. Accordingly, FRA is not adopting
proposed paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3). FRA, however, is maintaining the
requirement from proposed paragraph (e)(1) that FBFs may only be used
at locations with crossing angles greater than 20 degrees unless
movable guard rails are used. As noted in the NPRM, when a crossing
diamond has a smaller crossing angle, there is a heightened risk of
damage to the rail head when the wheel flange crosses over it.
Because FRA is not adopting proposed paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3),
FRA is including the language proposed for paragraph (e)(1) at the end
of new paragraph (e). The changes proposed in the NPRM are otherwise
adopted, with the revisions discussed above.
Section 213.143 Frog Guard Rails and Guard Faces; Gage
Proposed rule: This section prescribes a minimum and maximum value
for guard check and guard face gages, respectively. Guard check gage is
the distance between the gage line of a frog and the guard line of its
guardrail or guarding face. Allowable minimum dimensions vary with
track classification, i.e., train speed.
As discussed in more detail in section IV.C of the NPRM (see 84 FR
72530-32), in 2003, FRA granted a waiver (docket number FRA-2001-10654)
to members of the railroad industry allowing operation of trains at
Class 5 speeds over a heavy-point frog (HPF) with guard check gage
conforming to the standards for Class 4 track frogs. FRA granted
several extensions of this waiver, and it is currently set to expire in
February 2023.
After careful review of safety performance under the waiver and
analysis of track-caused derailment data, FRA identified no negative
safety implications with the use of HPFs under the conditions outlined
in the waiver. As such, in the NPRM, FRA proposed to modify Sec.
213.243 to add footnote 3 to the table in Sec. 213.143 which,
consistent with the conditions of the waiver, would: (1) Allow the
guard check gage for HPFs on Class 5 track to be less than the current
4-foot, 6\1/2\-inch minimum, but not less than 4 feet, 6\3/8\ inches
(the current minimum for frogs in Class 4 track); (2) require that each
track owner maintain records of the location and description of each
HPF and make that information available to FRA upon request during
normal business hours following reasonable notice; (3) require that
each HPF and the guard rails on both rails through the turnout be
equipped with at least three serviceable through-gage plates with
elastic rail fasteners and guard rail braces that permit adjustment of
the guard check gage without removing spikes or other fasteners from
the crossties; (4) require that each track owner provide proper
maintenance manuals, instructions, and training to any Sec. 213.7
designated employees who inspect track or supervise restoration and
renewal of track, or both, in areas that include turnouts with HPFs;
and (5) require that each HPF bear an identifying mark that identifies
the frog as an HPF.
Comments: FRA received comments generally supporting the proposed
changes. AAR/ASLRRA, while strongly supporting the incorporation of the
longstanding waiver for HPFs, disagreed with FRA's proposal to include
``many of the same administrative and recordkeeping provisions found in
the'' waiver. AAR/ASLRRA assert that those additional administrative
requirements ``are no longer necessary or relevant once FRA has
determined the new technology is safe.''
Final rule: Preliminarily, for formatting reasons, FRA is moving
the content of proposed footnote 3 to a new paragraph (b). The existing
language in Sec. 213.143 will be designated as paragraph (a), with a
slight grammatical revision to the introductory language, and the
existing table will be titled ``Table 1 to Sec. 213.143(a).''
FRA agrees with AAR/ASLRRA's statement that the administrative
requirements imposed as conditions of the waiver are no longer
necessary given that the use of HPFs as proposed has been proven safe
and the regulations already require track owners to provide employees
responsible for inspecting or repairing HPFs to be appropriately
trained and demonstrate appropriate knowledge, understanding, and
ability to do so.
Accordingly, FRA is not adopting the specific recordkeeping or
training requirements proposed in paragraphs (a) or (c) of proposed
footnote 3, and is also not adopting the second sentence of proposed
paragraph (d). FRA is retaining the remainder of the proposed
requirements related to HPFs, but in this final rule, FRA is
designating proposed
[[Page 63372]]
paragraphs (b) and (d) of footnote 3, as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2). The
changes as proposed in the NPRM are otherwise adopted, with the
revisions discussed above.
Section 213.233 Visual Track Inspections
Proposed rule: Section 213.233 sets forth general requirements for
the frequency and method of performing required visual track
inspections on excepted track and track Classes 1 through 5. To better
reflect the existing scope of this section, FRA proposed to add the
word ``visual'' to the section heading so that it would read ``Visual
track inspections.'' Because other sections in part 213 cover different
types of inspections and inspection methods for the same types of track
(automated inspections, inspections of rail, etc.), this proposed
change would clarify that this section deals specifically with visual
track inspections. This proposal would also make Sec. 213.233's
heading consistent with the heading for the corresponding high-speed
track section, Sec. 213.365, ``Visual inspections.'' As discussed
below, FRA proposed to revise the heading for Sec. 213.365 so that the
headings are the same for both Sec. Sec. 213.233 and 213.365.
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA contend that, although Sec. 213.233
``currently contemplates human visual inspection . . . as technology
evolves in the future,'' these inspections ``may not always be
conducted `visually' by humans.'' AAR/ASLRRA concludes that adding the
word ``visual'' to the heading of Sec. 213.233 ``could make them more
outdated in the future.''
Final rule: FRA disagrees. As the commenters note, Sec. 213.233
currently requires visual track inspections and the change to the
heading is meant to make that clear, as well as make the heading of
Sec. 213.233 consistent with the heading of Sec. 213.365, which
applies to higher-speed tracks. If future regulatory changes are made
to Sec. 213.233 to allow the use of non-visual inspections
specifically under the section's requirements, the heading could be
updated at that time. Moreover, the change does not affect the use of
non-visual inspection methods as provided in other sections of this
part. The change is therefore adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Paragraph (b) requires visual track inspections to
be made on foot or by ``riding over'' the track at a speed allowing the
inspector to visually inspect the track structure for compliance; and,
when inspecting from a vehicle, this section sets the vehicle's maximum
speed at 5 m.p.h. when ``passing over'' track crossings and turnouts.
Paragraph (b) also specifies that one inspector in a vehicle may
inspect up to two tracks at one time under certain conditions,
including that the second track is not centered more than 30 feet from
the track upon which the inspector ``is riding.'' Similarly, two
inspectors may inspect up to four tracks from one vehicle under certain
conditions, including that the second track center is within 39 feet
from the track on which the inspectors ``are riding.'' For grammatical
consistency throughout this section, FRA proposed revising the terms
``riding over'' and ``passing over'' to ``traversing'' in this
paragraph and, for the same reason, FRA also proposed to revise the
terms ``is riding'' and ``are riding'' to ``traverses'' and
``traverse.''
Additionally, FRA proposed removing the terms ``upon which'' from
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2), and changing ``is actually'' to ``must be''
in paragraph (b)(3). These changes are not meant to affect the meaning
of Sec. 213.233, but are instead made for grammatical consistency.
Comments: FRA received no comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: The changes are adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: As discussed in more detail in section IV.B of the
NPRM (see 84 FR 72530), FRA proposed to remove the last sentence of
paragraph (b)(3), also known as the high-density commuter line
exception. Paragraph (b)(3) requires, among other things, that each
main track be traversed by a vehicle or inspector on foot at least once
every two weeks, and every siding at least every month. The high-
density commuter line exception applies where track time does not
permit on-track vehicle inspection and where track centers are 15 feet
or less apart and exempts those operations from the inspection method
requirements of paragraph (b)(3). FRA's proposal to remove this
exception was directly responsive to Congress's direction in sec. 11409
of the FAST Act and NTSB's Safety Recommendation R-14-11. In addition,
when proposed, FRA believed no track owner currently utilized this
exception and the RSAC unanimously voted to remove the exception, so
FRA concluded its removal would have little to no impact on the
regulated industry.
Comments: Despite affirmatively stating during the RSAC proceedings
that none of their members currently utilize the high-density commuter
line exception, in response to the NPRM, AAR/ASLRRA provided comments
stating that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
utilizes the exception in three locations, Penn Station in New York
City and in the Washington, DC and Boston terminals, and ``[c]ertain
commuter railroads'' also utilize the exception. AAR/ASLRRA further
argue that ``Amtrak is concerned that elimination of the exemption
would result in roadway workers being required to conduct additional
inspections at high traffic volume locations with narrow track
centers.'' Consequently, AAR/ASLRRA assert that FRA should not adopt
this proposal and, instead, study it further.
Final rule: FRA has considered the new information provided by AAR/
ASLRRA and still concluded that the high-density commuter line
exception should be removed. FRA finds that the exception is no longer
justified and it is in the interest of safety that it be removed, based
on the 2013 Metro-North Bridgeport, CT accident, discussed in greater
detail in the NPRM (see 84 FR 72530), as well as internal evaluations
by FRA. Track over which a large number of passengers traverse should
be inspected at least in the same manner as other types of track. FRA
notes that the high-density commuter line exception applies only to
mainline track, so it is likely that any usage by Amtrak in Penn
Station and the Washington, DC and Boston terminals is very limited.
Additionally, FRA finds it is highly unlikely that the removal of the
exception will result in any additional required track inspections
since track inspectors will still be permitted to inspect tracks
adjacent to the one they operate over. Inspectors will simply be
required to alternate which track they traverse so that each track is
actually traversed every two weeks, instead of always permitting the
inspection from an adjacent track. This may require those railroads
utilizing the exception to slightly revise their inspection practices.
Combined with effective roadway worker protection, this should not
increase the risk to roadway workers and should improve the quality of
inspections. Thus, FRA has determined that continuing this exemption is
not in the interest of safety and the change is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed three changes to paragraph (c). First,
FRA proposed to add the word ``visual'' before ``track inspection'' in
the introductory text. This was simply to make paragraph (c) consistent
with the new heading for Sec. 213.233 and would have no effect on the
meaning of paragraph (c). Second, FRA proposed adding footnote 1 after
the word ``weekly'' in the table in paragraph (c).
[[Page 63373]]
The proposed footnote defines the term ``weekly'' to be a seven-day
period beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday. This definition is
consistent with FRA's past interpretation and enforcement practice.
Third, FRA proposed to add footnote 2 after the term ``passenger
trains'' in the table in paragraph (c). The proposed language was
suggested to the TSS Working Group by the Rail Heritage Association and
FRA agrees that it would reduce unnecessary burden on certain regulated
entities without negatively impacting safety. This proposed footnote
would exempt, in two situations, entities from the required twice-
weekly inspection requirement for track carrying passenger trains if
the passenger train service consists solely of tourist, scenic,
historic, or excursion operations as defined in 49 CFR 238.5. In the
first situation, this exemption would apply where no passenger service
is operated over the track during the inspection week. In the second
situation, this exemption would apply where passenger service is
operated during the inspection week but only on a weekend (Saturday and
Sunday) or a 3-day extended weekend (Saturday and Sunday plus either a
contiguous Monday or Friday) and an inspection is conducted before, but
not more than one day before, the start of the weekend or 3-day
extended weekend.
FRA also proposed to revise paragraph (d). Specifically, FRA
proposed to add the phrase ``the Sec. 213.7 qualified'' at the
beginning of the paragraph to clarify that ``the person'' making the
inspection that the rule text refers to is the qualified track
inspector designated under Sec. 213.7. Additionally, FRA proposed
adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (d) stating that any
subsequent movements to facilitate repairs on track that is out of
service must be authorized by a Sec. 213.7 qualified person. This
section is silent as to whether or when movement over track that is out
of service is permissible. FRA recognizes that certain movements are
necessary to facilitate repairs and therefore does not interpret or
enforce the regulatory language to bar such movements of equipment and
materials on track that is out of service. The proposed revision was
meant to embody that practice and interpretation and prevent possible
confusion.
Comments: FRA received comments supporting one of the proposed
changes and no adverse comment on any proposed change to paragraph (c)
or (d).
Final rule: The changes are adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.240 Continuous Rail Testing
In the NPRM, FRA proposed to add this new section to allow track
owners to utilize continuous rail testing to satisfy the requirements
for internal rail inspections under Sec. 213.237 (for track Classes 1-
5), or Sec. 213.339 (for Class 6 track and higher). As explained in
the NPRM and above, proposed Sec. 213.240 would allow greater
flexibility in the rail flaw detection process by providing additional
time to analyze the data collected during continuous rail testing and
field-verify indications of potential rail flaws. This additional time
would allow for improvements in planning and execution of rail
inspections and rail defect remediation, thereby lessening the impact
on rail operations. As a result, more track time should become
available to conduct maintenance and increase inspections. However, as
continuous testing is a more complex process compared to the
traditional stop-and-verify rail inspection, FRA proposed certain
requirements related to this elective process to ensure it is conducted
properly, which include requirements to maintain records that help
ensure adequate FRA oversight.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (a) would allow track owners to
elect to use continuous rail testing instead of complying with Sec.
213.113(b) (requiring field verification of indications either
immediately or within 4 hours), provided the track owner complies with
the minimum requirements of Sec. 213.240. Proposed paragraph (a) also
makes clear that the track owner must still comply with all other
requirements of Sec. 213.113 (including remedial action requirements),
along with the requirements of proposed Sec. 213.240. In other words,
Sec. 213.240 provides additional time to field-verify a suspect
location, but once verified, the track owner must take appropriate
remedial action as described in Sec. 213.113(c).
Comments: Asserting that FRA has not provided enough data to
evaluate the safety benefits of the proposed change to rail testing
procedures, NTSB commented that ``[u]ntil data from continuous rail
testing can be collected, analyzed, and verified as beneficial to
safety, the FRA should require that traditional stop-and-verify rail
inspections'' continue. FRA received additional comments regarding the
proposal to allow continuous testing and those comments are discussed
either above in Section IV if they were more general, or below in the
paragraph that they specifically concern.
