Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Inspections, 84845-84861 [2024-24153]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on communities with
environmental justice (EJ) concerns to
the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. The EPA defines EJ as
‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.’’ The EPA further defines the
term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no
group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
The Olympic Region Clean Air
Agency did not evaluate environmental
justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis
and did not consider EJ in this action.
Due to the nature of the action being
taken here, this action is expected to
have a neutral impact on the air quality
of the affected area. Consideration of EJ
is not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for communities
with EJ concerns.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 18, 2024.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2024–24714 Filed 10–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 213
[Docket No. FRA–2024–0032]
RIN 2130–AC96
Track Geometry Measurement System
(TGMS) Inspections
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
FRA is proposing to revise its
regulations governing the minimum
safety requirements for railroad track.
The proposed changes would require all
Class I and II railroads, as well as
intercity passenger railroads and
commuter railroads, to operate a
qualifying Track Geometry
Measurement System (TGMS), a type of
automated track inspection (ATI)
technology, at specified frequencies on
all Class 1 through 5 mainline and
controlled siding track that transports:
annual tonnage greater than 10 million
gross tons (MGT); regularly scheduled
passenger rail service; or trains
containing hazardous materials. FRA
also proposes increasing the required
frequency of TGMS inspections on Class
6 track.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by December 23, 2024.
Comments received after that date will
be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expense or
delay.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Comments related to
Docket No. FRA–2024–0032 may be
submitted by going to https://www.
regulations.gov and following the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name, docket
number (FRA–2024–0032), and
Regulatory Identification Number (RIN)
for this rulemaking (2130–AC96). All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.
regulations.gov; this includes any
personal information. Please see the
Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted
comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
84845
online instructions for accessing the
docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: YuJiang 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, Senior
Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, W31–216,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202–
853–4784.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority
III. Background
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by
Executive Order 14094
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
F. Environmental Impact
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental
Justice)
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Energy Impact
J. Privacy Act Statement
K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4)
I. Executive Summary
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
ATI technologies have been evolving
since the 1970s and FRA has been
researching ATI technology, including
TGMS, for many years. This effort has
included multiple FRA-authored or
sponsored technical reports,1 as well as
1 See e.g., Autonomous Track Geometry
Measurement Technology Design, Development,
and Testing (2018), available at https://downloads.
regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_
5.pdf; Evaluation of the Federal Railroad
Administration’s Autonomous Track Geometry
Measurement System Research and Development
Program (2016), available at https://railroads.dot.
gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/17086/ATGMS%
20final%20report_final.pdf; FRA Autonomous
Track Geometry Measurement System Technology
Development—Past, Present, and Future (2014),
available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/
FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_1.pdf;
Development and Use of FRA Autonomous Track
Geometry Measurement System Technology (2014),
available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/
FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_3.pdf;
Development of Autonomous Track Geometry
Measurement Systems for Overall Track
Assessment (2011), available at https://downloads.
regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_
4.pdf; Autonomous Track Inspection Systems—
Today and Tomorrow (2009), available at https://
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
Continued
24OCP1
84846
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
FRA-approved Test Programs (49 CFR
211.51) with nearly every Class I
railroad,2 to evaluate the effectiveness of
this technology. Based on its years of
research into TGMS, as well as its own
Automated Track Inspection Program
(ATIP) and the Class I Test Programs,
FRA acknowledges the safety benefits of
this technology, specifically its ability to
quickly and accurately detect small
changes in track geometry. FRA notes
that TGMS is not a substitute for visual
track inspections, which inspect for
numerous conditions aside from track
geometry and remain essential to
ensuring railroad safety.
Today, every Class I and II railroad
uses some form of TGMS to measure
track geometry. FRA regulation already
requires TGMS inspections for highspeed track (Class 6 and above) as well
as lower-speed track with cant
deficiency of higher than 5 inches.3
While these existing requirements are
applicable to a relatively small subset of
railroads in the United States, FRA’s
research indicates that all railroads
covered by this proposed rulemaking
are already performing TGMS
inspections on their networks at or
above the frequencies FRA is proposing
in this rule. Therefore, the purpose of
this rulemaking is to codify this
industry practice while also setting
baseline requirements for areas such as
TGMS calibration, recordkeeping, defect
remediation timeframes, and training.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Summary of Major Provisions
FRA is proposing regulations to
amend 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety
Standards (TSS), which prescribe the
minimum safety requirements for
railroad track. The proposed changes
would require all Class I and II
railroads, as well as intercity passenger
railroads and commuter railroads, to
operate a qualifying TGMS, at specified
frequencies on all Class 1 through 5
mainline and controlled siding track
that transports: (1) annual tonnage
greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly
scheduled passenger rail service; or (3)
trains containing hazardous materials,
as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. FRA also
proposes increasing the required
frequency of TGMS inspections on Class
6 track.
Currently, the TSS require TGMS
inspections for high-speed track (Class 6
downloads.regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/
attachment_2.pdf.
2 See Docket Numbers FRA–2018–0091 (BNSF);
FRA–2019–0099 (NS); FRA–2020–0013 (CSX);
FRA–2020–0014 (CN); FRA–2020–0031 (UP); FRA–
2020–0056 (CP) (available on www.regulations.gov).
3 See 49 CFR 213.57(i), 213.333. These TGMS
inspections are in addition to the visual inspections
required by other sections of part 213.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
through 9), and lower speed track (Class
1 through 5) where the cant deficiency
is more than 5 inches. As noted above,
FRA’s research indicates that all the
railroads that would be subject to this
proposed rule are already performing all
visual inspections required by the TSS
in addition to voluntarily performing
TGMS inspections at or above the
frequency that would be required by
this NPRM. Thus, this NPRM would
codify this industry practice as well as
set forth requirements that include
remedial action of detected track
geometry defects within a specified
timeframe, training, and recordkeeping.
The NPRM proposes adding 49 CFR
213.236 to 49 CFR part 213, subpart F,
and making conforming changes to
§ 213.333 to require TGMS inspections
at least three times within a 365-day
period on Class 1 through 5 mainline
and controlled siding tracks that meets
one of three stated requirements, and all
of Class 6 track. There would be no
change to the current frequency
requirement for Class 7 and above track.
The TGMS must be capable of
transmitting data in a manner that
permits the track owner to take proper
remedial action within one hour of
detection of a defect. This one-hour
timeframe would represent the
maximum permitted time between
when a TGMS detects a geometry defect
and when a track owner must take
remedial action.
The NPRM also proposes certain
recordkeeping and training
requirements for TGMS inspections, as
well as minimum requirements for what
must be included in TGMS reports.
The NPRM also proposes certain
changes to § 213.241 and identical
changes to § 213.339. FRA proposes
updating the list of types of inspections
that are required to produce reports that
conform with the requirements of
§§ 213.241(b) and 213.339(b), most
significantly adding special inspections
(§§ 213.239 and 213.367) to this list.
These special visual inspections are
required after a specific occurrence,
such as a fire or flood or storm, that may
have damaged the track structure. Under
current FRA enforcement practices,
these inspections have historically not
been required to be documented.
Documenting the data, as proposed will
help railroads to reduce risk of track
damage from these events by ensuring
the inspections are performed, if
possible, prior to train traffic. Also,
these inspections improve FRA
oversight since without them, it can be
difficult to confirm that a required
inspection was performed. Further, FRA
proposes revising the requirement for
electronic recordkeeping to add
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
additional safeguards such as requiring
training on the proper use of the system,
access controls, and an information
technology security program to ensure
adequate integrity of the system.
Benefits and Costs
FRA analyzed the economic impact of
this proposed rule over a 10-year period
and estimated its benefits and costs.
FRA expects the proposed rule to
enhance safety and promote innovation.
According to FRA’s Railroad Equipment
Accident Incident Database,4 Class I and
Class II railroads reported over $191.6
million in total damages from track
geometry caused accidents over the past
10 years from 2014 to 2023. FRA
expects the reduction in track-related
accidents due to the proposed rule’s
one-hour remediation requirement to
partially offset the cost of the proposed
rule. Section V.A of this document
describes more fully the benefits and
costs that would result from issuing this
rule.
The proposed rule would require
track owners to take proper remedial
action no later than one hour following
the identification of any track geometry
exception to the class of track identified
by the TGMS system. FRA expects the
affected track owners would be required
to hire a total of 94 new maintenanceof-way (MOW) employees to accomplish
this proposed requirement.
The proposed rule would also require
additional recordkeeping of all track
geometry exceptions detected by the
TGMS vehicle. The report and any
revisions must be documented, signed,
certified by a § 213.7(b) qualified
employee, and made available to FRA
upon request. The track owner would be
responsible for training MOW
employees, recordkeeping requirements,
and record storage and maintenance.
FRA estimates all affected track owners
would be required to provide one hour
of training to each of their
approximately 10,000 MOW employees
during the first year after the proposed
rule goes into effect. FRA estimates
additional training would be required
starting in the second year after the
proposed rule goes into effect as newly
hired maintenance workers replace the
anticipated 2 percent of maintenance
workers expected to depart due to
attrition. Overall, FRA estimates the
proposed rule would cost the affected
track owners $123.4 million discounted
at a 2 percent rate over the 10-year
period, as shown in Table ES–1.
4 See Railroad Equipment Accident Database
(Form 54) at https://data.transportation.gov/
Railroads/Railroad-Equipment-Accident-IncidentSource-Data-F/aqxq-n5hy/about_data.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
84847
TABLE ES–1—SUMMARY OF TOTAL NPRM COSTS OVER THE 10-YEAR PERIOD
Impact
Undiscounted
Present value
3%
($)
Present value
2%
($)
Employment .....................................................................................................
Training ............................................................................................................
$122,808,067
837,480
95,839,164
750,278
116,397,525
796,637
122,570,434
809,594
Total cost ..................................................................................................
123,645,547
96,589,442
117,194,162
123,380,028
Annualized
3%
($)
Annualized
2%
($)
Impact
Employment ...
Training ..........
Total cost
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Present value
7%
($)
II. Legal Authority
Section 20103 of title 49 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) explicitly grants
FRA comprehensive authority over all
areas of railroad safety and provides
that, ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation,
as necessary, 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
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970. The
Secretary delegated this authority to act
under sec. 20103 to the Federal Railroad
Administrator.5
Pursuant to this authority, FRA
published the first TSS on October 20,
1971. It was meant to be an evolving set
of safety requirements subject to
continuous revision, thus allowing the
regulations to keep pace with industry
innovations and agency research and
development. The TSS covers numerous
areas such as drainage, vegetation, track
geometry, and track structure.
Additionally, the TSS includes specific
requirements for different types of
inspections, at specific frequencies,
meant to ensure the defective conditions
covered under other sections of the TSS
are found and remediated prior to them
posing a safety risk. These inspection
requirements are vitally important to
ensuring that the safety requirements in
the TSS accomplish their purpose of
ensuring railroad safety by requiring
railroad to actually look for the
defective conditions covered by the TSS
and, if found, repair them.
As explained in more detail below,
many years of research, development,
and real-world use has proven the
effectiveness of TGMS inspections at
detecting geometry conditions. These
inspections, when used as a supplement
to the currently required visual
inspections, have been proven to
increase railroad safety by detecting
5 49
CFR 1.89.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
more geometry conditions and, in many
instances, due to the sensitivity of the
systems, detecting these conditions
earlier in their degradation process.
Thus, TGMS inspections fall squarely
within FRA’s authority to regulate areas
of railroad safety.
III. Background
ATI technologies have been evolving
since the 1970s and, with advances in
rail safety, the number of track-caused
derailments in the United States has
steadily decreased since that time. In
recent years, however, the rate of the
decrease has slowed. New and
alternative track inspection
methodologies and associated
technologies are being developed to
help continue to drive down the number
of track-caused derailments.
Technological advancements, including
ATI and other emerging technologies,
have become a key element of track
asset management and safety assurance
practices. TGMS, ground penetrating
radar, track imaging systems, ultrasonic
rail flaw detection systems, machine
learning-based track component (visual)
inspection systems, vertical track
deflection systems, and Lidar 3–D
scanning systems are all now used to
measure various aspects of track health.
Today, every Class I railroad uses
some form of TGMS to measure track
geometry. Track geometry 6 is a
critically important parameter for
assessing the condition of railroad track
and maintaining safety. Class II
railroads, and even some smaller
railroads, also utilize this technology.
FRA, itself, runs a fleet of track
inspection cars under its ATIP,
6 Track geometry generally refers to the
parameters listed in 49 CFR part 213, subpart C, as
well as 49 CFR 213.323 through 213.332. This
includes gage (the distance between the two rails),
alinement (how straight the rails are), crosslevel
(the difference in the height of the two rails), and
profile (how level the two rails are).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Annualized
7%
($)
13,645,341
106,822
13,645,341
93,390
13,645,341
90,129
13,752,163
13,738,731
13,735,470
conducting compliance surveys on over
150,000 miles of track annually.
TGMS provides an objective method
to evaluate track conditions and to
identify defective conditions in the
track or conditions that could lead to
defects in the track. In addition to these
safety benefits, TGMS technologies have
operational benefits. As a supplement to
visual inspections by track inspectors,
automated inspections can take key
measurements continuously and at track
speed, allowing the inspection of more
track in any given time period, as
compared to track inspectors solely
performing manual, visual inspections.
Onboard computers process an
enormous amount of raw data in real
time and produce concise track
condition reports, noting indications of
track defects or deviations so that track
owners can take remedial actions
promptly.
TGMS systems may also be
autonomous, otherwise known as
Autonomous Track Geometry
Measurement Systems (ATGMS),
meaning the highly specialized,
automated inspection equipment is
mounted to on-track equipment (in
some cases revenue trains) and the
inspections are conducted with minimal
direct human involvement (e.g.,
uncrewed operations). Autonomous
technologies have been developed
utilizing revenue service trains
equipped with data collection
equipment that employ wireless
communications to provide inspection
data with increased frequency and
reduced cost. By making inspection
systems autonomous, the data can be
collected more frequently without
consuming track time. Autonomous
inspection technologies provide earlier
detection of track defects and changing
maintenance practices from reactive to
preventative, ultimately reducing the
number of track-caused derailments
throughout the railroad industry.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
84848
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
FRA has conducted extensive
research on ATGMS and drafted
technical documents and summaries on
the subject. In 2008, FRA installed an
ATGMS on Amtrak’s Auto Train route
operating between Virginia and Florida.
The system detects, locates, and reports
potential track geometry defects in near
real-time to a web-based inspection data
management system for review and
remedial action. Since that test, industry
adoption of ATGMS has grown each
year.7
Starting in 2018, FRA approved Test
Programs under 49 CFR 211.51 for
nearly every Class I railroad 8 to
evaluate the effectiveness of ATGMS in
combination with different frequencies
of visual inspections. Additionally, in
2019, FRA tasked the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC) to enhance
rail safety by improving track inspection
methods, frequency, and
documentation. The RSAC provides a
forum for developing consensus
recommendations and providing
information to the Administrator of FRA
on rulemakings and other safety
program issues, and includes
representatives from all the agency’s
major stakeholders. The RSAC assigned
the task 9 to the Track Safety Standards
Working Group (Working Group), which
met approximately 11 times over a span
of five years. For this task, the Working
Group’s main goal was to recommend
how to incorporate ATI technology into
FRA’s existing track inspection
requirements by leveraging the results of
each Test Program.
In 2021, BNSF concluded its Test
Program, and FRA approved a waiver
allowing BNSF to continue utilizing the
methodologies from the Test Program on
a designated area of track, with
additional metrics in place to ensure
safety.10 The Working Group continued
to meet regularly to discuss the task,
and by November 2022, every Test
Program had concluded.
In October 2023, the Working Group
determined it would not be able to reach
a consensus or provide FRA with a
recommendation. However, the Working
Group agreed that railroad use of ATI
technology, such as TGMS and ATGMS,
benefits track safety. In March 2024, the
task was officially closed without a
recommendation.
7 Railroad use of TGMS and ATGMS is generally
not required for Class 1 through 5 track, and
supplements FRA-required visual inspections and
other automated inspections required under 49 CFR
part 213.
8 See FRA–2018–0091 (BNSF); FRA–2019–0099
(NS); FRA–2020–0013 (CSX); FRA–2020–0014 (CN);
FRA–2020–0031 (UP); FRA–2020–0056 (CP).
9 Track Inspection Task 2019–05.
10 See https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FRA2020-0064.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
This NPRM is based, in part, on FRA’s
research, ATIP operational experience,
the results of the Test Programs and
BNSF’s waiver, and Working Group
member involvement through the RSAC
process. As proposed in this NPRM and
discussed in more detail below, this
rulemaking would revise the TSS to
require all Class I and II railroads, as
well as intercity passenger railroads and
commuter railroads, to operate a
qualifying TGMS at specified
frequencies on all Class 1 through 5
mainline and controlled siding track
that transports: (1) annual tonnage
greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly
scheduled passenger rail service; or (3)
trains containing hazardous materials as
defined in 49 CFR 171.8. FRA also
proposes increasing the required
frequency of TGMS inspections on Class
6 track. FRA’s research indicates that all
the track owners affected by this
rulemaking are already performing
TGMS inspections at or above the
frequency that would be required by
this NPRM. Thus, this NPRM would
codify this industry practice as well as
set forth requirements that include
remedial action of detected defects
within a specified timeframe, training,
and recordkeeping.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
FRA seeks comments on all proposals
made in this NPRM.
Section 213.236 Automated VehicleBased Inspection System
FRA proposes to add this new section
to require all Class I and II railroads, as
well as intercity passenger and
commuter railroads, to operate a
qualifying TGMS on all class 1 through
5 mainline and controlled siding track
on which: (1) annual tonnage exceeds
10 MGT; (2) there is regularly scheduled
passenger service; or (3) there is the
transportation of hazardous material as
defined in 49 CFR 171.8. The terms
‘‘exception’’ and ‘‘defect’’ are used
interchangeably throughout this NPRM.
While there are meaningful
differences, FRA generally based this
new section on existing § 213.333,
which requires TGMS inspections on
Class 6 through 9 track, as well as Class
1 through 5 track where there are
operations at a cant deficiency of greater
than 5 inches. Similarities and
differences from § 213.333 are discussed
further below.
Proposed paragraph (a) would require
all Class I and II railroads, as well as
intercity passenger railroads and
commuter railroads, to operate a
qualifying TGMS on all Class 1 through
5 mainline and controlled siding track,
where any of the following occur:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
annual tonnage of greater than 10 MGT;
regularly scheduled passenger service;
or transportation of hazardous materials
as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. The
qualifying TGMS inspection must be
conducted at least three times within
any 365-day period, with not less than
90 days between inspections. FRA
invites comment on ‘‘transportation of
hazardous materials,’’ specifically the
timeframe and frequency that should be
required before this element is met.
Proposed paragraph (b) mirrors, with
one minor grammatical change that does
not alter its requirements, the current
requirements of § 213.333(b). It would
require that a qualifying TGMS meet or
exceed specific design requirements.
First, proposed paragraph (b)(1) would
require geometry measurements to be
taken no more than 3 feet away from the
contact of wheels carrying the vertical
load of no less than 10 kips per wheel,
unless otherwise approved by FRA.