Final rule: As discussed above, and in the NPRM, continuous testing
has been conducted by multiple railroads under FRA's waiver process for
over a decade. FRA has reviewed and analyzed the data received from
those waivers as well as data related to service failures and
derailments. As noted above, waiver data indicates that as track owners
have increased their use of continuous rail testing under the waivers,
they have realized a decrease in broken-rail-caused accidents and an
increase in overall safety. FRA is confident that it has sufficient
data and experience supporting continuous testing as beneficial to
safety. Paragraph (a) is therefore adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (b) outlines the minimum
procedures that a track owner must adopt to conduct continuous rail
testing under Sec. 213.240. Prior to starting a continuous testing
program, a track owner must adopt procedures that comply with this
section. Rail testing is vital to the prevention of track-caused
accidents, and documented procedures are necessary to ensure continuous
rail testing works consistently and effectively, and that those
involved understand their responsibilities and have a resource they can
consult if they have any questions. These minimum procedures are
designed to allow each track owner flexibility in determining the best
approach to conduct continuous testing. Proposed paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) would require track owners conducting continuous rail
testing under Sec. 213.240 to adopt procedures addressing how (1) test
data would be transmitted and analyzed; (2) suspect locations would be
identified for field verification; (3) suspect locations would be
categorized and prioritized according to their potential severity; (4)
suspect locations would be field-verified; and (5) suspect locations
would be designated following field verification.
Comments: NTSB commented that FRA should provide more information
regarding the specifics of the required minimum procedures.
Specifically, NTSB states that the ``guidance should discuss the
transmittal of testing data, and provide procedures for locating and
validating suspected defects, and managing recordkeeping.''
With respect to proposed paragraph (b)(4), which would require the
procedures address how suspect locations would be field-verified,
BMWED/BRS commented that FRA has failed to articulate what actions must
be taken should the field verifier be unable to reproduce the defect
signature and that FRA should require suspect
[[Page 63374]]
locations ``be validated for 60 feet on either side of the suspect
defect.''
Final rule: As discussed in more detail below, and in the NPRM, FRA
has intentionally designed the rule to provide track owners flexibility
on how to structure their continuous testing procedures, while ensuring
certain standards are met. Railroad operations are not uniform and
technology changes. Accordingly, FRA seeks to avoid limiting railroads'
flexibility to innovate and utilize new technology and approaches as
they are developed. However, the procedures track owners adopt must
accomplish their purpose. To make this clear in this final rule, FRA is
making changes throughout paragraph (b) requiring track owners' minimum
procedures adopted under 213.240 to ensure accurate data transmittal,
analysis, and conclusions throughout the entirety of the continuous
test process. Specifically, FRA is revising proposed paragraph (b)'s
introductory text and paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (4).
First, FRA is revising the last sentence of paragraph (b)'s
introductory text to specify that a railroad's continuous testing
procedures must conform with the requirements of Sec. 213.240 and
ensure the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) are met.
FRA is revising proposed paragraph (b)(1) to specify that a track
owner's procedures must ensure that test data will be ``timely and
accurately'' transmitted and analyzed. Procedures that do not
accomplish the timely and accurate transmittal and analysis of the test
data will not comply with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1). For
example, data integrity must be maintained throughout the collection,
analysis, and verification process, and transmitted in a manner and
speed sufficient to meet the field-verification timeframes discussed
below.
FRA is revising proposed paragraph (b)(2) to make clear that the
procedures must ensure suspect locations are ``accurately'' identified
for field verification. Procedures that do not result in the accurate
identification of suspect locations for field verification will not
comply with the requirements of this paragraph (b)(2). For example, the
data must reflect the true position of the suspect location and contain
sufficient data to allow the field verifier to successfully identify
the suspect location. With this change, paragraph (b)(2) is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
FRA is revising proposed paragraph (b)(4) to make clear that the
procedures must ensure suspect locations are ``accurately'' field-
verified. As explained in more detail in the NPRM, accurate field
verification is vitally important to continuous testing, and rail
testing in general, because it is the process by which the track owner
determines whether a rail defect exists or not, and if so, how serious.
FRA recognizes, however, that defect signatures will always differ to
some degree even when the same equipment is used over the same defect.
That is the nature of the technology. FRA does not intend to require a
railroad to implement procedures that would ensure field verifiers can
reproduce exact defect signatures. FRA recognizes this is simply not
feasible. FRA also believes that requirements adopted in this final
rule cover this issue by requiring track owners to document suspect
locations with repeatable accuracy so that they may be located for
field verification. However, to emphasize the general point discussed
above (i.e., that the procedures adopted by track owners must
accomplish their purpose), FRA is revising proposed paragraph (b)(4) to
make clear that the procedures must address how suspect locations will
be ``accurately'' field-verified. FRA intends the addition of
``accurately'' to more clearly convey the requirement. For example, the
procedures must enable the field verifier to locate the suspect
location and take appropriate action to determine whether the suspect
location contains an actual rail defect. Procedures that do not
accomplish the accurate field verification of a suspect location, which
would implicitly also require accurately locating that suspect
location, will not comply with the requirements of Sec. 213.240(b)(4).
FRA disagrees with BMWED/BRS's comment that it is necessary to
require a track owner validate each suspect location for 60 feet on
either side. Paragraph (b)(4) requires the track owner have procedures
for the effective and accurate field verification of a suspect
location. Additionally, paragraph (f) of this section, discussed below,
requires that track owners record suspect locations with repeatable
accuracy that allows for the location to be accurately located for
subsequent verification. Requiring each suspect location to be
validated for 60 feet on each side would be redundant and would create
a substantial amount of extra, unnecessary work. Additionally, because
such a condition would apply only to track owners conducting continuous
testing, it would serve as a significant disincentive for railroads to
adopt continuous rail testing, because it would apply only to
continuous testing and not tradition stop-and-verify testing. Paragraph
(b)(4) is therefore adopted as proposed in the NPRM, with the change
noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (c) would require the track owner
to designate and record the type of rail test to be conducted, whether
continuous or stop-and-verify, prior to commencing the testing. As
proposed, track owners could elect to conduct continuous testing in
conjunction with stop-and-verify rail testing, but a determination
would need to be made prior to commencement of the test as to which
type of test will be conducted on a given section of track. The
decision as to what type of test is being conducted on a given section
of track must be properly documented to ensure that the effectiveness
of the inspection can be adequately evaluated for efficacy and
reporting requirements. If the type of rail testing changes after the
test has commenced, FRA proposed to require the track owner to document
that change, including the time the test was initially started, the
time it was changed, the milepost where the test started, the milepost
where the test changed, and the reason for the change. As proposed,
these records would need to be made available to FRA upon request
during regular business hours following reasonable notice. To conduct
oversight and ensure safety, FRA must know the type of test utilized on
a section of track, because the type of test will dictate both the
necessary procedures and, more importantly, the required time period
for field verification of any suspected defects identified.
Additionally, proposed paragraph (c) would require a track owner to
designate and document, at least 10 days prior to commencing a
continuous rail test, whether the test is being conducted to satisfy
the requirement for an internal rail inspection under Sec. 213.237 or
Sec. 213.339. As discussed in greater detail above, track owners are
required to conduct a sufficient number of internal rail inspections to
satisfy the requirements of Sec. 213.237 or Sec. 213.339. Under FRA's
proposal, a continuous rail test conducted to meet the minimum number
of required internal rail inspections would need to comply with Sec.
213.240, including the field-verification requirements under paragraph
(e). Track owners are, of course, permitted to conduct continuous rail
tests above and beyond the minimum requirements of Sec. 213.237 or
Sec. 213.339. As proposed, those additional rail tests (that are not
intended to meet the minimum number required by Sec. 213.237 or Sec.
213.339) would not be
[[Page 63375]]
required to meet the field-verification timeframe requirements of Sec.
213.240, and the track owner therefore cannot rely on such tests to
demonstrate compliance with either Sec. 213.237 or Sec. 213.339. As
proposed, the track owner must designate and record whether the test is
being conducted to satisfy the minimum frequency requirements of Sec.
213.237 or Sec. 213.339, at least 10 days in advance of the test to
allow FRA the opportunity to oversee the testing and ensure the proper
procedures are being followed.
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA request two changes to the proposed rule.
First, AAR/ASLRRA state that the proposed 10-day advance designation of
whether a continuous test is being conducted to satisfy the minimum
frequency requirements of Sec. 213.237, or Sec. 213.339, ``may
actually detract from safety by preventing a continuous test run from
occurring when an opportunity to conduct such testing arises within the
ten-day window.'' Accordingly, AAR/ASLRRA asks that FRA remove the
proposed requirement. Second, AAR/ASLRRA oppose the requirement that,
when the type of test (continuous or stop-and-verify) changes after a
test commences, the track owner must document the reason for the
change. AAR/ASLRRA contend that ``the reason a track owner may decide
to change a test may be a result of a business decision not within
FRA's regulatory purview,'' and that the ``proposal appears to serve no
required safety purpose.'' Finally, AAR/ASLRRA comment on the use of
the term ``reasonable notice,'' which is discussed in more detail in
the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.7, above.
Final rule: Whether a continuous test is done to satisfy the
inspection frequency required under this part affects what procedures
the track owner must follow. Thus, for FRA to conduct effective
oversight, and for track owner inspection personnel to know what
procedures apply, the track owner must articulate whether the test is
being conducted to satisfy the inspection frequency required under part
213. However, FRA agrees that the 10 days' advance notice is
unnecessary and could prevent a track owner from conducting a
continuous test if the equipment becomes available within the 10-day
window. Thus, FRA is not adopting the 10-day notice requirement and
instead will require that the track owner designate the type of test
prior to the start of the test. This revision will ensure that FRA and
track owner personnel know whether the procedures required under this
part apply to the test, while addressing AAR/ASLRRA's concern regarding
advanced notice.
As for the proposed requirement that a track owner document the
reason for a change in the type of test after commencing the rail test,
although FRA does not believe it is burdensome, FRA agrees that the
information is not vital to FRA's ability to conduct oversight and
ensure safety. Accordingly, FRA is not adopting the proposed
requirement that a track owner document the reason for such a change.
However, the track owner must document the change and include the time
the test was started and when it changed, and the milepost where the
test started and where it was changed. Further, if a track owner
switches from a continuous rail test to a stop-and-verify test,
regardless of whether the continuous rail test was being conducted to
satisfy the minimum frequency requirements of Sec. 213.237, or Sec.
213.339 where applicable, all requirements of Sec. 213.113 will
immediately apply and any suspect locations found during the stop-and-
verify test must be field-verified within 4 hours.
See the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.7 for FRA's
response to AAR/ASLRRA's comment regarding the use of the term
``reasonable notice.'' Paragraph (c) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM, with the changes noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (d) lists required qualifications
for certain persons involved in key aspects of the continuous testing
program. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require operators of
continuous rail test vehicles be qualified under Sec. 213.238. Section
213.238 lists the qualification requirements for operators of rail test
vehicles conducting stop-and-verify rail testing. FRA proposed that the
same qualification requirements apply to operators of continuous test
vehicles, stating that, like operators of stop-and-verify test
vehicles, operators of continuous test vehicles must ensure that the
vehicles conduct a valid search and function as intended, and be
capable of interpreting relevant equipment responses and determining
that a continuous, valid search has been conducted.
Comments: Herzog Services, Inc. asserts that ``the data collection
phase of the Continuous Test Process only requires an operator whose
sole function is to ensure the test equipment is functioning properly,
and that a valid search for internal defects is being conducted.''
Herzog goes on to state that the ``operator is not performing
interpretation of the test data for the purpose of identifying a
suspect defect location,'' and that accordingly, the operator need not
be qualified under all elements of Sec. 213.238(b), specifically,
Herzog asserts that a continuous rail test inspection vehicle operator
should not be required to be qualified under Sec. 213.238(b)(3), which
requires the operator be trained to ``[i]nterpret equipment responses
and institute appropriate action in accordance with the employer's
procedures and instructions.''
Final rule: FRA generally agrees with Herzog's comment and, in this
final rule, is revising paragraph (d)(1) to require the continuous rail
test inspection vehicle operator be qualified under Sec. 213.238, with
the exception of Sec. 213.238(b)(3). However, FRA makes clear that if
the operator of a continuous rail test inspection vehicle is not fully
qualified under Sec. 213.238, including Sec. 213.238(b)(3), then it
will not be possible for that inspection to change from a continuous
test to a stop-and-verify test, because the operator will not be
qualified under Sec. 213.238 to conduct a stop-and-verify test.
Paragraph (d)(1) is adopted as proposed in the NPRM, with the changes
noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would require that the
internal rail inspection data be reviewed and interpreted by a person
qualified to interpret the equipment responses. FRA intentionally did
not propose specific qualification requirements but instead proposed to
leave it up to the track owner to ensure the necessary procedures are
in place for its specific system so that the persons reviewing and
interpreting the data have been properly trained and tested. As noted
in the NPRM, an analyst may not necessarily need to have intimate
knowledge of the inner workings of the test equipment, but must be
trained on how to properly assess the equipment responses, to determine
when a possible rail defect exists and field verification is necessary.
Accordingly, the track owner or a designee must have a process in place
to ensure all persons responsible for the interpretation of the data
are competent and capable of that task. By using the word
``qualified,'' FRA does not simply mean that the track owner has
designated an individual as qualified. To be ``qualified,'' the person
must be properly trained and tested, and thus possess the necessary
knowledge and ability to accurately and competently review and
interpret the rail test data and properly identify suspected rail
defects.