Second, proposed paragraph (b)(2)
would require geometry measurements
to be taken and recorded on a distancebased sampling interval not exceeding 2
feet and preferably at 1 foot. Finally,
proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require
calibration procedures and parameters
that ensure that values measured and
recorded by the TGMS accurately
represent the actual track conditions.
Procedures and parameters that do not
result in measured and recorded values
that accurately represent the track
conditions, or a TGMS system that does
not accurately measure or record the
values, would not comply with this
proposed provision. Proposed paragraph
(b)(3) would further require that
measurements recorded by the system
not differ more than 1⁄8 inch on repeated
runs at the same site and same speed.
Proposed paragraph (c) would, like
existing § 213.333(c), require that the
qualifying TGMS be capable of
measuring and processing the geometry
measurements to determine compliance
with the applicable regulatory geometry
limits. For purposes of proposed
paragraph (c), those sections would be
§ 213.53, track gage; § 213.55, track
alinement; § 213.57, curves, elevation,
and speed limitations; and § 213.63,
track surface. Additionally, for
operations at a qualified cant deficiency
of more than 5 inches, the TGMS must
be capable of measuring and processing
the geometry measurements to
determine compliance with § 213.65,
combined track alinement and surface
deviations.
Proposed paragraph (d) would impose
certain requirements on the data from a
TGMS. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
require that a TGMS transmit the data
in a manner that enables the track
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
owner to take proper remedial action
within one hour of identification of any
exception to the class of track the TGMS
inspects. This one-hour time period
would commence at the time the TGMS
passes over the section of track
containing the geometry defect. This
means that track owners will need to
have the resources and the procedures
to ensure that within one hour of the
TGMS passing over that section of track,
the measurements from the TGMS are
processed and proper remedial action is
put in place.
FRA invites comment on this onehour remediation requirement,
including potential issues involving
areas of track where limitations, such as
lack of cell coverage, may impair data
transmission and possible solutions for
these problems and estimated costs. If a
commenter believes that a one-hour
remediation requirement is not feasible,
FRA requests that alternative
timeframes be proposed and that the
comment include a discussion about the
potential risks of leaving a geometry
defect in the track for a longer period of
time and possible ways to mitigate such
a risk.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would
require, just as currently required by
§ 213.333(d)(1), that the TGMS provide
a continuous plot, on a constantdistance axis, of all measured track
geometry parameters required in
proposed paragraph (c). Proposed
paragraph (d)(3) would require the
TGMS to provide a report containing a
comprehensive listing of all exceptions
to track geometry requirements detected
by the TGMS vehicle. Further, this
proposed paragraph requires that any
revisions to the information in the
report, as well as any revisions to the
raw data from the TGMS, be
documented, signed, and certified by a
§ 213.7(b) qualified employee in
accordance with proposed paragraph (f),
discussed below, and in a manner that
correctly identifies the person who
made the revision, the original
information along with the revision(s),
and the basis for the revision. This
paragraph is meant to ensure accuracy
of the data. It recognizes that the reports
and/or the data may need to be modified
as they are processed, but aims to
ensure that any such modification is
tracked so that both the source and the
content of the modification is stored.
This is important so that both the track
owner and, if necessary, FRA can
determine who made modification,
what modifications were made, and the
basis for such modification. This may
also help track potential errors in the
data from the TGMS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
Proposed paragraph (e) would
essentially mirror existing section
§ 213.333(e) and would require that the
reports required under proposed
paragraph (d) contain sufficient location
identification information to enable
field forces to easily locate indicated
exceptions. Whatever manner the track
owner chooses to identify this
information must allow both FRA and
railroad employees to accurately locate
the exception with repeatable accuracy.
Proposed paragraph (f) would require
track owners to initiate proper remedial
action for defects detected by the TGMS
immediately upon analysis by a
§ 213.7(b) qualified person, or within 1
hour of detection (i.e., the moment the
TGMS passes over the defect),
whichever is sooner. As discussed
above for proposed paragraph (d), FRA
invites comment on this requirement.
This one-hour requirement would thus
start at different times for each defect.
If, before the expiration of that one-hour
time period, a § 213.7(b) qualified
person reviews the TGMS data, they
must immediately initiate proper
remedial action. There is an inherent
danger whenever a train passes over a
defective condition, and the
remediation requirements proposed in
this paragraph are intended to minimize
that danger. FRA also notes that in the
event a § 213.7 qualified person
determines that a defect detected by the
TGMS is a false positive, or not actually
a defective condition in the field,
further remedial action would not be
required. However, that determination
must be noted and explained on the
report required under proposed
paragraph (d)(3), and the revision must
be documented as required by proposed
paragraph (d)(3).
Proposed paragraph (f) would further
require that exceptions detected on a
crewed TGMS vehicle be remediated
immediately. This follows from the first
part of the paragraph since on a crewed
vehicle, the data is being reviewed and
analyzed in real time by an individual
on the vehicle. Thus, when a defect is
detected by the system, the track owner
must immediately initiate proper
remedial action.
Proposed paragraph (g) would require
that the reports, required by proposed
paragraph (d), be interpreted and
electronically signed or otherwise
certified by a § 213.7(b) qualified
employee. This is meant to ensure that
TGMS reports are reviewed by a
properly trained individual who can
interpret the reports, determine the
required remedial action, and put such
remedial action in place. By requiring
that the report be electronically signed
or otherwise certified, the person who
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
84849
reviews the report must attest that they
properly interpreted the report. This can
be accomplished through any means,
such as an electronic signature, so long
as it achieves the required purpose and
properly identifies the person making
the certification.
Proposed paragraph (h) would cover
situations where a track owner wants to
conduct a TGMS inspection as well as
a visual inspection from the same
vehicle. A visual inspection meant to
satisfy the frequency requirements of
§ 213.233(c) may not be performed by
any individual involved in the TGMS
inspection. This includes any
individual reviewing or interpreting any
results from the TGMS vehicle as well
as any operator of the TGMS vehicle. A
visual inspection may be performed so
long as it is by a dedicated track
inspector whose sole responsibility is
conducting a visual inspection and all
requirements of § 213.233 are met.
Proposed paragraph (i) would require
specific training related to TGMS
inspections. This would be in addition
to any existing training requirements in
49 CFR parts 213 and 243,11 and would
require that all § 213.7 qualified persons
who review or interpret TGMS reports
be properly trained on, at minimum,
interpreting TGMS data and reports,
prioritizing and conducting site
inspections to verify defects, and
recordkeeping requirements. The
training must be done in a manner and
at a frequency to ensure the qualified
individuals responsible for reviewing
and/or interpreting TGMS reports have
sufficient knowledge of at least the three
listed subjects to accomplish their
responsibilities. The track owners must
make available to FRA sufficient records
to show compliance with the
requirements of proposed paragraph (i).
Section 213.241 Inspection Records
Currently, § 213.241 provides that
track owners must 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 proposes
revising paragraph (b) by adding
§§ 213.234 and 213.239 to the list of
sections that require inspections for
which records must comply with the
requirements of paragraph (b). Section
213.234 covers automated inspection of
track constructed with concrete
crossties. While § 213.234(f) already
11 Training, Qualification, and Oversight for
Safety-Related Railroad Employees.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84850
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lists recordkeeping requirements
specific for these types of inspections, it
is important that those records also
comply with the requirements of
§ 213.241(b). Among other things, this
would require that the record be signed
or otherwise certified by the person(s)
making the inspection. Section 213.239
covers special inspections. These
special inspections are conducted after
fire, flood, severe storms, or other events
that might have damaged track, and a
record of them is vitally important both
to document findings following such
events as well as to provide oversight to
ensure track owners are completing
such inspections when required.
However, under current FRA
enforcement practices, track owners
have historically not been required to
keep records of special inspections. FRA
is not aware of any justification for this
omission and proposes to require
§ 213.239 records to comply with
§ 213.241(b).
FRA proposes redesignating current
paragraphs (c) through (j) as paragraphs
(d) through (k), respectively, and
revising some of them. FRA further
proposes adding a new paragraph (c).
Proposed paragraph (c) would list
recordkeeping requirements for TGMS
inspections performed under proposed
§ 213.236. It would require that track
owners maintain a copy of the report,
required by proposed § 213.236(d), for a
period of two years following the TGMS
inspection. Proposed paragraph (c)(1)
would also require records specifying
the date the inspection was made and
the track segment involved. Proposed
paragraph (c)(2) would require records
to specify the date of any follow-up
inspection, the type of inspection,
location of any defects, the type and size
of each defect, and the type and date of
any remedial action taken. This is meant
to cover any follow-up inspection done
to field-verify the TGMS data. It is
essential to keep this information in
order to identify potential issues with a
TGMS system that might be causing
errors in the geometry measurements.
FRA proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), existing
paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), existing
paragraph (e) as paragraph (f), existing
paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), and
existing paragraph (g) as paragraph (h).
FRA proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (h) as paragraph (i) and
revising it by adding a sentence at the
end requiring the most recent TGMS
inspection report to be provided to the
persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment. The
existing paragraph requires that track
inspection records be made available to
persons performing subsequent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
inspections, and requiring that they also
have a copy of the past TGMS
inspection report will ensure they
continue to have access to the most upto-date information on the condition of
the track to better complete their
inspections.
FRA proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (i) as paragraph (j), and
existing paragraph (j) as paragraph (k).
Redesignated paragraph (k) would
address electronic recordkeeping
systems and list requirements for such
systems. FRA proposes adding a
proposed paragraph (k)(3), which would
require track owners to train their
employees, who use the electronic
recordkeeping system, on the proper use
of the system. An employee who uses
the system should know how to
properly use the system to ensure they
do not inadvertently compromise the
system or the records it contains. FRA
proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (j)(3) as paragraph (k)(4), and
adding proposed paragraph (k)(5),
which would require the track owner to
control accessibility to the electronic
records and identify the individuals
who have access. This is meant to
ensure only the appropriate individuals
have access to the system. FRA proposes
redesignating existing paragraph (j)(4) as
paragraph (k)(6), existing paragraph
(j)(5) as paragraph (k)(7), and adding
proposed paragraph (k)(8). This
proposed paragraph would require track
owners to maintain an information
technology security program adequate to
ensure the integrity of the electronic
system. This would include preventing
unauthorized access to the records.
Finally, FRA proposes redesignating
existing paragraph (k)(6) as paragraph
(k)(9).
Section 213.333 Automated VehicleBased Inspection Systems
FRA proposes to revise existing
§ 213.333 to make it consistent with the
requirements of proposed § 213.236.
Section 213.333 addresses the
requirements for TGMS inspections,
currently required for high-speed track
Classes 6 through 9 (paragraphs (a)(2)
though (a)(4)), and for track Classes 1
through 5 where operations are at a
qualified cant deficiency of more than 5
inches (paragraph (a)(1)). FRA proposes
removing existing paragraph (a)(1) since
proposed § 213.236 will now cover
required TGMS inspections on track
Classes 1 through 5. FRA proposes
redesignating existing paragraph (a)(2)
as paragraph (a)(1) and revising it to
increase the number of required TGMS
inspections on track Class 6 from once
per calendar year to three times within
any 365-day period, with not less than
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
90 days between inspections. This is the
same inspection frequency in proposed
section § 213.236 that would apply to
track Classes 1 through 5. FRA further
proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(2), and
existing paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph
(a)(3).
FRA proposes to revise paragraph (c)
to remove reference to track Classes 1
through 5, since those types of TGMS
inspections will be covered by proposed
§ 213.236. FRA proposes removing
paragraph (c)(1) and combining the
content of paragraph (c)(2) with the
content of paragraph (c) so that it is a
single paragraph with no subparagraphs.
FRA proposes to revise paragraph (d)
to make it consistent with the
requirements of proposed § 213.236(d)
by removing reference to the current
requirement that the TGMS produce an
output report within 24 hours of the
inspection. Further, FRA proposes to
redesignate paragraph (d)(1) as
paragraph (d)(2), and add proposed
paragraph (d)(1), which would require
that a TGMS transmit the data in a
manner that enables the track owner to
take proper remedial action within one
hour of identification of any exception
to the class of track the TGMS inspects.
This one-hour time period would
commence at the time the TGMS passes
over the section of track containing the
geometry defect. This means that track
owners will need to have in place the
resources and the procedures to ensure
that, within one hour of the TGMS
passing over that section of track, the
measurements from the TGMS are
processed and proper remedial action is
put in place.
As stated above for proposed
§ 213.236(d), FRA invites comment on
this one-hour remediation requirement,
including potential issues involving
areas of track where limitations, such as
lack of cell coverage, may impair data
transmission and possible solutions for
these problems and estimated costs. If a
commenter is of the opinion that a onehour remediation requirement is not
feasible, FRA requests that alternative
timeframes be proposed and that the
comment include a discussion about the
potential risks of leaving a geometry
defect in the track for a longer period of
time and possible ways to mitigate such
a risk.
FRA proposes removing existing
paragraph (d)(2), which discusses the
requirements for an exception report,
and replacing it with proposed
paragraph (d)(3), which would require
the TGMS provide a report containing a
comprehensive listing of all exceptions
to track geometry requirements detected
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
by the TGMS vehicle. Further, this
proposed paragraph would require that
any revisions to the information in the
report, as well as any revisions to the
raw data from the TGMS, be
documented, signed and certified by a
§ 213.305(b) qualified employee in
accordance with proposed paragraph (f),
discussed below, and in a manner that
correctly identifies the person who
made the revision, the original
information along with the revision(s),
and the basis for the revision. This
paragraph is meant to ensure accuracy
of the data. It recognizes that the reports
and/or the data may need to be modified
as they are processed, but aims to
ensure that any such modification is
tracked so that both the source and the
content of the modification is stored.
This is important so that the track
owner and, if necessary, FRA can
determine who made the modification,
what modifications were made, and the
basis for such modification. This may be
especially useful for tracking potential
errors in the data from the TGMS, as
well as preventing malfeasance.
FRA proposes slight revisions to
existing paragraph (e), removing the
word ‘‘output’’ from ‘‘output report,’’ so
that it simply reads ‘‘report.’’ This is
meant to make the paragraph consistent
with the terminology used in proposed
paragraph (d)(3). FRA also proposes to
correct the erroneous citation to
paragraph (c) and change it to a
reference to paragraph (d) since that is
the paragraph that discusses the report
generated by the TGMS.
FRA proposes replacing existing
paragraph (f), which gives track owners
two days following a TGMS inspection
to field-verify and initiate remedial
action. FRA proposes replacing existing
paragraph (f) with a new paragraph (f),
which would require track owners to
initiate proper remedial action for
defects detected by the TGMS
immediately upon analysis by a
§ 213.305(b) qualified person, or within
1 hour of detection (i.e. the moment the
TGMS passes over the defect),
whichever is sooner. As discussed
above for proposed paragraph (d), FRA
invites comment on this requirement.
This one-hour requirement would thus
start at different times for each defect.
If, before the expiration of that one-hour
time period, a § 213.305(b) qualified
person reviews the TGMS data, they
must immediately initiate proper
remedial action. There is an inherent
danger whenever a train passes over a
defective condition, and the
remediation requirements proposed in
this paragraph are intended to minimize
that danger. FRA also notes that, in the
event a § 213.305 qualified person
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
determines that a defect detected by the
TGMS is a false positive, or not actually
a defective condition in the field,
further remedial action would not be
required, but that determination must be
noted and explained on the report
required under proposed paragraph
(d)(3), and the revision must be
documented as required by proposed
paragraph (d)(3).
Proposed paragraph (f) would further
require that exceptions detected on a
crewed TGMS vehicle be remediated
immediately. This follows from the first
part of the paragraph since, on a crewed
vehicle, the data is being reviewed and
analyzed in real time by an individual
on the vehicle. Thus, when a defect is
detected by the system, the track owner
must immediately initiate proper
remedial action.
FRA proposes removing existing
paragraph (g), which, among other
things, requires that track owners
maintain inspection records for one
year. Since this paragraph deals
specifically with inspection records, it
is better suited to be included in
existing § 213.369. Thus, FRA proposes
moving its requirements, with some
revisions, to proposed § 213.369(c),
discussed below.
FRA proposes replacing existing
paragraph (g) with a new paragraph (g),
which would require that the reports
required by paragraph (d) be interpreted
and electronically signed or otherwise
certified by a § 213.305(b) qualified
employee. This is meant to ensure that
TGMS reports are reviewed by a
properly trained individual who can
interpret the reports, determine the
required remedial action, and put such
remedial action in place. By requiring
that the report be electronically signed
or otherwise certified, the person who
reviews the report must attest that they
properly interpreted the report. This can
be accomplished through an electronic
signature or another alternative means
so long as it accomplishes the required
purpose and properly identifies the
person making the certification.
FRA proposes adding paragraph (h),
which would cover situations where a
track owner wants to conduct a TGMS
inspection as well as a visual inspection
from the same vehicle. A visual
inspection meant to satisfy the
frequency requirements of § 213.365(c)
may not be performed by any individual
involved in the TGMS inspection. This
includes any individual reviewing or
interpreting any results from the TGMS
vehicle as well as any operator of the
TGMS vehicle. A visual inspection may
be performed so long as it is by a
dedicated track inspector whose sole
responsibility is conducting a visual
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
84851
inspection and all requirements of
§ 213.365 are met.
FRA proposes adding paragraph (i),
which would require specific training
related to TGMS inspections. This
would be in addition to any existing
part 213 and part 243 training
requirements and would require that all
§ 213.305 qualified persons who review
or interpret TGMS reports be properly
trained on, at a minimum, interpreting
TGMS data and reports, prioritizing and
conducting site inspections to verify
defects, and recordkeeping
requirements. The training must be
done in such a way and at such a
frequency that the qualified individuals
responsible for reviewing and/or
interpreting TGMS reports have
sufficient knowledge of at least the three
listed subjects to accomplish their
responsibilities. Track owners must
make available to FRA sufficient records
to show compliance with the
requirements of proposed paragraph (i).
Section 213.369 Inspection Records
Proposed revisions to this section are
intended to mirror the relevant
proposed revisions to § 213.241,
discussed above. FRA proposes
removing the part of paragraph (b),
which states, ‘‘Except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section.’’ Since
there is no exception stated in
paragraph (e), or elsewhere in § 213.369,
it is unclear what this statement
originally referred to and the language
appears to be unnecessary. FRA also
proposes adding § 213.367 to the list of
sections that require inspections for
which records must comply with the
requirements of paragraph (b). Section
213.367 covers special inspections.