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposal.
Final rule: After further review of the proposed language, FRA
realizes that by
[[Page 63376]]
not incorporating specific training requirements such as in Sec.
213.238 and instead giving track owners flexibility in how to train and
qualify, there is no express requirement that the track owner provide
relevant training and qualification records to FRA upon request.
Although FRA recognizes that track owners would likely maintain records
of operators' qualifications to demonstrate compliance with the rule,
without such a requirement, FRA would not be able to provide any
meaningful oversight of proposed paragraph (d)'s requirement that
operators be qualified to interpret the equipment responses.
Accordingly, in adopting paragraph (d)(2), FRA is including the
following language:
Each employer of a person qualified to interpret equipment
responses shall maintain written or electronic records of each
qualification in effect, including the name of the employee, the
equipment to which the qualification applies, the date of
qualification, and the date of the most recent reevaluation of the
qualification, if any. Records concerning these qualifications,
including copies of training programs, training materials, and
recorded examinations, shall be kept at a location designated by the
employer and available for inspection and copying by FRA during
regular business hours, following reasonable notice.
This language is consistent with the current requirements of Sec.
213.238. See the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.7 above, for
FRA's response to AAR/ASLRRA's comment regarding the use of the term
``reasonable notice.'' Paragraph (d)(2) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM, with the changes noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would require that all
suspected locations be field-verified by a person qualified under Sec.
213.238. FRA is aware that this is the same qualification required for
continuous test vehicle operators and believes that an understanding of
the vehicle's systems is necessary to understand the test data
accurately, find the suspected location, and field-verify the suspected
defect successfully.
Comments: BMWED/BRS assert that track owners should be required to
``maintain and make available to FRA training records identifying
persons qualified to perform field-verification tests, the basis for
such qualifications, and the type(s) of field-verification instruments
they are qualified to operate.''
Final rule: As proposed, paragraph (d)(3) would already require
that persons conducting field verification be qualified under Sec.
213.238. Section 213.238(g) itself requires that track owners make
qualification and training records available to FRA, and Sec.
213.238(e) requires that track owners keep a list of each qualification
in effect, including the name of the employee, the equipment to which
the qualification applies, the date of qualification, and the date of
the most recent reevaluation. FRA expects that the referenced
qualification requirements are sufficient to allow proper oversight and
ensure safety. Accordingly, paragraph (d)(3) is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (e) would require that the
continuous test process, at a minimum, produce a report containing a
systematic listing of all suspected locations that may contain any
defect listed in the Remedial Action Table. The suspect location must
be identified with sufficient information so that a qualified person
under Sec. 213.238 can locate and field-verify each suspected defect
accurately. FRA intentionally did not prescribe how a suspect location
is identified and proposed to leave it up to the track owner because
the identification process may be affected by specific circumstances
facing each track owner.
FRA notes that when proposed paragraph (e) is read in conjunction
with proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (f), the suspect location must be
identified and recorded in a manner that allows the qualified person
under Sec. 213.238 to locate the suspect location with repeatable
accuracy. This could include using Global Positioning System (GPS)
coordinates, but for locations where GPS does not work, such as
tunnels, the track owner must have another procedure in place to
accurately identify the exact location of the suspected defects. FRA
also recognizes that the locations likely cannot be listed with perfect
accuracy and that there must be some acceptable margin of error.
Although FRA does not quantify the exact size of an allowable margin of
error, it cannot be of a size that would affect the ability of the
qualified person under Sec. 213.238 to locate the suspected defect
noted on the report accurately. For example, if the margin of error is
too large, there is a risk that the qualified person may confuse the
suspected defect noted on the report with another condition present in
or on the rail in the vicinity of the actual suspected defect.
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (e) is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) contain specific
timeframes in which field verification of suspected locations must be
conducted. For purposes of the verification timeframes, the indications
are classified into two categories: Those suspected defects that, if
verified, would require remedial action note ``A,'' ``A2,'' or ``B'' in
the Remedial Action Table (addressed in proposed paragraph (e)(2)); and
all other defects (addressed in proposed paragraph (e)(1)).
Additionally, under proposed paragraph (e)(3), indications of a
possible broken rail with rail separation must be protected
immediately. Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would require, subject to the
requirements of proposed paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), that the track
owner field-verify any suspect location within 72 hours after
completing the test run, or within 84 hours of the detection of the
suspect location, whichever is earlier. This, along with proposed
paragraphs (e)(2) and (3), would take the place of the current
requirement that suspect locations be field-verified within 4 hours.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would apply to any suspect location that does
not indicate a broken rail with rail separation or indicate a suspected
defect that, if verified, requires remedial action note ``A,'' ``A2,''
or ``B'' under the Remedial Action Table. In other words, this proposed
paragraph would apply to suspected defects that pose less of an
immediate safety risk than the ones covered in proposed paragraphs
(e)(2) and (3).
Comments: FRA received multiple comments on this proposal. AAR/
ASLRRA assert that having two different time periods ``presents
tracking issues that would be difficult and burdensome for railroads to
monitor and would introduce unnecessary confusion regarding whether the
appropriate time permitted for field verification was met.'' BMWED/BRS
further comment that ``completion of the test run'' is ambiguous and
FRA should ``provide a clear and unambiguous definition as to when that
is.'' For their part, AAR/ASLRRA advocate that track owners have 84
hours from the completion of the test run for field verification.
NTSB comments that the proposed field-verification timeframe could
allow ``certain hazardous rail defects . . . to go `unverified' for
longer than 12 hours,'' presenting a ``public safety concern'' and
states that FRA should enact ``[p]rocedures for mitigating risks.''
Likewise, the Chemical, Energy, and Agricultural Trade Associations
comment that they ``are concerned that the proposed revisions,
particularly the extension of the verification timeframes could lead to
a scenario where fatal flaws remained unaddressed and subject trains to
potential derailments.''
[[Page 63377]]
Finally, Herzog notes a typographical error in proposed paragraph
(e)(1) wherein it references paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) when it should
reference paragraphs (e)(2) and (3). Additionally, Herzog requests that
FRA use the term ``indication'' as opposed to ``detection'' in
paragraph (e)(1) because the ``collection vehicle is only collecting
the test data and the location is an `indication' at that time.''
Final rule: In adopting this paragraph (e)(1) in the final rule,
FRA has corrected the inadvertent typographical error so that paragraph
(e)(1) references paragraphs (e)(2) and (3). FRA also agrees that
``indication'' is a more suitable term than ``detection'' and has
changed paragraph (e)(1) accordingly. FRA makes clear that a track
owner receives the indication of the suspect location, for purposes of
the field-verification timeframe, when the collection vehicle passes
over the suspect location.
FRA agrees that use of a single time period may allow track owners
to more efficiently and accurately track when a suspect location must
be field-verified without negatively impacting safety. However, FRA
does not agree that this time period should begin upon completion of
the test run, because ``completion of the test run'' could be hard to
define and raises the possibility that a test run could continue for a
lengthy and unpredictable period, potentially resulting in the field-
verification clock not starting until after a significant period of
time passes. In this final rule, FRA is instead adopting a single
timeframe that requires suspect locations be field-verified within 84
hours of their indication, i.e., when the collection vehicle passes
over the suspect location. This change will address the concern raised
about the different proposed timeframes while also ensuring that
suspect locations are field-verified within a defined period of time
that is not fluid or dependent on when a test run may end, thereby
addressing possible ambiguity as to the meaning of ``completion of the
test run.''
As for the concerns raised by NTSB and the Chemical, Energy, and
Agricultural Trade Associations, as explained in greater detail above
and in the NPRM (see 84 FR 72528-30), FRA has trialed continuous rail
testing under the waiver process for over a decade and the regulatory
changes adopted here are based on the lessons learned and procedures
used under the waiver process. FRA is confident, based on the data and
experience gained from those waivers, that the field-verification
timeframes adopted here are sufficient to ensure safety.
Finally, in adopting paragraph (e)(1), FRA is adding ``Except as
provided in paragraph (e)(6) of this section'' to the beginning of the
paragraph. This change is meant to account for the addition of
paragraph (e)(6), discussed below, codifying the interpretation
articulated in the NPRM preamble that the applicable timeframes for
field verification apply only to continuous rail tests conducted to
meet the minimum inspection frequency required by Sec. 213.237, or
Sec. 213.339 where applicable. Paragraph (e)(1) is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM, with the changes noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would require that any
suspect location containing a suspected defect that, if verified, would
require remedial action note ``A,'' ``A2,'' or ``B'' under the Remedial
Action Table be field-verified no more than 24 hours after completion
of the test run, or 36 hours after detection of the suspect location,
whichever is earlier. The remedial action need not be the only required
remedial action, just one of those cited. Thus, if remedial action note
``A,'' ``A2,'' or ``B'' is cited in the remedial action column (the
last column) of the Remedial Action Table, the defects associated with
those remedial actions would be covered under proposed paragraph (e)(2)
and any suspect location possibly containing one of those defects must
be field-verified within the time required by proposed paragraph
(e)(2). Based on the table in Sec. 213.113(c), the covered defects
include:
All compound fissures;
Transverse fissures 60 percent or greater;
Detail fractures 60 percent or greater;
Engine burn fractures 60 percent or greater;
Defective welds 60 percent or greater;
Horizontal split head greater than 4 inches or where there
is a break out in the rail head;
Vertical split head greater than 4 inches or where there
is a break out in the rail head;
Split web greater than 4 inches or where there is a break
out in the rail head;
Piped rail greater than 4 inches or where there is a break
out in the rail head;
Head web separation greater than 4 inches or where there
is a break out in the rail head;
Defective weld greater than 4 inches or where there is a
break out in the rail head;
Bolt hole crack greater than 1.5 inches or where there is
a break out in the rail head;
Broken base greater than 6 inches; and
Ordinary breaks.
Comments: The same comments discussed above for paragraph (e)(1)
are applicable here. See the above summary.
Final rule: Please see the relevant FRA responses to the comments
above on paragraph (e)(1). For the reasons discussed above, in adopting
the final rule, paragraph (e)(2) uses the term ``indication'' instead
of ``detection''; does not reference ``completion of the test run'';
and requires field verification within 36 hours of the indication,
i.e., within 36 hours of the collection car passing over the suspect
location.
Consistent with the change in paragraph (e)(1), FRA is also making
an additional change by adding ``Except as provided in paragraph (e)(6)
of this section'' to the beginning of paragraph (e)(2). This change is
meant to account for the addition of paragraph (e)(6), discussed below,
codifying the interpretation articulated in the NPRM preamble that the
applicable timeframes for field verification apply only to continuous
rail tests conducted to meet the minimum number required by Sec.
213.237, or Sec. 213.339 where applicable. Finally, FRA is making a
further change by adding ``and subject to the requirement of paragraph
(e)(3)'' to make paragraph (e)(2) clearer and consistent with (e)(1).
Paragraph (e)(2) is adopted as proposed in the NPRM, with the changes
noted above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would require that track
owners have procedures in place to ensure adequate protection is
immediately implemented when continuous rail test inspection vehicles
indicate a possible broken rail with rail separation. As explained in
the NPRM, FRA intentionally does not specify what needs to be included
in the procedures but expects the track owners to determine what is
appropriate for their individual operations. At a minimum, these
procedures would need to include specific communication channels, open
at all times continuous rail testing is conducted and data is being
analyzed, among the personnel who can take the necessary steps to
implement adequate protection immediately. A track owner may not wait
until the suspected broken rail with rail separation is field-verified.
The visual indication received by the analyst alone is sufficient.
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
[[Page 63378]]
Final rule: Paragraph (e)(3) is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (e)(4) states that a suspect
location is not considered an actual rail defect under Sec. 213.113(c)
until it has been field-verified by a person qualified under Sec.
213.238. Thus, as proposed, a track owner would not be required to
implement the remedial actions listed in the Remedial Action Table
until a suspect location is field-verified, or, as provided in proposed
paragraph (e)(5), the required time period to conduct field
verification has elapsed. Proposed paragraph (e)(4) goes on to state
that once a suspect location is field-verified and determined to be a
defect, the track owner must immediately perform all remedial actions
required by Sec. 213.113(a).
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: FRA notes that the inclusion of paragraph (e)(4) is
simply the codification of an existing FRA interpretation regarding
rail inspections. Under Sec. 213.113, an indication of a suspect
location is not considered a defect, and thus the track owner is not
required to take remedial action, until the suspect location is field-
verified and an actual defect is found. Paragraph (e)(4) is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Under proposed paragraph (e)(5), if a suspect
location is not field-verified within the time required by proposed
paragraph (e)(1) or (2), it must be immediately protected by applying
the most restrictive remedial action in the Remedial Action Table for
the suspected type and size of the suspected defect. The protection
must cover a sufficient segment of track to assure coverage of the
suspected location until field verification. Thus, if the size of a
defect is not immediately clear, the protection must provide a safety
margin and cover a larger segment of track to ensure the limits of the
suspected defect are included in the protection.
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (e)(5) is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: In the NPRM preamble, FRA stated that a continuous
rail test conducted to meet the minimum number of required internal
rail inspections under Sec. 213.237, or Sec. 213.339 where
applicable, also called regulatory tests, must comply with Sec.
213.240. FRA further explained that continuous rail tests conducted
above and beyond the minimum frequency requirements of Sec. 213.237,
or Sec. 213.339 where applicable, or on track not required to be
tested under Sec. 213.237, or Sec. 213.339 where applicable, i.e.,
non-regulatory tests, are not required to meet all requirements of
Sec. 213.240.
Comments: BMWED/BRS assert there should be no difference between
the rules applicable to regulatory and non-regulatory tests. According
to BMWED/BRS, time limits for remedial action, field verification, and
inspection records should apply to every continuous test regardless
whether it is conducted to meet the minimum number of required internal
rail inspections under Sec. 213.237, or Sec. 213.339 where
applicable. BMWED/BRS contend that not requiring non-regulatory tests
to comply with Sec. 213.240 means that track owners ``will be given
`carte blanche' by FRA to delay verification and protection of
suspected rail defects indefinitely.''
AAR/ASLRRA request clarification on FRA's discussion in the NPRM on
regulatory and non-regulatory tests. AAR/ASLRRA ``understand this to
mean that when track owners proactively choose to conduct additional
continuous tests that are not intended to fulfill the Federally
required [track safety standards (TSS)] inspection requirements, that
associated TSS testing intervals and deadlines, and data collection and
other administrative requirements do not apply to the conduct of those
tests.''
In addition, NTSB believes that the proposed regulatory text may
not accomplish what FRA intended by its preamble discussion, stating
that proposed Sec. 213.240 would only exempt track owners from the 4-
hour field-verification timeframe in Sec. 213.113(b) if the continuous
test is conducted under the procedures listed in Sec. 213.240.
Final rule: FRA agrees with NTSB that the proposed rule, as
written, may not accomplish effectively what was intended. Thus, FRA is
adding paragraph (e)(6), which states: ``A continuous rail test that is
not conducted to satisfy the requirements for an internal rail
inspection under Sec. 213.237, or Sec. 213.339 if applicable, and has
been properly designated and recorded by the track owner under
paragraph (c) of this section, is exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (e)(1), (2), and (5) of this section.''
This new paragraph also responds to the comment submitted by AAR/
ASLRRA. A non-regulatory test is exempt only from the required
timeframes for field verification. The track owner must still comply
with all other regulatory requirements under this part, including
recordkeeping, data collection, procedural, and reporting requirements.
FRA agrees with BMWED/BRS that the time limits for implementing
remedial actions under Sec. 213.113(a) apply to all tests, whether
regulatory or non-regulatory, once a suspect location is field-verified
and a defect is found. However, FRA does not agree that such suspect
locations identified during non-regulatory tests should be subject to
the same field-verification timeframes. Doing so would create a
disincentive for track owners to conduct continuous tests above and
beyond the minimum requirements, including on track where rail
inspections are not required, such as yard track. Further, by not
imposing the rule's field-verification timeframes on suspect locations
found during non-regulatory tests, track owners have greater
flexibility to prioritize field verification of suspect locations that
pose a higher risk of derailment. Although the final rule allows track
owners to leave some suspected defects in certain track, FRA expects it
will result in track owners conducting tests where they otherwise would
not, and ultimately result in more rail defects being found and
remediated. Accordingly, paragraph (e)(6) is adopted as stated above.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (f) would require each suspect
location be recorded with repeatable accuracy so that the location can
be accurately located for subsequent field verification and remedial
action. As the continuous testing process allows track owners to
conduct field verifications well after the inspection equipment
traverses a track segment, it is critical that each suspect location be
dependably and accurately identified. Recording each suspect location
with this repeatable accuracy is a cornerstone of the entire process,
and can be accomplished through a variety or combination of methods,
including use of GPS and measuring from known reference points. When
GPS is used, procedures must be adopted that allow field-verifiers to
accurately find those suspect locations in areas where the signals for
GPS are compromised or otherwise rendered unreliable, such as in
tunnels, cut sections, or near buildings. When determining the
appropriate procedures to follow, track owners should be particularly
mindful of scenarios in which GPS is unreliable and few track features
exist for reference, such as can result from some rail that is rolled
in weld-free segments that exceed one-tenth of a mile in length.
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (f) is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
[[Page 63379]]
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (g) would require track owners
utilizing continuous rail testing to submit an annual report to the FRA
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer no
later than 45 days following the end of each calendar year. This would
apply only to track owners that have conducted continuous rail testing
under Sec. 213.240 within the previous calendar year. Continuous
testing programs have been trialed through temporary waivers granted to
several railroads throughout the country; however, it is important to
continue monitoring the overall impacts and efficacy of the process.
This proposed reporting requirement is designed to provide sufficient
data to enable a comparison of the results and effectiveness of
continuous rail testing to the results and effectiveness of inspections
by track owners not utilizing continuous rail testing. The annual
report will also allow FRA to monitor the effectiveness of individual
track owners' specific continuous testing processes and programs, and
compare results on a micro level for specific track owners. Further, as
innovation and technology evolve, it is critical to the success of the
safety improvement process to collect and analyze this data for
positive trend exploration.
FRA will use the data provided in each track owner's annual report
to match service failure rates with testing frequencies to estimate the
correlation between increased testing frequencies to the accident rate.
This will help confirm that the anticipated safety improvements are
realized. In addition, FRA intends to utilize traditional and new
methods of analysis to, among other things, study defect risk and track
health and will share data with the track owners to inform continuous
process improvement, as was done during the waiver process for
continuous rail testing. The information should also serve as valuable
input to FRA's ongoing research on potential commonalities in rail
geometry and rail defect growth patterns, to aid the industry in its
continuous effort to mitigate the risk of track-caused derailments.
The annual report must be in a reasonably usable format, or its
native electronic format, and contain at least all the information
required by proposed paragraphs (g)(1) through (10) for each track
segment requiring internal rail inspection under either Sec. 213.237
or Sec. 213.339. Specifically, the submission must include the track
owner's name ((g)(1)); the name of the railroad division and
subdivision ((g)(2)); the segment identifier, milepost limits, and
length of each segment ((g)(3)); the track number ((g)(4)); the class
of track ((g)(5)); the annual million gross tons over that segment of
track ((g)(6)); the total number of internal rail tests conducted over
each track ((g)(7)); the type of internal rail test conducted on the
segment, whether continuous rail test or stop-and-verify ((g)(8)); and
the total number of defects identified over each track segment
((g)(9)), which would include only the defects that have been field-
verified and determined to be actual defects. Proposed paragraph
(g)(10) would also require the total number of service failures on each
track segment.
This information is necessary for FRA to ensure safe operations and
monitor the effectiveness of continuous rail testing and the
requirements of this regulation. For FRA to fulfill its
responsibilities to oversee railroad safety and the implementation of
continuous testing, the agency must receive sufficient data to
effectively perform its functions, while not placing undue burden on
the industry. Accordingly, the annual reporting requirement is intended
to provide FRA with information needed to ensure that the continuous
testing process is consistently carried out in a proper manner.
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA ask for clarification on the intended meaning
of ``service failure'' as used in proposed paragraph (g)(10) and
whether it is meant to be defined the same as in Sec. 213.237(j)(3).
In commenting, NTSB asserts that ``to more effectively monitor the
programs, the proposed regulation should require separately listing the
quantity of each type of internal rail test on each segment.'' NTSB
also suggests the regulation include ``[p]rocedures for monitoring rail
inspection program,'' indicating that allowance of ``multiple rail
inspection processes on a given segment in a given year . . . could be
more complex to monitor.''
Final rule: FRA is confident the annual reporting requirement under
paragraph (g), together with FRA's general oversight authority, is
sufficient to monitor the safety and effectiveness of track owners'
rail inspection programs. FRA agrees that requiring a listing of the
quantity and type of each rail inspection on a segment is vitally
important information and proposed paragraphs (g)(7) and (8) to
accomplish that. To make this intent clearer, FRA is combining proposed
paragraphs (g)(7) and (8) into paragraph (g)(7) to read: ``The total
number of stop-and-verify rail tests and the total number of continuous
rail tests over each track segment.'' In conformance with this change,
FRA has renumbered proposed paragraphs (g)(9) and (10) as paragraphs
(g)(8) and (9) in this final rule.
Finally, FRA confirms the term ``service failure'' as used in
proposed paragraph (g)(10), now paragraph (g)(9), is intended to have
the same meaning as in Sec. 213.237(j)(3). Paragraph (g) is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM, with the changes noted above.
Section 213.241 Inspection Records
Proposed rule: Section 213.241 requires track owners to keep a
record of each inspection required to be performed under part 213,
subpart F. Paragraph (b) of this section requires that each record of
inspection under certain sections include specific information, be
prepared on the day the inspection is made, and be signed by the person
making the inspection. FRA proposed revising paragraph (b) by adding
Sec. 213.137 to those enumerated sections for which inspection records
must comply with the requirements of paragraph (b), because of the
incorporation of the waiver allowing the use of FBFs. One of the
proposed requirements for the use of FBFs under Sec. 213.137(e)(3) is
that they must be inspected at specific intervals, records of which
must be kept and comply with Sec. 213.241(b).
FRA also proposed adding the phrase ``or otherwise certified''
after ``signed'' in paragraph (b), and thus require that records be
``signed or otherwise certified by the person making the inspection.''
This is meant to clarify that a record does not have to be physically
signed by the person making the inspection. The track owner can choose
to use other methods to allow an inspector to certify an inspection
record, provided the method chosen accurately and securely identifies
the person making the inspection. Further, FRA proposed adding three
elements to the list of information that must be included in an
inspection record: The author of the record, the type of track
inspected, and the location of the inspection. FRA expects this
information is already included in most, if not all, of the inspection
records currently prepared by the railroad industry. The proposal is
therefore intended to emphasize the importance of this information and
should have little, if any, impact on recordkeeping practices. The
remaining edits to paragraph (b) are simply technical edits that have
no effect on the intent of the paragraph. Specifically, FRA would
change ``owner'' to ``track owner'' at the beginning of the last two
sentences, remove ``either'' before the word ``maintained'' in the last
sentence,
[[Page 63380]]
and change ``10 days notice'' to ``10 days' notice.''
Comments: FRA received no comments on the proposed changes to
paragraph (b).
Final rule: FRA is not adopting the proposed reference to Sec.
213.137 in Sec. 213.241(b). FRA had originally considered adopting the
increased inspection frequency for FBFs included in the long-standing
waiver but decided against that approach. Because FBFs are inspected in
the same manner as other frogs in this final rule, a reference to Sec.
213.137 is not needed. Section 213.241(b) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM, with the change noted above.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed revising paragraph (f) and
redesignating it as paragraph (i) and adding new paragraph (f).
Proposed paragraph (f) would list the recordkeeping requirements for
continuous testing performed under Sec. 213.240. These are similar to
the current recordkeeping requirements for internal rail inspections
conducted under Sec. 213.237. Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would require
the track owner's continuous rail testing records include all
information required under Sec. 213.240(e). Broadly, this would
require the track owner to produce a report containing a systematic
listing of all suspected locations, and is explained in greater detail
above. Proposed paragraph (f)(2) would require that the records state
whether the test is being conducted to satisfy the requirements for an
internal rail inspection under Sec. 213.237. As discussed in more
detail above, this is necessary information because it is relevant to
whether the track owner must comply with the field-verification time
limits in Sec. 213.240(e). Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would require
that the continuous rail testing records include the date and time of
the beginning and end of each continuous test run, as well as the date
and time each suspect location was identified and field-verified.
Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require that the continuous testing
records include the determination made for each suspect location after
field verification (including, at a minimum, the location and type of
defect, the size of the defect, and the initial remedial action taken,
if required, and the date of that remedial action). Finally, proposed
paragraph (f)(5) would require that these records be kept for two years
from the date of the inspection, or one year after initial remedial
action, whichever is later.
Comments: FRA received no comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (f) is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (g) is similar to paragraph (e).
As proposed, the paragraph would require any track owner that elects to
conduct continuous testing under Sec. 213.240 to maintain records
sufficient for monitoring and determining compliance with all
applicable regulations and make those records available to FRA during
regular business hours following reasonable notice. For example, as
proposed, a track owner must keep sufficient records of procedures
developed to comply with Sec. 213.240(b), as well as qualification
procedures under Sec. 213.238. The meaning of the term ``reasonable
notice'' would depend on the specific facts of each situation (e.g.,
time of day, day of the week, number of records requested, etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA's comment on the use of the term ``reasonable
notice'' is discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis
for Sec. 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.7 for
FRA's response to AAR/ASLRRA's comment regarding the use of the term
``reasonable notice.'' Paragraph (g) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (h) states that track inspection
records, meaning each inspection record created under Sec. 213.241,
shall be available to persons who performed the inspections and to
persons performing subsequent inspections of the track segment. This is
vitally important to help ensure the quality and effectiveness of track
inspections, and FRA expects that in most cases this is already being
done, as it is required, at least for electronic inspection records,
under existing Sec. 213.241(g)(7). A person performing a subsequent
inspection must have an understanding of the track condition during
previous inspections to effectively recognize significant changes in
the track condition as well as ensure that previously noted defects are
adequately protected, have been adequately remediated, or have not
degraded to a degree that requires further action.
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (h) is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed paragraph (i) to be redesignated as
paragraph (f) and revised to include the phrase ``during regular
business hours following reasonable notice'' at the end of the
paragraph. The meaning of the term ``reasonable notice'' would depend
on the specific facts of each situation (e.g., time of day, day of the
week, number of records requested, etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA's comment on the use of the term ``reasonable
notice'' is discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis
for Sec. 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.7 for
FRA's response to AAR/ASLRRA's comment regarding the use of the term
``reasonable notice.'' Paragraph (i) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed paragraph (j) to be a revised and
redesignated version of existing paragraph (g). First, FRA proposed to
reword the introductory language of the paragraph to make it clearer
that a track owner may create, retain, transmit, store, and retrieve
records by electronic means for purposes of complying with this
section. The proposed change is not meant to affect the meaning or
intent of this paragraph.