These special inspections are conducted
after fire, flood, severe storms, or other
events that might have damaged track,
and a record of them is vitally important
both to document their findings as well
as oversight to ensure track owners are
completing such inspections when
required. However, under current FRA
enforcement practices, track owners
have historically not been required to
keep records of special inspections. FRA
is not aware of any justification for this
omission and proposes requiring
§ 213.367 records comply with
§ 213.369(b). Further, FRA proposes
slight revisions to the second sentence
of paragraph (b) to make it mirror
§ 213.214. Aside from one purely
grammatical change, the proposed
revision would change ‘‘nature of any
deviation’’ to ‘‘location and nature of
any deviation.’’ FRA is confident
inspection records already include this
information and that this change will
have no burden upon the industry.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84852
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
FRA proposes redesignating current
paragraphs (c) through (i) as paragraphs
(d) through (j), respectively, revising
some of them, and adding a new
paragraph (c). Proposed paragraph (c),
which mirrors, with some revisions,
existing § 213.333(g), would list
recordkeeping requirements for TGMS
inspections performed under proposed
§ 213.333. It would require track owners
to maintain a copy of the report,
required by proposed § 213.333(d), for a
period of two years following the TGMS
inspection. Currently, § 213.333(g)
requires that these records be retained
for one year. FRA is proposing to
increase the retention period to two
years. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
also require records to specify the date
the inspection was made and the track
segment involved. Proposed paragraph
(c)(2) would require records specify the
date of any follow-up inspection, the
type of inspection, location of any
defects, the type and size of each defect,
and the type and date of any remedial
action taken. This is meant to cover any
follow-up inspection done to fieldverify the TGMS data. It is essential to
keep this information in order to
identify potential issues with a TGMS
systems that might be causing errors in
the geometry measurements.
FRA proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), existing
paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), and
existing paragraph (e) as paragraph (f).
FRA also proposes redesignating
existing paragraph (f) as paragraph (g)
and revising it by adding a sentence at
the end requiring that the most recent
TGMS inspection report be provided to
the persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment. The
existing paragraph requires that track
inspection records be made available to
persons performing subsequent
inspections, and requiring that they also
have a copy of the past TGMS
inspection report will ensure they
continue to have access to the most upto-date information on the condition of
the track to better complete their
inspections.
FRA proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (g) as paragraph (h), and
existing paragraph (h) as paragraph (i).
Redesignated paragraph (i) would
address electronic recordkeeping
systems and lists specific requirements
for such systems. FRA proposes to add
a paragraph (i)(3), which would require
track owners to train their employees
who use the electronic recordkeeping
system on the proper use of the system.
An employee who uses the system
should know how to properly use it to
ensure they do not inadvertently
compromise the system or the records it
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
contains. FRA proposes redesignating
existing paragraph (h)(3) as paragraph
(i)(4), and adding proposed paragraph
(i)(5), which would require the track
owner to control accessibility to the
electronic records and identify the
individuals who have access. This is
meant to ensure only the proper
individuals have access to the system.
FRA proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (h)(4) as paragraph (i)(6), and
existing paragraph (h)(5) as paragraph
(i)(7), and adding proposed paragraph
(i)(8). This proposed paragraph would
require track owners to maintain an
information technology security
program adequate to ensure the integrity
of the electronic system. This would
include preventing unauthorized access
to the records. Finally, FRA proposes
redesignating existing paragraph (h)(6)
as paragraph (i)(9), and existing
paragraph (i) as paragraph (j).
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended
by Executive Order 14094
The proposed rule is a nonsignificant
regulatory action within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094, ‘‘Modernizing
Regulatory Review,’’ 12 and DOT Order
2100.6A (‘‘Rulemaking and Guidance
Procedures’’). FRA made this
determination by finding that the
economic effects of the proposed
rulemaking will not exceed the $200
million annual threshold defined by
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094. FRA expects
this proposed rule will improve railroad
safety by codifying existing industry
practices and requiring track owners to
take proper remedial action within one
hour of the TGMS identifying an
exception. FRA also expects the
proposed rule will encourage future
improvements to ATI technologies.
FRA complied with OMB Circular A–
4 when accounting for the NPRM costs
relative to a baseline condition. 13
Typically, a baseline represents a best
judgement about what the world would
look like in the absence of the regulatory
intervention. FRA accounts for the
NPRM costs as any change from current
industry practice. FRA’s research
indicates that all 64 railroads covered by
this proposed rulemaking are already
voluntarily performing TGMS
inspections at or above the frequency
that would be required by the NPRM.
12 88
FR 21879 (Apr. 6, 2023).
use of TGMS and ATGMS is generally
not required for Class 1 through 5 track, and
supplements FRA-required visual inspections and
other automated inspections required under 49 CFR
part 213.
13 Railroad
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Therefore, the affected railroads would
not incur any additional costs related to
conducting the inspections.
However, proposed §§ 213.236(d)(1)
and 213.333(d)(1) would require
qualifying TGMS vehicles to transmit
inspection data in a manner that allows
the track owner to take proper remedial
action no later than one hour following
the identification of any exception
identified by the TGMS system. The
one-hour timeframe differs from current
industry practice, where railroads
remediate track defects based on their
operating rules or practices and can vary
from immediately—on crewed TGMS
vehicles—to 24 hours or more on
uncrewed ATGMS. Because this
proposed rule would not change the
inspection frequency from current
industry practice, the only slow order
cost relevant to this proposal is the time
between the one-hour timeframe for
remediation and the timeframe each
railroad currently follows by practice.
FRA requests comments regarding the
potential increased number, duration,
and cost of TGMS track exceptionrelated slow orders on freight and
passenger rail service.
To quantify the one-hour remediation
cost, FRA estimates the 64 affected
railroads would need to hire a total of
94 new full-time MOW employees to
ensure proper remediation within the
required timeframe. For FRA’s estimate,
remediation refers to a § 213.7(b)
qualified employee reviewing the data,
determining the exception is not a false
positive, and contacting the dispatcher
to place an appropriate speed
restriction. FRA estimated that railroads
would need to hire between one and six
employees depending on the railroad’s
operations and number of required
inspections. The additional employee
costs would be approximately $13.6
million annually and $122.5 million
over 10 years at the 2-percent discount
rate as shown in Table 1.
The proposed rule would also require
additional reporting of all track
geometry exceptions detected by the
TGMS vehicle. The report, and any
revisions, must be documented, signed,
and certified by a § 213.7(b) qualified
employee, and made available to FRA
upon request. The track owner is also
responsible for the cost of training
maintenance employees, reporting
requirements, and report storage and
maintenance.
FRA estimates the new training
requirement in §§ 213.236(i) and
213.333(i) affects 10,000 railroad MOW
employees (Group No 300).14 Each
14 The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the
2023 Surface Transportation Board Full Year Wage
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
worker will require one hour of training
in the first year after the rule is
published. FRA also assumed a 2
percent annual attrition rate among
railroad employees. The estimated
replacement employees will need to be
trained. MOW workers’ hourly salary is
$39.88, hours were considered at the
burdened wage rate by multiplying the
actual rate by 175 percent. This would
result in a 10-year total training cost of
approximately $837,000 or
approximately $810,000 discounted at a
present value of 2 percent. The total
84853
costs of the proposed rule would be
approximately $124 million over 10
years discounted at a present value of 2
percent. These costs are shown in Table
1.
TABLE 1—TEN YEAR COSTS IN 2023 DOLLARS
Impact
Undiscounted
Present value
3%
($)
Present value
2%
($)
Employment .....................................................................................................
Training ............................................................................................................
$122,808,067
837,480
$95,839,164
750,278
$116,397,525
796,637
$122,570,434
809,594
Total cost ..................................................................................................
123,645,547
96,589,442
117,194,162
123,380,028
Annualized
3%
($)
Annualized
2%
($)
Impact
Total cost ..................................................................................................
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 15 and Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 16 require
agency review of proposed and final
rules to assess their impacts on small
entities. An agency must prepare an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) unless it determines and certifies
that a rule, if promulgated, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
FRA has not determined whether this
proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and has
therefore prepared this IRFA. FRA seeks
public comment from small entities on
the economic impacts of this proposed
rule.
1. Reasons for Considering Agency
Action
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Present value
7%
($)
FRA seeks to revise its regulations
governing the minimum safety
requirements for railroad track. The
proposed changes would require all
Class I and Class II railroads, intercity
passenger railroads, and commuter
railroads to operate qualifying TGMS
vehicles over mainline and controlled
siding track at specific frequencies.
A&B data series using the employee group 300
hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent overhead
charges.
15 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
16 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
Annualized
7%
($)
Employment ...
Training ..........
13,645,341
106,822
13,645,341
93,390
13,752,163 .....
13,738,731
13,735,470
13,645,341
90,129
2. A Succinct Statement of the
Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
specified time limit. FRA expects the
NPRM to improve compliance with the
TSS and potentially reduce derailments.
This rulemaking seeks to improve
compliance with the TSS by requiring
all Class I railroads, Class II railroads,
intercity passenger railroads, and
commuter railroads to operate a
qualifying TGMS three times within a
365-day period over all Class 1 through
5 mainline and controlled siding track
that transports: (1) annual tonnage
greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly
scheduled passenger rail service; or (3)
hazardous materials. Qualified TGMS
inspections are already required for
Class 6 through 9 track at varying
frequencies, as well as Class 1 through
5 track for operations at a qualified cant
deficiency of more than 5 inches. The
proposed rule would also increase the
required frequency of TGMS inspections
on Class 6 track from once per calendar
year to three times within a 365-day
period.
FRA’s research indicates that all the
railroads affected by this rulemaking are
already performing TGMS inspections at
or above the frequency that would be
required by this NPRM. Thus, this
proposed rulemaking would codify this
industry practice as well as set forth
requirements that include remedial
action of detected defects within a
3. A Description of and, Where Feasible,
an Estimate of, the Number of Small
Entities to Which the Proposed Rule
Would Apply
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires a review of proposed and final
rules to assess their impact on small
entities, unless the Secretary certifies
that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C.
601 as a small business that is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field of operation.
The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) has authority to regulate issues
related to small businesses and
stipulates in its size standards that a
‘‘small entity’’ in the railroad industry
includes a for-profit ‘‘line-haul railroad’’
that has fewer than 1,500 employees
and a ‘‘short line railroad’’ with fewer
than 1,500 employees.17
Federal agencies may adopt their own
size standards for small entities in
consultation with SBA and in
conjunction with public comment.