Next, in redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (j), FRA would
remove existing paragraphs (g)(5) through (7). Existing paragraph
(g)(1) would be redesignated as paragraph (j)(3), existing paragraph
(g)(2) would be redesignated as paragraph (j)(5), and existing
paragraph (g)(3) would be redesignated as paragraph (j)(4). Proposed
new paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) would be added. FRA finds the proposal
would help ensure the integrity of electronic records, while increasing
clarity and allowing track owners additional flexibility without
negatively impacting safety.
Under proposed paragraph (j)(1), the system used to generate the
electronic records must meet all the requirements and include all the
information required under subpart F. Proposed paragraph (j)(2) would
require the track owner to monitor its electronic records database to
ensure record accuracy, and FRA would intentionally leave it up to the
track owner to determine the best way to monitor, protect, and maintain
the integrity and accuracy of its records database effectively. FRA
proposed that existing paragraph (g)(1) be redesignated as paragraph
(j)(3) and revised to require that the electronic system be designed to
identify the author of each record uniquely and prohibit two persons
from having the same electronic identity. This is a simplified
rephrasing of the requirements of existing paragraph (g)(1).
FRA proposed that existing paragraph (g)(3) be redesignated as
paragraph (j)(4) and slightly revised. Proposed paragraph (j)(4) would
require that the electronic system ensure each record cannot be
modified or replaced in the system once the record is completed.
Proposed paragraph (j)(4) would
[[Page 63381]]
prohibit modification once the record is completed, while existing
paragraph (g)(3) prohibits modification once the record is transmitted
and stored. FRA recognizes that there are times when an inspection
record may include information that cannot be entered until a later
date, such as the date of final repair. Proposed paragraph (j)(4)
would, therefore, allow for modification of a record, provided the
modification is made by the original author of the record or the author
of the modification is identified in the record, after the record has
been transmitted but before the record has been fully completed. This
would not permit someone other than the author of the record to modify
existing information at a later date, such as track measurements or
listings of reported defects.
FRA proposed that existing paragraph (g)(2) be redesignated as
paragraph (j)(5) and revised to require that electronic storage of
records be initiated by the person making the inspection within 72
hours following completion of the inspection. Existing paragraph (g)(2)
requires that electronic storage be initiated within 24 hours of
completion of the inspection. FRA finds that giving track owners an
additional 48 hours to upload inspection records would provide needed
flexibility without negatively impacting safety. For example, where an
inspector does not have internet connection or experiences computer
failure, it may take more than 24 hours to upload the inspection
report. The new 72-hour requirement would also take into account the
possibility of technical issues occurring late on a Friday that cannot
be remedied until the following Monday, due to limited availability of
technical support personnel.
FRA proposed removing existing paragraph (g)(5), which requires
that the electronic system provide for maintenance of the inspection
records without corruption or loss of data. FRA finds that proposed
paragraph (j)(2), which would require that the track owner monitor the
database to ensure record accuracy, would make existing paragraph
(g)(5) redundant. FRA also proposed removing as redundant existing
paragraph (g)(6), which generally requires that track owners make paper
copies of electronic records available to FRA. Existing paragraph (f)
already requires track owners to make records available to FRA for
inspection and copying upon request, and would continue to do so as
redesignated paragraph (i). Finally, FRA proposed removing existing
paragraph (g)(7), which requires electronic track inspection records to
be kept available to persons who performed the inspections and to
persons performing subsequent inspections. FRA finds removal is
justified because the addition of proposed paragraph (h) would require
the same for all records, and therefore make the paragraph redundant.
Comments: FRA received no comments on the proposed changes to Sec.
213.241.
Final rule: Section 213.241 is revised as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.305 Designation of Qualified Individuals; General
Qualifications
Proposed rule: Proposed revisions to this section are intended to
mirror the relevant proposed revisions to Sec. 213.7, discussed above.
Section 213.305 addresses the qualification of individuals responsible
for the maintenance and inspection of Class 6 and above track.
Currently, paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3), and (c)(4) each require that a
qualified person ``[b]e authorized in writing'' or possess ``[w]ritten
authorization from the track owner.'' Although FRA expects that the
term ``written'' and ``in writing'' can be interpreted to encompass
both physical hardcopies of an authorization as well as electronic
versions, to avoid any possible confusion FRA proposed to remove the
terms ``written'' and ``in writing.'' These changes would make clear
that the required authorizations under these paragraphs may be recorded
and conveyed either in hardcopy or electronic form.
Further, FRA proposed to revise and reorganize paragraph (e) to
clarify the type of information track owners must include in their
records of designations made under paragraphs (a) through (d). First,
for the reasons stated above, the term ``written'' would be removed.
Records of designations made under Sec. 213.305 can be either in
physical or electronic form. FRA proposed to add new paragraph (e)(2)
to require records of designations include the date each designation
was made. The date of an individual's designation is relevant and
important information both to the track owner and to FRA, and FRA
expects most, if not all, track owners already include this in their
designation records. To incorporate this proposed revision, existing
paragraph (e)(2) would be redesignated as paragraph (e)(3).
FRA also proposed to remove the first sentence of existing
paragraph (e)(3), because it is redundant when considering the
requirements of Sec. 213.369. The second sentence of existing
paragraph (e)(3) would be redesignated as paragraph (f) and revised. As
under the existing regulation, a track owner would be required to make
the records kept under paragraph (e) available for inspection and
copying by FRA. FRA proposed rephrasing the sentence to require that
FRA make its request for records during normal business hours and give
the track owner ``reasonable notice'' before requiring production. The
meaning of the term ``reasonable notice'' would depend on the specific
facts of each situation (e.g., time of day, day of the week, number of
records requested, etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA's comment on the use of the term ``reasonable
notice'' is discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis
for Sec. 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.7 for
FRA's response to AAR/ASLRRA's comment regarding the use of the term
``reasonable notice.'' Additionally, FRA has identified a technical
error in paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3), and (c)(4) and will change
``successful completion of'' to ``successfully completed.'' This change
is not meant to alter the intent or meaning of the section.
Accordingly, Sec. 213.305 is revised as proposed in the NPRM, with the
changes noted above.
Section 213.365 Visual Track Inspections
Proposed rule: FRA proposed revisions to this section intended to
mirror the relevant proposed revisions to Sec. 213.233, discussed
above. FRA first proposed to revise the heading for Sec. 213.365 by
adding the word ``track'' after ``visual'' so that the heading reads
``Visual track inspections.'' Because other sections in part 213 cover
different types of inspections (e.g., automated inspections,
inspections of rail, etc.), the proposed heading change is simply
intended to clarify that this section deals specifically with visual
track inspections. This proposal would also make the heading for Sec.
213.365 consistent with the proposed revision to the heading for the
corresponding non-high-speed track section, Sec. 213.233. As discussed
above, FRA proposes to revise the heading for Sec. 213.233 so that the
headings are the same for both Sec. Sec. 213.233 and 213.365.
FRA also proposed revising paragraph (b) to change the terms
``riding over'' and ``passing over'' to ``traversing,'' and ``is
riding'' and ``are riding'' to ``traverses'' and ``traverse.''
Additionally, FRA proposed changing ``is actually'' to ``must be'' in
paragraph (b)(3). These changes are not meant to affect the meaning of
Sec. 213.365, but instead are made for grammatical consistency.
[[Page 63382]]
FRA proposed removing the last sentence of paragraph (b)(3), also
known as the high-density commuter line exception. It was FRA's
understanding that no railroads currently utilize this exception.
Paragraph (b)(3) requires, among other things, that each main track be
traversed by a vehicle or inspector on foot at least once every two
weeks, and every siding at least every month. The high-density commuter
line exception applies where track time does not permit on-track
vehicle inspection and where track centers are 15 feet or less apart
and exempts those operations from the inspection method requirements of
paragraph (b)(3). FRA's proposal to remove this exception is consistent
with NTSB recommendation R-14-11, section 11409 of the FAST Act, and
the proposal to remove the counterpart to this section in Sec.
213.233(b)(3), as discussed above in the section-by-section analysis
for Sec. 213.233(b)(3) and in section IV.B.i of the NPRM (see 84 FR
72530).
Comments: FRA received a comment from AAR/ASLRRA objecting to the
removal of the high-density commuter line exception. For a more
complete summary of the comment, please see the discussion in the
section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.233(b)(3), above.
Final rule: FRA has decided to adopt the proposal in the NPRM to
remove the high-density commuter line exception from part 213, as
explained in the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.233(b)(3).
Paragraph (b) is revised as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed two revisions to paragraph (c). First,
FRA proposed to add the word ``visual'' before ``track inspection'' in
the introductory text. This would simply make paragraph (c) consistent
with the heading for Sec. 213.365 and would have no effect on the
meaning of paragraph (c). Second, FRA proposed adding footnote 1 after
the word ``weekly'' in the table in paragraph (c). The footnote defines
the term ``weekly'' to be any seven-day period beginning on Sunday and
ending on Saturday. This definition is consistent with FRA's past
interpretation and enforcement practice.
Comments: FRA received no comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (c) is revised as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA also proposed to revise paragraph (d).
Specifically, FRA would add the phrase ``the Sec. 213.305 qualified''
at the beginning of the paragraph to clarify that ``the person'' making
the inspection that the existing rule text refers to is the qualified
track inspector designated under Sec. 213.305. Additionally, FRA
proposed adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (d) stating that any
subsequent movements to facilitate repairs on track that is out of
service must be authorized by a Sec. 213.305 qualified person. This
section is silent as to whether or when movement over track that is out
of service is permissible. FRA recognizes that certain movements are
necessary to facilitate repairs and therefore does not interpret or
enforce the regulatory language to bar such movements of equipment and
materials on track that is out of service. The proposed revision is
meant to embody that practice and interpretation and prevent possible
confusion.
Comments: FRA received no comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (d) is revised as proposed in the NPRM.
Section 213.369 Inspection Records
Proposed rule: Proposed revisions are intended to mirror the
relevant proposed revisions to Sec. 213.241, discussed above. FRA
proposed adding the phrase ``or otherwise certified'' after ``signed''
in paragraph (b), and thus require that records be ``signed or
otherwise certified by the person making the inspection.'' This is
meant to clarify that a record does not have to be physically signed by
the person making the inspection. The track owner can choose to use
other methods to allow an inspector to certify an inspection record,
provided that the method chosen accurately and securely identifies the
person making the inspection.
Next, FRA proposed to add three elements to the list of information
that must be included in an inspection record: The author of the
record, the type of track inspected, and the location of the
inspection. FRA expects this information is already included in most,
if not all, of the inspection records currently prepared by the
railroad industry. The proposal is therefore intended to emphasize the
importance of this information and should have little, if any, impact
on recordkeeping practice. The remaining edits to paragraph (b) are
simply technical edits that have no effect on the intent or effect of
the paragraph. Specifically, FRA would change ``owner'' to ``track
owner'' at the beginning of the last two sentences. FRA would also
remove ``either'' before the word ``maintained'' in the last sentence
and change ``10 days notice'' to ``10 days' notice.''
Comments: FRA received no comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (b) is therefore revised as proposed in the
NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA proposed redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and
(f) as paragraphs (g), (h), and (i), respectively, and revising them,
and adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f). Proposed paragraph (d)
would list the recordkeeping requirements for continuous testing
performed under Sec. 213.240. These are similar to the current
recordkeeping requirements for internal rail inspections conducted
under Sec. 213.339. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require the track
owner's continuous rail testing records include all information
required under proposed Sec. 213.240(e). Broadly, this would require
the track owner to produce a report containing a systematic listing of
all suspected locations, and is explained in greater detail above.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would require that the records state whether
the test is being conducted to satisfy the requirements for an internal
rail inspection under Sec. 213.339. As discussed in more detail above,
this is necessary information because it is relevant to whether the
track owner must comply with the field-verification time limits in
proposed Sec. 213.240(e). Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would require that
the continuous rail testing records include the date and time for the
beginning and end of each continuous test run, as well as the date and
time each suspect location was identified and field-verified. Proposed
paragraph (d)(4) would require that the continuous testing records
include the determination made for each suspect location after field
verification (including, at a minimum, the location and type of defect,
the size of the defect, and the initial remedial action taken, if
required, and the date thereof). Finally, proposed paragraph (d)(5)
would require that these records be kept for two years from the date of
the inspection, or one year after initial remedial action, whichever is
later.
Comments: FRA received no comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraph (d) is revised as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (e) would require any track owner
that elects to conduct continuous testing under Sec. 213.240 to
maintain records sufficient for monitoring and determining compliance
with all applicable regulations and make those records available to FRA
during regular business hours following reasonable notice. For example,
the track owner must keep sufficient records of procedures developed to
comply with Sec. 213.240(b), as well as qualification procedures under
Sec. 213.238. The meaning of the term ``reasonable notice'' would
depend on the specific facts of
[[Page 63383]]
each situation (e.g., time of day, day of the week, number of records
requested, etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA's comment on the use of the term ``reasonable
notice'' is discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis
for Sec. 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.7 for
FRA's response to AAR/ASLRRA's comment regarding the use of the term
``reasonable notice.'' Paragraph (e) is revised as proposed in the
NPRM.
Proposed rule: Proposed paragraph (f) states that track inspection
records, meaning each inspection record created under Sec. 213.369,
shall be available to persons who performed the inspections and to
persons performing subsequent inspections of the track segment. This is
vitally important to ensure the quality and effectiveness of track
inspections, and FRA expects that in most cases this is already being
done, as it is required, at least for electronic inspection records,
under existing Sec. 213.369(e)(7). A person performing a subsequent
inspection must have an understanding of the track condition during
previous inspections to recognize significant changes in the track
condition effectively as well as ensure that previously noted defects
are adequately protected, have been adequately remediated, or have not
degraded to a degree that requires further action.