Under that authority, FRA has
published a final statement of agency
policy that formally establishes ‘‘small
17 ‘‘Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards,’’ 13
CFR part 121, subpart A. NAIC Code 482111 and
482112 indicate ‘‘Line Haul’’ and ‘‘Short Line’’
railroads respectively. Per SBA, any firm under
NAICS code 48112 that employs more than 1,500
employees cannot qualify as a small business. See
U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small
Business Size Standards Matched to North
American Industry Classification Codes, effective
March 3, 2024, available at https://www.ecfr.gov/
current/title-13/chapter-I/part-121#121.201.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
84854
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ as
railroads, contractors, and hazardous
materials shippers that meet the revenue
requirements of a Class III railroad as set
forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1, which is
$46.4 18 million or less in inflationadjusted annual revenues; and
commuter railroads or small
governmental jurisdictions that serve
populations of 50,000 or less.19 The
$46.4 million limit is based on the
Surface Transportation Board’s revenue
threshold for a Class III railroad carrier.
Railroad revenue is adjusted for
inflation by applying a revenue deflator
formula in accordance with 49 CFR
1201.1–1.20
Therefore, FRA assumes that the
proposed rule, if issued, would not
negatively impact any small entities as
set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1. FRA
invites comment, particularly from
members of the public who believe
there will be a significant negative
impact on a substantial number of small
communities or Class III railroads.
4. A Description of the Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule,
Including an Estimate of the Class of
Small Entities That Will be Subject to
the Requirements and the Type of
Professional Skill Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
FRA does not expect projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
FRA is not aware of any relevant
Federal rule that duplicates, overlaps
with, or conflicts with the proposed
rule.
6. A Description of Significant
Alternatives to the Rule
FRA is proposing this rulemaking to
codify industry best practice and ensure
the TGMS inspections are conducted at
least 3 times per year, detected defects
are remediated within one hour of
detection, railroad employees have
sufficient training to implement these
requirements, and that TGMS
inspection data and records are
maintained in a secure and accurate
manner.
FRA considered several regulatory
alternatives before deciding to impose
the one-hour time limit to remediate
TGMS-identified defects. FRA
considered requiring track owners to
immediately remediate a detected
defect. FRA rejected this alternative as
it would essentially prohibit the use of
ATGMS. ATGMS is uncrewed and relies
on the transmission of the data for
analysis at a different location, meaning
there is no practical way to immediately
remediate identified defects. FRA also
considered requiring remediation of a
defect within 48 hours of detection as
this is the current requirement for
TGMS inspections for high-speed track.
FRA’s research concluded that railroads
are not utilizing the allowed 48 hours
and are remediating defects as soon as
possible. Further, FRA determined that
48 hours was too long to allow a
detected geometry defect to remain in
the track and could increase the risk of
a derailment. FRA instead chose to
impose a one-hour time limit to
remediate any TGMS identified defect.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
FRA is submitting the information
collection requirements in this proposed
rule to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) 21 for review and
approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.22
Please note that any new or revised
requirements, as proposed in this
NPRM, are marked by asterisks (*) in
the table below. The sections that
contain the proposed and current
information collection requirements
under OMB Control No. 2130–0010 and
the estimated time to fulfill each
requirement are as follows:
Total annual
responses
Average
time
per
response
Total
annual
burden
hours
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
784 railroads ...............................
15 notices ..........................
10 minutes .........................
2.50
89.13
$222.83
784 railroads ...............................
15 notices ..........................
1 hour ................................
15.00
89.13
1,336.95
784 railroads ...............................
2,500 names ......................
10 minutes .........................
416.67
89.13
37,137.80
784 railroads ...............................
784 railroads ...............................
10 petitions ........................
4 requests ..........................
2 hours ...............................
8 hours ...............................
20.00
32.00
89.13
89.13
1,782.60
2,852.16
784 railroads ...............................
4 notifications .....................
2 hours ...............................
8.00
89.13
713.04
18 The Class III railroad revenue threshold is
$46,352,455 or less, for 2022. (The Class II railroad
threshold is between $46,352,455 and
$1,032,002,719; and the Class I railroad threshold
is $1,023,002,719 or more.) See Surface
Transportation Board Regulatory Deflators at
https://www.stb.gov/reports-data/economic-data/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
5. Identification, to the Extent
Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or
Conflict With the Proposed Rule
Respondent
universe
CFR section
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.
costs of compliance with this NPRM to
affect small entities.
Small entities that fall below the FRA
size standards, including Class III
railroads, commuter rail passenger rail
services, and small government
jurisdictions serving populations of
50,000 or less, would not bear any shortor long-term costs.
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
19 Codified at appendix C to 49 CFR part 209 as
of 11/27/2023, available at https://www.ecfr.gov/
current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/.
20 See Surface Transportation Board Decision,
Docket No. EP 748, Indexing the Annual Operating
Revenues of Railroads, Decided June 4, 2020,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Wage
rate
Total cost
equivalent in
U.S. dollar
(D = C * wage
rates) 23
available at https://prod.stb.gov/reports-data/
economic-data/railroad-revenue-deflator-factors/.
21 FRA will be using the OMB control number
(OMB No. 2130–0010) for this information
collection.
22 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Total annual
responses
Average
time
per
response
Total
annual
burden
hours
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
784 railroads ...............................
4 written consents .............
45 minutes .........................
3.00
89.13
267.39
784 railroad ................................
1 notification ......................
45 minutes .........................
0.75
89.13
66.85
784 railroad ................................
1 report ..............................
5 minutes ...........................
0.08
89.13
7.13
784 railroad ................................
1 report ..............................
5 minutes ...........................
0.08
89.13
7.13
784 railroad ................................
1 documented procedure ..
1 hour ................................
1.00
89.13
89.13
784 railroad ................................
2 records ............................
30 minutes .........................
1.00
89.13
89.13
438 railroads ...............................
10 plans .............................
4 hours ...............................
40.00
89.13
3,565.20
438 railroads ...............................
750 notices ........................
15 seconds ........................
3.13
89.13
278.98
438 railroads ...............................
5 written submissions ........
2 hours ...............................
10.00
89.13
891.30
438 railroads ...............................
5 amended plans ...............
1 hour ................................
5.00
89.13
445.65
30 railroads .................................
125 reports ........................
15 minutes .........................
31.25
69.60
2,175.00
30 railroads .................................
2,000 records .....................
30 minutes .........................
1,000.00
89.13
89,130.00
30 railroads .................................
30 revised procedures .......
2 hours ...............................
60.00
118.46
7,107.60
30 railroads .................................
2,250 records of trained
employees.
5 minutes ...........................
187.50
$69.60
13,050.00
64 railroads .................................
7,500 report records ..........
10 minutes .........................
1,275
89.13
113,640.75
9,500 employees ........................
3,167 training records ........
5 minutes ...........................
250.96
89.13
22,368.06
65 railroads .................................
4 requests ..........................
15 minutes .........................
1.00
89.13
89.13
Respondent
universe
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
CFR section
—(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(e)—Automated inspection of track constructed with concrete
crossties.
—Exception reports listing
all exception to
§ 213.109(d)(4) Added
requirement and burden
hours from 2130–0592
—(f) Automated inspection
of track constructed with
concrete crossties.
—Recordkeeping requirements
—(g) Procedure for integrity of data —Track owners to institute procedures for maintaining the
integrity of the data collected by the measurement system Added requirement and burden
hours from 2130–0592.
—(h)(3) Training Track
owners to provide annual
training in handling rail
seat deterioration exceptions to all persons designated as fully qualified
under § 213.7 and whose
territories are subject to
the requirements of
§ 213.234—Recordkeeping. Added requirement and burden hours
from 2130–0592.
* 213.236(d)(3)—Automated vehicle-based inspection systems. TGMS
Track classes 1 through
5 report records (New
proposed requirement).
*—(i) training records (New
proposed requirement).
213.237(b)(2)—Inspection
of Rail.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
84855
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Wage
rate
Total cost
equivalent in
U.S. dollar
(D = C * wage
rates) 23
84856
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
CFR section
—Detailed request to FRA
to change designation of
a rail inspection segment
or establish a new segment
—(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
213.240(b)—Continuous
Rail Testing.
—Procedures for conducting continuous testing
——(c) Type of rail test
(continuous or stop-andverify).
—Record
——(c)—Type of rail test
(continuous or stop-andverify).
—Documented changes
––(g) Annual reports to
FRA.
* 213.241—Inspection
records Class I through
5. (Revised requirement).
213.303(b)—Responsibility
for compliance.
—Notification of assignment to FRA
213.305(c)(4)—Designation
of qualified individuals;
general qualifications.
—Written authorization for
remedial actions
—(e) Railroads produced
designation record upon
FRA request.
213.317(a) through (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. TGMS track
classes 6–9 report
records. (Revised requirement).
*—(i) training records (New
proposed requirement).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Total annual
responses
Average
time
per
response
Total
annual
burden
hours
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
Wage
rate
Total cost
equivalent in
U.S. dollar
(D = C * wage
rates) 23
65 railroads .................................
1 notice to FRA + 15 bulletins.
15 minutes .........................
4.00
89.13
356.52
65 railroads .................................
4 notices ............................
15 minutes .........................
1.00
89.13
89.13
65 railroads .................................
4 letters of explanation/
plans.
15 minutes .........................
1.00
89.13
89.13
3 railroads + 5 testing entities ....
250 records ........................
5 minutes ...........................
20.83
89.13
1,856.58
12 railroads .................................
4 procedures ......................
8 hours ...............................
32.00
89.13
2,852.16
12 railroads .................................
25,000 documents/records
2 seconds ..........................
13.89
89.13
1,238.02
12 railroads .................................
100 documents ..................
1 minute .............................
1.67
89.13
148.85
12 railroads .................................
12 reports ..........................
4 hours ...............................
48.00
89.13
4,278.24
784 railroads ...............................
1,400,000 records ..............
10 minutes .........................
238,000.00
89.13
21,212,940.00
2 railroad ....................................
5 notices ............................
30 minutes .........................
2.50
89.13
222.83
2 railroads ...................................
20 written documents ........
30 minutes .........................
10.00
89.13
891.30
2 railroads ...................................
200 records ........................
10 minutes .........................
33.33
89.13
2,970.70
2 railroads ...................................
2 petitions ..........................
8 hours ...............................
16.00
89.13
1,426.08
2 railroads ...................................
2.00 cover letters + 2.00
technical reports + 2.00
diagrams.
30.00 minutes + 16.00
hours + 15.00 minutes.
33.50
89.13
2,985.86
2 railroads ...................................
2 notices ............................
2 hours ...............................
4.00
89.13
356.52
2 railroads ...................................
2 written consents .............
45 minutes .........................
1.50
89.13
133.70
5 railroads ...................................
150 reports ........................
10 minutes .........................
25.50
89.13
2,272.82
500 employees ...........................
167 training records ...........
5 mins ................................
13.36
89.13
1,190.78
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
84857
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
CFR section
Total annual
responses
Average
time
per
response
Total
annual
burden
hours
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
Wage
rate
Total cost
equivalent in
U.S. dollar
(D = C * wage
rates) 23
213.341(b)–(d)—Initial inspection of new rail &
welds.
—Inspection records
213.343(a)–(e)—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 of qualification programs.
—(h) Written consent of
other affected track owners by railroad.
213.369—Visual track inspection records (Revised requirement).
2 railroads ...................................
800 records ........................
2 minutes ...........................
26.67
89.13
2,377.10
2 railroads ...................................
2 plans ...............................
4 hours ...............................
8.00
89.13
713.04
2 railroads ...................................
8,000 records .....................
2 minutes ...........................
266.67
89.13
23,768.30
2 railroads ...................................
2 program plans ................
120 hours ...........................
240.00
89.13
21,391.20
2 railroads ...................................
2 program plans ................
8 hours ...............................
16.00
89.13
1,426.08
2 railroads ...................................
4 written consents .............
30 minutes .........................
2.00
118.46
236.92
5 railroads ...................................
15,273 records ...................
10 minutes .........................
2,596.41
89.13
231,418.02
Total 24 ........................
784 railroads ...............................
1,468,401 responses .........
N/A .....................................
244,781
............
21,814,944
All estimates include the time for
reviewing instructions; searching
existing data sources; gathering or
maintaining the needed data; and
reviewing the information. Pursuant to
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits
comments concerning: whether these
information collection requirements are
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of FRA, including whether
the information has practical utility; the
accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology, may be minimized.
Organizations and individuals desiring
to submit comments on the collection of
information requirements or to request a
copy of the paperwork package
submitted to OMB should contact Ms.
Arlette Mussington, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
arlette.mussington@dot.gov or
telephone: (571) 609–1285 or Ms.
Joanne Swafford, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at email:
joanne.swafford@dot.gov or telephone:
(757) 897–9908.
23 The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the
2023 Surface Transportation Board Full Year Wage
A&B data series using the appropriate employee
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this proposed
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. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
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.
D. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,25
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
Executive Order 13132 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
group hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent
overhead charges.
24 Totals may not add up due to rounding.
25 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, the agency consults with
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 proposed rule
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. FRA has determined that this
proposed 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.
E. International Trade Impact
Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 26
prohibits Federal agencies from
26 19
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
U.S.C. ch. 13.
24OCP1
84858
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
engaging in any standards or related
activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. Legitimate domestic
objectives, such as safety, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. This proposed rule is
purely domestic in nature and is not
expected to affect trade opportunities
for U.S. firms doing business overseas or
for foreign firms doing business in the
United States.
F. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule
consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act 27 (NEPA), the
Council on Environmental Quality’s
NEPA implementing regulations,28 and
FRA’s NEPA implementing
regulations 29 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.30
Specifically, FRA has determined that
this proposed rule is categorically
excluded from detailed environmental
review.31
The main purpose of this rulemaking
is to require the use of TGMS
technology at specific frequencies. This
rule would not directly or indirectly
impact any environmental resources
and would not result in significantly
increased emissions of air or water
pollutants or noise. In analyzing the
applicability of a CE, FRA must also
consider whether unusual
circumstances are present that would
warrant a more detailed environmental
review.32 FRA has concluded that no
such unusual circumstances exist with
respect to this proposed rule, and it
meets the requirements for categorical
exclusion.33
27 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
CFR parts 1500 through 1508.
29 23 CFR part 771.
30 40 CFR 1508.4.
31 See 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15) (categorically
excluding ‘‘[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’’).
32 23 CFR 771.116(b).
33 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
28 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
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.34
FRA has also determined that this
rulemaking does not approve a project
resulting in a use of a resource protected
by Section 4(f).35 Further, FRA reviewed
this proposed rulemaking and found it
consistent with Executive Order 14008,
‘‘Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home
and Abroad.’’
G. Executive Order 12898
(Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations,’’ and DOT
Order 5610.2C 36 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,
and also requires consideration of the
benefits of transportation programs,
policies, and other activities where
minority populations and low-income
populations benefit, at a minimum, to
the same level as the general population
as a whole when determining impacts
on minority and low-income
populations. FRA has evaluated this
proposed 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.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Under section 201 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995,37 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
34 See
16 U.S.C. 470.
35 See Department of Transportation Act of 1966,
as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C.
303.
36 Available at https://www.transportation.gov/
sites/dot.gov/files/Final-for-OST-C-210312-003signed.pdf.
37 Public Law 104–4; 2 U.S.C. 1531.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in
law).’’ Section 202 of the Act 38 further
requires that ‘‘before promulgating any
general notice of proposed rulemaking
that is likely to result in promulgation
of any rule that includes any Federal
mandate that may result in the
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
1 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 proposed rule
would not result in the expenditure, in
the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more
(as adjusted annually for inflation) in
any one year, and thus preparation of
such a statement is not required.
I. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ 39 FRA evaluated this
proposed rule under Executive Order
13211 and determined that this
regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ within the meaning of
Executive Order 13211.
J. Privacy Act Statement
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its rulemaking process.
DOT posts these comments, without
edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible
through www.dot.gov/privacy. To
facilitate comment tracking and
response, we encourage commenters to
provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of
names is completely optional. Whether
or not commenters identify themselves,
all timely comments will be fully
considered. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact
the agency for alternate submission
instructions.
K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
38 2
U.S.C. 1532.
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
39 66
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments, dated
November 6, 2000. The proposed rule
would not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian Tribes,
would not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian Tribal
governments, and would not preempt
Tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive
Order 13175 do not apply, and a Tribal
summary impact statement is not
required.
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4)
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a
summary of this rule can be found in
the Abstract section of the Department’s
Unified Agenda entry for this
rulemaking at: https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=
202310&RIN=2130-AC96.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, FRA proposes to amend part
213 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 213—TRACK SAFETY
STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 213
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and
20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
Subpart F—Inspection
■
2. Add § 213.236 to read as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 213.236 Automated vehicle-based
inspection systems.
(a) A qualifying Track Geometry
Measurement System (TGMS) shall be
operated by all Class I railroads, Class
II railroads, intercity passenger
railroads, and commuter railroads on all
mainline and controlled sidings for
track Classes 1 through 5 on which any
of the following occur: annual tonnage
of greater than 10 MGT, regularly
scheduled passenger service, or
transportation of hazardous materials as
defined in 49 CFR 171.8. A TGMS
inspection shall be conducted at least
three times within any 365-day period
with not less than 90 days between
inspections.
(b) A qualifying TGMS shall meet or
exceed minimum design requirements
which specify that—
(1) Track geometry measurements
shall be taken no more than 3 feet away
from the contact point of wheels
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
carrying a vertical load of no less than
10 kips per wheel, unless otherwise
approved by FRA;
(2) Track geometry measurements
shall be taken and recorded on a
distance-based sampling interval
preferably at 1 foot not exceeding 2 feet;
and
(3) Calibration procedures and
parameters assigned to the system
ensure that measured and recorded
values accurately represent track
conditions. Track geometry
measurements recorded by the system
shall not differ more than 1/8 inch on
repeated runs at the same site at the
same speed.
(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be
capable of measuring and processing the
necessary track geometry parameters to
determine compliance with: § 213.53,
Track gage; § 213.55, Track alinement;
§ 213.57, Curves; elevation and speed
limitations; and § 213.63 Track surface;
and, for operations at a qualified cant
deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches,
§ 213.65, Combined track alinement and
surface deviations.
(d) A qualifying TGMS shall—
(1) Transmit data in a manner that
enables the track owner to take proper
remedial action not later than one hour
following identification of any
exception to the class of track by the
TGMS system;
(2) Provide a continuous plot, on a
constant-distance axis, of all measured
track geometry parameters required in
paragraph (c) of this section;
(3) Provide a report containing a
comprehensive listing of all track
geometry exceptions detected by the
TGMS vehicle. Any revision to this
information and/or the raw data from
the vehicle must be documented,
signed, and certified by a § 213.7(b)
qualified employee in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section in a manner
that correctly identifies the person who
made the revision(s), and must show the
original information along with the
subsequent revision(s) and the basis or
reason for the revision(s).
(e) The reports required under
paragraph (d) of this section shall
contain sufficient location identification
information to enable field forces to
easily locate indicated exceptions.