Comments: FRA received no comments on this proposed change.
Final rule: Paragraph (f) is revised as proposed in the NPRM.
Proposed rule: As noted above, FRA proposed redesignating existing
paragraph (d) as paragraph (g), and revising it, principally by adding
to the end of the paragraph ``upon request during regular business
hours following reasonable notice.'' The meaning of the term
``reasonable notice'' would depend on the specific facts of each
situation (e.g., time of day, day of the week, number of records
requested, etc.).
Comments: AAR/ASLRRA comment on the use of the term ``reasonable
notice,'' which is discussed in more detail in the section-by-section
analysis for Sec. 213.7, above.
Final rule: See the section-by-section analysis for Sec. 213.7 for
FRA's response to AAR/ASLRRA's comment regarding the use of the term
``reasonable notice.'' Paragraph (g) is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.
Proposed rule: FRA also proposed redesignating existing paragraph
(e) as paragraph (h), and revising it. First, FRA first proposed to
reword the introductory language of existing paragraph (e) to make it
clearer that a track owner may create, retain, transmit, store, and
retrieve records by electronic means for purposes of complying with
this section. The proposed change is not meant to affect the meaning or
intent of this paragraph. Further, in redesignating paragraph (e) as
paragraph (h), FRA would remove existing paragraphs (e)(5) through (7).
Existing paragraph (e)(1) would be redesignated as paragraph (h)(3),
existing paragraph (e)(2) would be redesignated as paragraph (h)(5),
and existing paragraph (e)(3) would be redesignated as paragraph
(h)(4). Proposed new paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) would be added. FRA
finds the proposal would help ensure the integrity of electronic
records, while increasing clarity and allowing track owners additional
flexibility without negatively impacting safety.
Under proposed paragraph (h)(1), the system used to generate the
electronic records must meet all the requirements and include all the
information required under subpart G. Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would
require the track owner to monitor its electronic records database to
ensure record accuracy, and FRA would leave it up to the track owner
intentionally to determine the best way to effectively monitor,
protect, and maintain the integrity and accuracy of its records
database. FRA proposed that existing paragraph (e)(1) be redesignated
as paragraph (h)(3) and revised to require that the electronic system
be designed to uniquely identify the author of each record and prohibit
two persons from having the same electronic identity. This is a
simplified rephrasing of the requirements of existing paragraph (e)(1).
FRA proposed that existing paragraph (e)(3) be redesignated as
paragraph (h)(4) and slightly revised. Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would
require that the electronic system ensures each record cannot be
modified or replaced in the system once the record is completed. The
one meaningful change is that proposed paragraph (h)(4) would prohibit
modification once the record is completed, while existing paragraph
(e)(3) prohibits modification once the record is transmitted and
stored. FRA recognizes that there are times when an inspection record
may include information that cannot be entered until a later date, such
as the date of final repair. Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would therefore
allow for modification of a record, provided the modification is made
by the original author of the record or the author of the modification
is identified in the record, after the record has been transmitted but
before the record has been fully completed. This would not permit
someone other than the author of the record to modify existing
information at a later date, such as track measurements or listings of
reported defects.
FRA proposed that existing paragraph (e)(2) be redesignated as
paragraph (h)(5) and revised to require that electronic storage of
records be initiated by the person making the inspection within 72
hours following completion of the inspection. Existing paragraph (e)(2)
requires that electronic storage be initiated within 24 hours of
completion of the inspection. FRA finds that giving track owners an
additional 48 hours to upload inspection records would provide needed
flexibility without negatively impacting safety. For example, where an
inspector does not have internet connection or experiences computer
failure, it may take more than 24 hours to upload the inspection
report. The new 72-hour requirement would also take into account the
possibility of technical issues occurring late on a Friday that cannot
be remedied until the following Monday, due to limited availability of
technical support personnel.
FRA proposed removing existing paragraph (e)(5), which requires
that the electronic system provide for maintenance of the inspection
records without corruption or loss of data. FRA finds that proposed
paragraph (h)(2), which would require that the track owner monitor the
database to ensure record accuracy, would make existing paragraph
(e)(5) redundant. FRA also proposed removing as redundant existing
paragraph (e)(6), which generally requires that track owners make paper
copies of electronic records available to FRA. Existing paragraph (d)
already requires track owners to make records available to FRA for
inspection and copying upon request, and would continue to do so as
redesignated paragraph (g). Finally, FRA proposed removing existing
paragraph (e)(7), which requires electronic track inspection records to
be kept available to persons who performed the inspections and to
persons performing subsequent inspections. FRA finds removal is
justified because the addition of proposed paragraph (f) would require
the same for all records, and therefore make the paragraph redundant.
FRA is redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (i) and slightly
revising it for punctuation; no substantive change is intended.
Comments: FRA received no comments on these proposed changes.
Final rule: Paragraphs (h) and (i) are adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.
[[Page 63384]]
VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) and DOT's Administrative
Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures in 49 CFR part 5. This
rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the
estimated cost savings of this rule can be found in the rule's
Regulatory Impact Analysis, which FRA has prepared and placed in the
docket (docket number FRA-2018-0104). The analysis details estimated
costs and cost savings the railroad track owners regulated by the rule
are likely to see over a 10-year period.
FRA is revising its regulations governing the minimum safety
requirements for railroad track. The changes include: Permitting the
inspection of rail using continuous rail testing; allowing the use of
flange-bearing frogs in crossing diamonds; relaxing the guard check
gage limits on heavy-point frogs used in Class 5 track; removing the
high-density commuter line exception; and other miscellaneous
revisions.
The revisions will benefit railroad track owners and the public by
reducing unnecessary costs and incentivizing innovation, while
improving rail safety.
The following table shows the net cost savings of this rule, over
the 10-year analysis.
Net Cost Savings, in Millions
[2019 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
7% 3% Annualized 7% Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs........................................... $27.44 $33.24 $3.91 $3.90
Cost Savings.................................... 149.30 180.99 21.26 21.22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Net Cost Savings............................ 121.86 147.75 17.35 17.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annualized net cost savings will be $17.4 million (7%) and
$17.3 million (3%).
The additional flexibility of this rule will result in cost savings
for railroad track owners. Continuous rail testing will reduce overtime
hours for maintenance-of-way employees. The flange-bearing frog changes
will eliminate the required inspection time during the first week when
compared to current conditions under the FRA waiver. The continuous
testing, flange-bearing frog, and heavy-point frog changes will
eliminate the need for and costs of applying for waivers to implement
such a testing practice and track components. In fact, fewer slow
orders, which are temporary speed restrictions, will be needed with
continuous testing, which will result in cost savings.
The table below presents the estimated cost savings associated with
the rule, over the 10-year analysis.
Summary of Total Cost Savings, in Millions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
Section 7% 3% Annualized 7% Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Cost Savings......................... $0.194 $0.229 $0.028 $0.027
FBF Inspections................................. 0.184 0.215 0.026 0.025
Frog Waiver Savings............................. 0.013 0.016 0.002 0.002
Continuous Testing Labor Cost Savings........... 7.452 9.034 1.061 1.059
Slow Orders..................................... 141.329 171.340 20.122 20.086
Continuous Testing Waiver Savings............... 0.132 0.157 0.019 0.018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 149.305 180.991 21.258 21.218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annualized cost savings of this final rule will be $21.3
million (7%) and $21.2 million (3%).
If railroad track owners choose to take advantage of the cost
savings from this rule, they will incur additional labor costs
associated with continuous rail testing. These costs are voluntary
because track owners will only incur them if they choose to operate
continuous rail testing vehicles. The table below presents the
estimated costs, over the 10-year analysis.
Summary of Total Costs, in Millions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
7% 3% Annualized 7% Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous Testing.......................... $27.4 $33.2 $3.9 $3.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annualized costs of this final rule will be $3.9 million (at
both 7 percent and 3 percent).
The rule will also encourage the use of continuous rail testing,
which may reduce certain types of derailments. FRA does not have
sufficient data to estimate the reduction in derailments. However, FRA
expects the final rule to result in safety benefits from fewer
injuries, fatalities, and property and track damage.
[[Page 63385]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ((RFA) 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
and Executive Order 13272 (67 FR 53461, Aug. 16, 2002) require agency
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small
entities. When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires
the agency to ``prepare and make available for public comment an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis'' which will ``describe the
impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' (5 U.S.C. 603(a)).
Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of
preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Out of an abundance of caution, FRA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis to accompany the NPRM, which noted no
expected significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities; no comments were received on this analysis.
In this final rule, FRA is revising its regulations governing the
minimum safety requirements for railroad track. The changes include:
Permitting railroad track owners to inspect rail using continuous rail
testing; allowing the use of flange-bearing frogs in crossing diamonds;
relaxing the guard check gage limits on heavy point frogs used in Class
5 track; removing the high-density commuter line exception; and other
miscellaneous revisions. The revisions will benefit railroad track
owners and the public by reducing unnecessary costs and incentivizing
innovation, while improving rail safety. FRA estimates this final rule
will only minimally impact small railroads and any impact will likely
be beneficial.
Consistent with the findings in FRA's initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, and the lack of any comments received on it, the
Administrator of FRA hereby certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule are being
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
sections that contain the current and new information collection
requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Respondent Total annual Average time per annual Total cost
CFR section universe responses responses burden equivalent
hours \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213.4(f)--Excepted track-- 746 railroads.... 15 notices....... 10 minutes...... 2.5 $190
Notification to FRA about
removal of excepted track.
213.5(c)--Responsibility for 746 railroads.... 15 notices....... 1 hour.......... 15 1,140
compliance--Notification of
assignment to FRA.
213.7(a)-(b)--Designations: 746 railroads.... 2,500 documents.. 10 minutes...... 416.7 31,669
Names on list with written
authorizations.
213.17(a)--Waivers............ 746 railroads.... 10 petitions..... 2 hours......... 20 1,520
213.57(e)--Curves, elevation 746 railroads.... 4 requests....... 8 hours......... 32 2,432
and speed limitations--
Request to FRA for vehicle
type approval.
--(f) Written notification 746 railroads.... 4 notifications.. 2 hours......... 8 608
to FRA prior to
implementation of higher
curving speeds.
--(g) Written consent of 746 railroads.... 4 written 45 minutes...... 3 228
track owners obtained by consents.
railroad providing
service over that track.
213.110(a)--Gage restraint 746 railroads.... 1 notification... 45 minutes...... .8 61
measurement systems (GRMS)--
Implementing GRMS--notices &
reports.
--(g) GRMS vehicle output 746 railroads.... 1 report......... 5 minutes....... .1 8
reports.
--(h) GRMS vehicle 746 railroads.... 1 report......... 5 minutes....... .1 8
exception reports.
--(j) GRMS/PTLF-- 746 railroads.... 1 documented 1 hour.......... 1 76
procedures for data procedure.
integrity.
--(n) GRMS inspection 746 railroads.... 2 records........ 30 minutes...... 1 76
records.
213.118(a)-(c)--Continuous 438 railroads.... 10 plans......... 4 hours......... 40 3,040
welded rail (CWR)--Revised
plans w/procedures for CWR.
--(d) Notification to FRA 438 railroads.... 750 notifications 15 seconds...... 3.1 236
and RR employees of CWR to employees.
plan effective date.
--(e) Written submissions 438 railroads.... 5 written 2 hours......... 10 760
after plan disapproval. submissions.
--(e) Final FRA 438 railroads.... 5 amended plans.. 1 hour.......... 5 380
disapproval and plan
amendment.
213.234(f)--Automated 30 railroads..... 2,000 records.... 30 minutes...... 1,000 76,000
inspection of track
constructed with concrete
crossties--Recordkeeping
requirements.
213.237(b)(2)--Inspection of 65 railroads..... 4 requests....... 15 minutes...... 1 76
Rail--Detailed request to FRA
to change designation of a
rail inspection segment or
establish a new segment.
213.237(b)(3)--Notification to 65 railroads..... 1 notice to FRA + 15 minutes...... 4 304
FRA and all affected 15 bulletins.
employees of designation's
effective date after FRA's
approval/conditional approval.
--(d) Notice to FRA that 65 railroads..... 4 notices........ 15 minutes...... 1 76
service failure rate
target in paragraph (a)
of this section is not
achieved.
--(d) Explanation to FRA 65 railroads..... 4 letters of 15 minutes...... 1 76
as to why performance explanation/
target was not achieved Plans.
and provision to FRA of
remedial action plan.
213.238--Qualified operators-- 3 railroads + 5 250 records...... 5 minutes....... 20.8 1,581
Written or electronic of Testing Entities.
qualification \4\.
213.240(b)--Continuous Rail 12 railroads..... 4 procedures..... 8 hours......... 32 2,432
Testing--Procedures for
conducting continuous testing
(New requirement).
--(c) Type of rail test 12 railroads..... 25,000 documents/ 2 seconds....... 14 1,064
(continuous or stop-and- records.
verify)--Record (New
requirement).
[[Page 63386]]
--(c) Type of rail test 12 railroads..... 100 documents.... 1 minute........ 1.7 129
(continuous or stop-and-
verify)--Documented
changes (New requirement).
--(g) Annual reports to 12 railroads..... 12 reports....... 4 hours......... 48 3,648
FRA (New requirement).
213.241--Inspection records 746 railroads.... 1,375,000 records 10 minutes...... 229,166.7 17,416,669
\5\.
213.303(b)--Responsibility for 2 railroads...... 5 notices........ 30 minutes...... 2.5 190
compliance--Notification of
assignment to FRA.
213.305(a)-(c)--Designation of 2 railroads...... 20 written 30 minutes...... 10 760
qualified individuals; documents.
general qualifications--
Written authorization for
remedial actions.
--(e) Recordkeeping 2 railroads...... 200 records...... 10 minutes...... 33.3 2,531
requirements for
designations.
213.317(a)-(b)--Waivers....... 2 railroads...... 2 petitions...... 8 hours......... 16 1,216
213.329(e)--Curves, elevation 2 railroads...... 2 cover letters + 30 minutes + 16 33.5 hours 2,546
and speed limitations--FRA 2 technical hours + 15
approval of qualified vehicle reports + 2 minutes.
types based on results of diagrams.
testing.
--(f) Written notification 2 railroads...... 2 notices........ 2 hours......... 4 304
to FRA 30 days prior to
implementation of higher
curving speeds.
--(g) Written consent of 2 railroads...... 2 written 45 minutes...... 1.5 114
other affected track consents.
owners by railroad.
213.333(d)--Automated vehicle- 7 railroads...... 7 reports........ 1 hour.......... 7 532
based inspection systems--
Track Geometry Measurement
System (TGMS) output/
exception reports.
213.341(b)-(d)--Initial 2 railroads...... 800 records...... 2 minutes....... 26.7 2,029
inspection of new rail &
welds--Inspection records.
213.343(a)-(e)--Continuous 2 railroads...... 2 plans.......... 4 hours......... 8 608
welded rail (CWR)--Procedures
for installations and
adjustments of CWR.
--(h) Recordkeeping 2 railroads...... 8,000 records.... 2 minutes....... 266.7 20,269
requirements.
213.345(a)-(c)--Vehicle 2 railroads...... 2 program plans.. 120 hours....... 240 18,240
qualification testing--
Vehicle qualification program
for all vehicle types
operating at track Class 6
speeds or above.
--(d) Previously qualified 2 railroads...... 2 program plans.. 8 hours......... 16 1,216
vehicle types
qualification programs.
--(h) Written consent of 4 railroads...... 4 written 30 minutes...... 2 230
other affected track consents.
owners by railroad.
213.369(d)--Inspection 2 railroads...... 15,000 records... 10 minutes...... 2,500 190,000
Records--Record of inspection
of track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 746 railroads.... 1,429,776 N/A............. 234,016 17,785,272
responses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. For information or a copy of the
paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. Hodan Wells,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety,
Federal Railroad Administration, at 202-493-0440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface
Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes a 75-
percent overhead charge.
\4\ Includes burdens associated with proposed Sec.
213.240(d)(2).
\5\ Note: Each record of an inspection under Sec. Sec. 213.4,
213.119, 213.233, 213.235, and 213.237 is covered under Sec.
213.241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan
Wells, Federal Railroad Administration, via email to Ms. Wells at
[email protected].
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days
after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore,
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. FRA did not receive any OMB
or public comments on the information collection requirements contained
in the NPRM.
FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements that do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. The current OMB control number for part
213 is 2130-0010.
D. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this final rule consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council of
Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts
1500-1508, and FRA's NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 771
and determined that it is categorically excluded from environmental
review and therefore does not require the preparation of an
environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS).
Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an agency's NEPA
implementing regulations that do not normally have a significant impact
on the environment and therefore do not require either an EA or EIS.
See 40 CFR 1508.4. Specifically, FRA has determined that this final
rule is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review
pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15), ``[p]romulgation of rules, the
issuance of policy statements, the waiver or modification of existing
regulatory requirements, or discretionary approvals that do not result
in significantly increased emissions of air or water pollutants or
noise.''
The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise FRA's Track Safety
Standards to reduce unnecessary costs and incentivize innovation, while
improving rail safety. This rule does not directly or indirectly impact
any environmental resources and will not result in significantly
increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the
final rule is likely to result in safety
[[Page 63387]]
benefits. In analyzing the applicability of a CE, FRA must also
consider whether unusual circumstances are present that would warrant a
more detailed environmental review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has
concluded that no such unusual circumstances exist with respect to this
final regulation and it meets the requirements for categorical
exclusion under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking
has no potential to affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA
has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project
resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-670,
80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
E. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT
Order 5610.2(a) (91 FR 27534 May 10, 2012) require DOT agencies to
achieve environmental justice as part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social
and economic effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order
instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 12898
and requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, as
appropriate. FRA has evaluated this final rule under Executive Order
12898 and the DOT Order and has determined it would not cause
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority populations or low-income populations.
F. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10,
1999)), requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with
federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults
with State and local government officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism
implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to consult with
State and local officials in the process of developing the regulation.
FRA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined
that this final rule has no federalism implications, other than the
possible preemption of State laws under 49 U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not
apply, and preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for the
proposed rule is not required.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law). Section 202 of the Act (2
U.S.C. 1532) further requires that before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
This final rule will not result in such an expenditure, and thus
preparation of such a statement is not required.
H. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA evaluated this final rule in accordance
with Executive Order 13211 and determined that this regulatory action
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of the
Executive Order.
Executive Order 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth,'' requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine
whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural
gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. See 82 FR 16093 (March 31,
2017). FRA determined this final rule will not burden the development
or use of domestically produced energy resources.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Final Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 213 of
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 213--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 213 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; Sec. 403, Div. A,
Pub. L. 110-432, 122 Stat. 4885; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR
1.89.
Subpart A--General
0
2. Amend Sec. 213.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.1 Scope of part.
* * * * *
(b) Subparts A through F apply to track Classes 1 through 5.
Subpart G and 213.2, 213.3, 213.15, and 213.240 apply to track over
which trains are operated at speeds in excess of those permitted over
Class 5 track.
0
3. Amend Sec. 213.5 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.5 Responsibility for compliance.
(a) * * *
(3) Operate under authority of a person designated under Sec.
213.7(a), subject to conditions set forth in this part. If the
operation is on continuous welded rail (CWR) track, the person under
whose authority operations are conducted must also be designated under
Sec. 213.7(c).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 213.7 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii), (a)(3),
(b)(3),
[[Page 63388]]
(c)(4), and (e) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.7 Designation of qualified persons to supervise certain
renewals and inspect track.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) 1 year of experience in railroad track maintenance under
traffic conditions; or
(ii) A combination of experience in track maintenance and training
from a course in track maintenance or from a college level educational
program related to track maintenance.
* * * * *
(3) Authorization from the track owner to prescribe remedial
actions to correct or safely compensate for deviations from the
requirements of this part.
(b) * * *
(3) Authorization from the track owner to prescribe remedial
actions to correct or safely compensate for deviations from the
requirements of this part, pending review by a qualified person
designated under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) * * *
(4) Authorization from the track owner to prescribe remedial
actions to correct or safely compensate from deviation from the
requirements in these procedures and successfully completed a recorded
examination on those procedures as part of the qualification process.
* * * * *
(e) With respect to designations under paragraph (a) through (d) of
this section, each track owner shall maintain records of--
(1) Each designation in effect;
(2) The date each designation was made; and
(3) The basis for each designation, including the method used to
determine that the designated person is qualified.
(f) Each track owner shall keep designation records required under
paragraph (e) of this section readily available for inspection or
copying by the Federal Railroad Administration during regular business
hours, following reasonable notice.
0
5. Amend Sec. 213.9 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.9 Classes of track: operating speed limits.
* * * * *
(b) If a segment of track does not meet all of the requirements of
its intended class, it is reclassified to the next lowest class of
track for which it does meet all of the requirements of this part.
However, if the segment of track does not at least meet the
requirements of Class 1 track, operations may continue at Class 1
speeds for a period of not more than 30 days without bringing the track
into compliance, under the authority of a person designated under Sec.
213.7(a), after that person determines that operations may safely
continue and subject to any limiting conditions specified by such
person.
0
6. Revise Sec. 213.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 213.11 Restoration or renewal of track under traffic conditions.
If during a period of restoration or renewal, track is under
traffic conditions and does not meet all of the requirements prescribed
in this part, the work on the track shall be under the continuous
supervision of a person designated under Sec. 213.7(a) and, as
applicable, Sec. 213.7(c). The work on the track shall also be subject
to any limiting conditions specified by such person. The operating
speed cannot be more than the maximum allowable speed under Sec. 213.9
for the class of track concerned. The term ``continuous supervision''
as used in this section means the physical presence of that person at
the job site. However, since the work may be performed over a large
area, it is not necessary that each phase of the work be done under the
visual supervision of that person.
Subpart D--Track Structure
0
7. Amend Sec. 213.113 by revising the second sentence of paragraph (b)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 213.113 Defective rails.
* * * * *
(b) * * * Except as provided in Sec. 213.240, the track owner must
verify the indication within four hours, unless the track owner has an
indication of the existence of a defect that requires remedial action
A, A2, or B identified in the table contained in paragraph (c) of this
section, in which case the track owner must immediately verify the
indication. * * *
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 213.137 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.137 Frogs.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the
flangeway depth measured from a plane across the wheel-bearing area of
a frog on Class 1 track shall not be less than 1\3/8\ inches, or less
than 1\1/2\ inches on Classes 2 through 5 track.
* * * * *
(e) The flange depth requirements in paragraph (a) do not apply to
a frog designed as a flange-bearing frog (FBF) used in a crossing
diamond in Classes 2 through 5 track, provided that the crossing angle
is greater than 20 degrees unless movable guard rails are used.
0
9. Revise Sec. 213.143 to read as follows:
Sec. 213.143 Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage.
(a) The guard check and guard face gages in frogs shall be within
the following limits--
Table 1 to Sec. 213.143(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guard check gage Guard face gage
---------------------------------------------------
The distance between the
gage line of a frog to
the guard line \1\ of The distance between
Class of track its guard rail or guard lines,\1\ measured
guarding face, measured across the track at
across the track at right angles to the gage
right angles to the gage line,\2\ may not be more
line,\2\ may not be less than--
than--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 track............................................... 4'6\1/8\'' 4'5\1/4\''
Class 2 track............................................... 4'6\1/4\'' 4'5\1/8\''
Class 3 and 4 track......................................... 4'6\3/8\'' 4'5\1/8\''
Class 5 track............................................... \3\ 4'6\1/2\'' 4'5''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A line along that side of the flangeway which is nearer to the center of the track and at the same elevation
as the gage line.
[[Page 63389]]
\2\ A line five-eighths of an inch below the top of the center line of the head of the running rail, or
corresponding location of the tread portion of the track structure.
\3\ See paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) For any heavy-point frog (HPF) on Class 5 track, the guard
check gage may be less than 4'6\1/2\'' but not be less than 4'6\3/8\'',
provided that:
(1) Each HPF and guard rails on both rails through the turnout are
equipped with at least three serviceable through-gage plates with
elastic rail fasteners and guard rail braces that permit adjustment of
the guard check gage without removing spikes or other fasteners from
the crossties; and
(2) Each HPF bears an identifying mark applied by either the track
owner, railroad, or the frog manufacturer that identifies the frog as
an HPF.
Subpart F--Inspection
0
10. Amend Sec. 213.233 by revising the section heading, paragraph (b),
the first entry in the table in paragraph (c), and paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 213.233 Visual track inspections.
* * * * *
(b) Each inspection shall be made on foot or by traversing the
track in a vehicle at a speed that allows the person making the
inspection to visually inspect the track structure for compliance with
this part. However, mechanical, electrical, and other track inspection
devices may be used to supplement visual inspection. If a vehicle is
used for visual inspection, the speed of the vehicle may not be more
than 5 m.p.h. when traversing track crossings and turnouts; otherwise,
the inspection vehicle speed shall be at the sole discretion of the
inspector, based on track conditions and inspection requirements. When
traversing the track in a vehicle, the inspection will be subject to
the following conditions--
(1) One inspector in a vehicle may inspect up to two tracks at one
time provided that the inspector's visibility remains unobstructed by
any cause and that the second track is not centered more than 30 feet
from the track the inspector traverses;
(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may inspect up to four tracks at
a time provided that the inspectors' visibility remains unobstructed by
any cause and that each track being inspected is centered within 39
feet from the track the inspectors traverse;
(3) Each main track must be traversed by the vehicle or inspected
on foot at least once every two weeks, and each siding must be
traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot at least once every
month; and
(4) Track inspection records shall indicate which track(s) are
traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot as outlined in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section.
(c) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track Type of track Required frequency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excepted track, and Class 1, 2, and 3 Main track and sidings...... Weekly \1\ with at least 3 calendar days' interval between inspections, or
track. before use, if the track is used less than once a week, or twice weekly with
at least 1 calendar day interval between inspections, if the track carries
passenger trains \2\ or more than 10 million gross tons of traffic during the
preceding calendar year.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An inspection week is defined as a seven (7) day period beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday.
\2\ ``Twice weekly'' inspection requirement for track carrying regularly scheduled passenger trains does not apply where passengers train service
consists solely of tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations as defined in 49 CFR 238.5 and the following conditions are met for an
inspection week: (1) No passenger service is operated during the inspection week, or (2) if passenger service is operated during the inspection week:
(i) The passenger service is operated only on a weekend or a 3-day extended weekend (weekend plus a contiguous Monday or Friday), and (ii) an
inspection is conducted no more than 1 calendar day before a weekend or 3-day extended weekend on which passenger service is to be operated.
(d) If the Sec. 213.7 qualified person making the inspection finds
a deviation from the requirements of this part, the inspector shall
immediately initiate remedial action. Any subsequent movements to
facilitate repairs on track that is out of service must be authorized
by a Sec. 213.7 qualified person.
0
11. Add Sec. 213.240 to read as follows:
Sec. 213.240 Continuous rail testing.
(a) Track owners may elect to use continuous rail testing to
satisfy the requirements for conducting internal rail inspections under
Sec. 213.237 or Sec. 213.339. When a track owner utilizes the
continuous rail test inspection process under the requirements of this
section, the track owner is exempt from the requirements of Sec.
213.113(b); all other requirements of Sec. 213.113 apply.
(b) Track owners shall adopt the necessary procedures for
conducting continuous testing. At a minimum, the procedures must
conform to the requirements of this section and ensure the following:
(1) Test data is timely and accurately transmitted and analyzed;
(2) Suspect locations are accurately identified for field
verification;
(3) Suspect locations are categorized and prioritized according to
their potential severity;
(4) Suspect locations are accurately field-verified; and
(5) Suspect locations will be designated following field
verification.
(c) The track owner must designate and record the type of rail test
(continuous or stop-and-verify) to be conducted prior to commencing the
test over a track segment and make those records available to FRA upon
request during regular business hours following reasonable notice. If
the type of rail test changes following commencement of the test, the
change must be documented and include the time the test was started and
when it was changed, and the milepost where the test started and where
it was changed. If the track owner intends to conduct a continuous
test, the track owner must designate and record whether the test is
being conducted to satisfy the requirements for an internal rail
inspection under Sec. 213.237 or Sec. 213.339. This documentation
must be provided to FRA upon request during regular business hours
following reasonable notice.
[[Page 63390]]
(d)(1) Continuous rail test inspection vehicle operators must be
qualified under Sec. 213.238, with the exception of Sec.
213.238(b)(3).
(2) Internal rail inspection data collected during continuous rail
tests must be reviewed and interpreted by a person qualified to
interpret the equipment responses. Each employer of a person qualified
to interpret equipment responses shall maintain written or electronic
records of each qualification in effect, including the name of the
employee, the equipment to which the qualification applies, the date of
qualification, and the date of the most recent reevaluation of the
qualification, if any. Records concerning these qualifications,
including copies of training programs, training materials, and recorded
examinations shall be kept at a location designated by the employer and
available for inspection and copying by FRA during regular business
hours, following reasonable notice.
(3) All suspect locations must be field-verified by a person
qualified under Sec. 213.238.
(e) At a minimum, the continuous rail test process must produce a
report containing a systematic listing of all suspected locations that
may contain any of the defects listed in the table in Sec. 213.113(c),
identified so that a person qualified under Sec. 213.238 can
accurately locate and field-verify each suspected defect.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(6) of this section, and
subject to the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this
section, if the continuous rail test inspection vehicle indicates a
suspect location, field verification must be conducted within 84 hours
of the indication of the suspect location.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(6) of this section, and
subject to the requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section, if the
continuous rail test inspection vehicle indicates a suspect location
containing a suspected defect that, if verified, requires remedial
action A, A2, or B identified in the table contained in Sec.
213.113(c), the track owner must field-verify the suspect location no
more than 36 hours from indication of the suspect location.
(3) If the continuous rail test inspection vehicle indicates a
broken rail with rail separation, the track owner must have procedures
to ensure that adequate protection is immediately implemented.
(4) A suspect location is not considered a defect under Sec.
213.113(c) until it has been field-verified by a person qualified under
Sec. 213.238. After the suspect location is field-verified and
determined to be a defect, the track owner must immediately perform all
required remedial actions prescribed in Sec. 213.113(a).
(5) Any suspected location not field-verified within the time
required under paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section must be
protected by applying the most restrictive remedial action under Sec.
213.113(c) for the suspected type and size of the suspected defect. The
remedial action must be applied over a sufficient segment of track to
assure coverage of the suspected defect location until field-verified.
(6) A continuous rail test that is not conducted to satisfy the
requirements for an internal rail inspection under Sec. 213.237 or
Sec. 213.339, and has been properly designated and recorded by the
track owner under paragraph (c) of this section, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1), (2), and (5) of this section.
(f) Each suspect location must be recorded with repeatable accuracy
that allows for the location to be accurately located for subsequent
verification and, as necessary, remedial action.
(g) Within 45 days following the end of each calendar year, each
track owner utilizing continuous rail testing must provide the FRA
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer with
an annual report, in a reasonably usable format, or its native
electronic format, containing at least the following information for
each track segment requiring internal rail inspection under Sec.
213.237 or Sec. 213.339:
(1) The track owner's name;
(2) The railroad division and subdivision;
(3) The segment identifier, milepost limits, and length of each
segment;
(4) The track number;
(5) The class of track;
(6) The annual million gross tons over the track;
(7) The total number of stop-and-verify rail tests and the total
number of continuous rail tests over each track segment;
(8) The total number of defects identified over each track segment;
and
(9) The total number of service failures on each track segment.
0
12. Amend Sec. 213.241 by revising paragraphs (b), (f), and (g) and
adding paragraphs (h) through (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.241 Inspection records.
* * * * *
(b) Each record of an inspection under Sec. Sec. 213.4, 213.119,
213.233, and 213.235 shall be prepared on the day the inspection is
made and signed or otherwise certified by the person making the
inspection. Records shall specify the author of the record, the type of
track inspected, date and location of inspection, location and nature
of any deviation from the requirements of this part, and the remedial
action taken by the person making the inspection. The track owner shall
designate the location(s) where each original record shall be
maintained for at least one year after the inspection covered by the
record. The track owner shall also designate one location, within 100
miles of each State in which it conducts operations, where copies of
records that apply to those operations are maintained or can be viewed
following 10 days' notice by the Federal Railroad Administration.
* * * * *
(f) Records of continuous rail testing under Sec. 213.240 shall--
(1) Include all information required under Sec. 213.240(e);
(2) State whether the test is being conducted to satisfy the
requirements for an internal rail inspection under Sec. 213.237;
(3) List the date(s) and time(s) of the continuous rail test data
collection, including the date and time of the start and end of the
test run, and the date and time each suspect location was identified
and field-verified;
(4) Include the determination made after field verification of each
suspect location, including the:
(i) Location and type of defect found;
(ii) Size of defect; and
(iii) Initial remedial action taken, if required, and the date
thereof; and
(5) Be retained for at least two years after the inspection and for
at least one year after initial remedial action is taken, whichever is
later.
(g) Track owners that elect to utilize continuous rail testing
under Sec. 213.240 shall maintain records of all continuous rail
testing operations sufficient for monitoring and determining compliance
with all applicable regulations and shall make those records available
to FRA during regular business hours following reasonable notice.
(h) Track inspection records shall be kept available to persons who
performed the inspections and to persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment.
(i) Each track owner required to keep inspection records under this
section shall make those records available for inspection and copying
by FRA upon request during regular business hours following reasonable
notice.
(j) For purposes of complying with the requirements of this
section, a track owner may create, retain, transmit, store, and
retrieve records by electronic means provided that--
[[Page 63391]]
(1) The system used to generate the electronic record meets all
requirements and contains the information required under this subpart;
(2) The track owner monitors its electronic records database to
ensure record accuracy;
(3) The electronic system is designed to uniquely identify the
author of the record. No two persons shall have the same electronic
identity;
(4) The electronic system ensures that each record cannot be
modified in any way, or replaced, once the record is completed;
(5) The electronic storage of each record shall be initiated by the
person making the inspection within 72 hours following the completion
of that inspection; and
(6) Any amendment to a record shall be electronically stored apart
from the record which it amends. Each amendment to a record shall be
uniquely identified as to the person making the amendment.
Subpart G--Train Operations at Track Classes 6 and Higher
0
13. Amend Sec. 213.305 by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3), (c)(4),
and (e) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.305 Designation of qualified individuals; general
qualifications.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Be authorized by the track owner to prescribe remedial actions
to correct or safely compensate for deviations from the requirements of
this subpart and successfully completed a recorded examination on this
subpart as part of the qualification process.
(b) * * *
(3) Be authorized by the track owner to prescribe remedial actions
to correct or safely compensate for deviations from the requirements in
this subpart and successfully completed a recorded examination on this
subpart as part of the qualification process.
(c) * * *
(4) Authorization from the track owner to prescribe remedial
actions to correct or safely compensate for deviations from the
requirements in those procedures and successfully completed a recorded
examination on those procedures as part of the qualification process.
The recorded examination may be written, or it may be a computer file
with the results of an interactive training course.
* * * * *
(e) With respect to designations under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and
(d) of this section, each track owner shall maintain records of:
(1) Each designation in effect;
(2) The date each designation was made; and
(3) The basis for each designation, including but not limited to:
(i) The exact nature of any training courses attended and the dates
thereof; and
(ii) The manner in which the track owner has determined a
successful completion of that training course, including test scores or
other qualifying results.
(f) Each track owner shall keep these designation records readily
available for inspection or copying by the Federal Railroad
Administration during regular business hours, following reasonable
notice.
0
14. Amend Sec. 213.365 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(b) through (d) to read as follow:
Sec. 213.365 Visual track inspections.
* * * * *
(b) Each inspection shall be made on foot or by traversing the
track in a vehicle at a speed that allows the person making the
inspection to visually inspect the track structure for compliance with
this part. However, mechanical, electrical, and other track inspection
devices may be used to supplement visual inspection. If a vehicle is
used for visual inspection, the speed of the vehicle may not be more
than 5 m.p.h. when traversing track crossings and turnouts; otherwise,
the inspection vehicle speed shall be at the sole discretion of the
inspector, based on track conditions and inspection requirements. When
traversing the track in a vehicle, the inspection will be subject to
the following conditions--
(1) One inspector in a vehicle may inspect up to two tracks at one
time provided that the inspector's visibility remains unobstructed by
any cause and that the second track is not centered more than 30 feet
from the track upon which the inspector traverses;
(2) Two inspectors in one vehicle may inspect up to four tracks at
a time provided that the inspectors' visibility remains unobstructed by
any cause and that each track being inspected is centered within 39
feet from the track upon which the inspectors traverse;
(3) Each main track must be traversed by a vehicle or inspected on
foot at least once every two weeks, and each siding must be traversed
by a vehicle or inspected on foot at least once every month; and
(4) Track inspection records shall indicate which track(s) are
traversed by the vehicle or inspected on foot as outlined in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section.
(c) Each visual track inspection shall be made in accordance with
the following schedule--
Table 1 to Sec. 213.365(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of track Required frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6, 7, and 8....................... Twice weekly \1\ with at least a 2
calendar day's interval between
inspections.
9................................. Three times per week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An inspection week is defined as a seven (7) day period beginning on
Sunday and ending on Saturday.
(d) If the Sec. 213.305 qualified person making the inspection
finds a deviation from the requirements of this part, the person shall
immediately initiate remedial action. Any subsequent movements to
facilitate repairs on track that is out of service must be authorized
by a Sec. 213.305 qualified person.
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec. 213.369 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) through (f)
and adding paragraphs (g) through (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.369 Inspection records.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each
record of an inspection under Sec. 213.365 shall be prepared on the
day the inspection is made and signed or otherwise certified by the
person making the inspection. Records shall specify the author of the
record, the type of track inspected, date of inspection, location of
inspection, nature of any deviation from the requirements of this part,
and the remedial action taken by the person making the inspection. The
track owner shall designate the location(s) where each original record
shall be maintained for at least one year after the inspection covered
by the record. The track owner shall also designate one location,
within 100 miles of each State in which it conducts operations, where
copies of records that apply to those operations are maintained or can
be viewed following 10 days' notice by the Federal Railroad
Administration.
* * * * *
(d) Records of continuous rail testing under Sec. 213.240 shall--
(1) Include all information required under Sec. 213.240(e);
(2) State whether the test is being conducted to satisfy the
requirements for an internal rail inspection under Sec. 213.339;
(3) List the date(s) and time(s) of the continuous rail test data
collection, including the date and time of the start and end of the
test run, and the date and
[[Page 63392]]
time each suspect location was identified and field-verified;
(4) Include the determination made after field verification of each
suspect location, including the:
(i) Location and type of defect found;
(ii) Size of defect; and
(iii) Initial remedial action taken, if required, and the date
thereof; and
(5) Be retained for at least two years after the inspection and for
at least one year after initial remedial action is taken, whichever is
later.
(e) Track owners that elect to utilize continuous rail testing
under Sec. 213.240 shall maintain records of all continuous rail
testing operations sufficient for monitoring and determining compliance
with all applicable regulations and shall make those records available
to FRA during regular business hours following reasonable notice.
(f) Track inspection records shall be kept available to persons who
perform the inspections and to persons performing subsequent
inspections.
(g) Each track owner required to keep inspection records under this
section shall make those records available for inspection and copying
by the Federal Railroad Administration upon request during regular
business hours following reasonable notice.
(h) For purposes of compliance with the requirements of this
section, a track owner may create, retain, transmit, store, and
retrieve records by electronic means provided that--
(1) The system used to generate the electronic record meets all
requirements and contains the information required under this subpart;
(2) The track owner monitors its electronic records database to
ensure record accuracy;
(3) The electronic system is designed to uniquely identify the
author of the record. No two persons shall have the same electronic
identity;
(4) The electronic system ensures that each record cannot be
modified in any way, or replaced, once the record is completed;
(5) The electronic storage of each record shall be initiated by the
person making the inspection within 72 hours following the completion
of that inspection; and
(6) Any amendment to a record shall be electronically stored apart
from the record which it amends. Each amendment to a record shall be
uniquely identified as to the person making the amendment.
(i) Each vehicle/track interaction safety record required under
Sec. 213.333(g) and (m) shall be made available for inspection and
copying by the FRA at the locations specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Quintin Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-18339 Filed 10-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