(f) Upon analysis of the TGMS data by
a § 213.7(b) qualified person, or within
one hour of detection (i.e., the moment
the TGMS passes over the defect) of an
exception to the class of track by the
TGMS system, whichever is sooner, the
track owner must initiate proper
remedial action. Analysis of the TGMS
data may occur concurrently with the
TGMS inspection. For any exception to
the class of track observed from a
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
84859
crewed TGMS vehicle, the track owner
shall immediately initiate proper
remedial action.
(g) The reports required under
paragraph (d) of this section shall be
interpreted and electronically signed or
otherwise certified by a § 213.7(b)
qualified employee.
(h) A visual inspection intended to
satisfy the frequency requirement of
§ 213.233(c) may not be conducted from
a vehicle that is also conducting a
TGMS inspection, unless there is a
dedicated track inspector whose sole
responsibility is conducting a visual
inspection and all requirements of
§ 213.233 are met.
(i) In addition to any applicable
training requirement of this part and 49
CFR part 243, the track owner shall
ensure § 213.7 qualified persons who
review and/or interpret reports under
this section are properly trained on, at
a minimum, the following:
(1) Interpreting TGMS data and
reports;
(2) Prioritizing and conducting site
inspections to verify defects; and
(3) Recordkeeping requirements.
■ 3. Amend § 213.241 by revising
paragraphs (b) through (j), and adding
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
§ 213.241
Inspection records.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each record of an inspection under
§§ 213.4, 213.119, 213.137, 213.233,
213.234, 213.235, and 213.239 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.
(c) The track owner required to
conduct inspections under § 213.236
shall maintain for a period of two years
following an inspection performed by a
qualifying TGMS, a copy of the report
required by § 213.236(d), and additional
records which:
(1) Specify the date the inspection
was made and the track segment
involved; and
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84860
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(2) Specify the date of any follow-up
inspection, the type of inspection, the
location of each defect, the type and size
of each defect, and the remedial action
taken and the date thereof.
(d) Records of internal rail inspections
required by § 213.237 shall specify the—
(1) Date of inspection;
(2) Track inspected, including
beginning and end points;
(3) Location and type of defects found
under § 213.113;
(4) Size of defects found under
§ 213.113, if not removed prior to the
next train movement;
(5) Initial remedial action taken and
the date thereof; and
(6) Location of any track not tested
pursuant to § 213.237(g).
(e) The track owner shall retain a rail
inspection record under paragraph (d) of
this section for at least two years after
the inspection and for one year after
initial remedial action is taken.
(f) The track owner shall maintain
records sufficient to demonstrate the
means by which it computes the service
failure rate on all track segments subject
to the requirements of § 213.237(a) for
the purpose of determining compliance
with the applicable service failure rate
target.
(g) 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.
(h) 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.
(i) Track inspection records shall be
kept available to persons who
performed the inspections and to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment. The
most recent report from a TGMS
inspection conducted under § 213.236
shall be provided to persons performing
subsequent inspections of the track
segment.
(j) 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.
(k) 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—
(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 track owner trains its
employees who use the system on the
proper use of the electronic
recordkeeping management system;
(4) The electronic system is designed
to uniquely identify the author of the
record. No two persons shall have the
same electronic identity;
(5) The track owner controls
accessibility to such records and
identifies individuals who have such
access;
(6) The electronic system ensures that
each record cannot be modified in any
way, or replaced, once the record is
completed;
(7) The electronic storage of each
record shall be initiated by the person
making the inspection within 72 hours
following the completion of that
inspection;
(8) The track owner maintains an
information technology security
program adequate to ensure the integrity
of the system, including the prevention
of unauthorized access to the records;
and
(9) 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
4. Amend § 213.333 by:
a. Removing paragraph (a)(1);
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2)
through (4) as paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3);
■ c. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (a)(1), and paragraphs (b)(3),
and paragraphs (c) through (g);
■
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
d. Redesignating paragraphs (h)
through (m) as paragraphs (j) through
(o); and
■ e. Adding new paragraphs (h) and (i).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 213.333 Automated vehicle-based
inspection systems.
(a) * * *
(1) For track Class 6, at least three
times within any 365-day period with
not less than 90 days between
inspections.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Calibration procedures and
parameters are assigned to the system
which assure that measured and
recorded values accurately represent
track conditions. Track geometry
measurements recorded by the system
shall not differ more than 1⁄8 inch on
repeated runs at the same site at the
same speed.
(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be
capable of measuring and processing the
necessary track geometry parameters to
determine compliance with: § 213.323,
Track gage; § 213.327, Track alinement;
§ 213.329, Curves; elevation and speed
limitations; § 213.331, Track surface;
and for operations at a cant deficiency
of more than 5 inches § 213.332,
Combined track alinement and surface
deviations.
(d) A qualifying TGMS shall—
(1) Transmit data in a manner that
enables the track owner to take proper
remedial action not later than one hour
following identification of any
exception to the class of track by the
TGMS system;
(2) Provide a continuous plot, on a
constant-distance axis, of all measured
track geometry parameters required in
paragraph (c) of this section; and
(3) Provide a report containing a
comprehensive listing of all track
geometry exceptions detected by the
TGMS vehicle. Any revision to this
information and/or the raw data from
the vehicle must be documented,
signed, and certified by a § 213.305(b)
qualified employee in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section in a manner
that correctly identifies the person who
made the revisions, and must show the
original information along with the
subsequent revision(s) and the basis or
reason for the revision.
(e) The reports required under
paragraph (d) of this section shall
contain sufficient location identification
information which enable field forces to
easily locate indicated exceptions.
(f) Upon analysis of the TGMS data by
a § 213.305(b) qualified person, or
within one hour of detection (i.e., the
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules
moment the TGMS passes over the
defect) of an exception to the class of
track by the TGMS system, whichever is
sooner, the track owner must initiate
proper remedial action. Analysis of the
TGMS data may occur concurrently
with the TGMS inspection. For any
exception to the class of track observed
from a crewed TGMS vehicle, the track
owner shall immediately initiate proper
remedial action.
(g) The reports required under
paragraph (d) of this section shall be
interpreted and electronically signed or
otherwise certified by a § 213.305(b)
qualified employee.
(h) A visual inspection intended to
satisfy the frequency requirement of
§ 213.365(c) may not be conducted from
a vehicle that is also conducting a
TGMS inspection, unless there is a
dedicated track inspector whose sole
responsibility is conducting a visual
inspection and all requirements of
§ 213.365 are met.
(i) In addition to any applicable
training requirement of this part and
part 243 of this chapter, the track owner
shall ensure § 213.305 qualified persons
who review and/or interpret reports
under this section are properly trained
on, at minimum, the following:
(1) Interpreting TGMS data and
reports;
(2) Prioritizing and conducting site
inspections to verify defects; and
(3) Recordkeeping requirements.
■ 5. Amend § 213.369 by revising
paragraphs (b) through (i), and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 213.369
Inspection records.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each record of an inspection under
§§ 213.365 and 213.367 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 23, 2024
Jkt 265001
(c) The track owner required to
conduct inspections under § 213.333
shall maintain for a period of two years
following an inspection performed by a
qualifying TGMS, a copy of the report
required by § 213.333(d), and additional
records which:
(1) Specify the date the inspection
was made and the track segment
involved; and
(2) Specify the date of any follow-up
inspections, the type of inspection, the
location of each defect, the type and size
of each defect, and the remedial action
taken and the date thereof.
(d) Rail inspection records shall
specify the date of inspection, the
location and nature of any internal
defects found, the remedial action taken
and the date thereof, and the location of
any intervals of track not tested per
§ 213.339(d). The owner shall retain a
rail inspection record for at least two
years after the inspection and for one
year after remedial action is taken.
(e) 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
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;
(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.
(f) 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.
(g) Track inspection records shall be
kept available to persons who perform
the inspections and to persons
performing subsequent inspections. The
most recent report from a TGMS
inspection conducted under § 213.333
shall be provided to persons performing
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
84861
subsequent inspections of the track
segment.
(h) 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.
(i) 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 track owner trains its
employees who use the system on the
proper use of the electronic
recordkeeping management system;
(4) The electronic system is designed
to uniquely identify the author of the
record. No two persons shall have the
same electronic identity;
(5) The track owner controls
accessibility to such records and
identifies individuals who have such
access;
(6) The electronic system ensures that
each record cannot be modified in any
way, or replaced, once the record is
completed;
(7) The electronic storage of each
record shall be initiated by the person
making the inspection within 72 hours
following the completion of that
inspection;
(8) The track owner maintains an
information technology security
program adequate to ensure the integrity
of the system, including the prevention
of unauthorized access to the records;
and
(9) 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.
(j) 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.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024–24153 Filed 10–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 84845-84861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24153]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 213
[Docket No. FRA-2024-0032]
RIN 2130-AC96
Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Inspections
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to revise its regulations governing the
minimum safety requirements for railroad track. The proposed changes
would require all Class I and II railroads, as well as intercity
passenger railroads and commuter railroads, to operate a qualifying
Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS), a type of automated track
inspection (ATI) technology, at specified frequencies on all Class 1
through 5 mainline and controlled siding track that transports: annual
tonnage greater than 10 million gross tons (MGT); regularly scheduled
passenger rail service; or trains containing hazardous materials. FRA
also proposes increasing the required frequency of TGMS inspections on
Class 6 track.
DATES: Written comments must be received by December 23, 2024. Comments
received after that date will be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expense or delay.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2024-0032 may be
submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
number (FRA-2024-0032), and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (2130-AC96). All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any
personal information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket.
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, Senior Attorney, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W31-216, Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202-853-4784.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Legal Authority
III. Background
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by Executive Order 14094
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
F. Environmental Impact
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Energy Impact
J. Privacy Act Statement
K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)
I. Executive Summary
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
ATI technologies have been evolving since the 1970s and FRA has
been researching ATI technology, including TGMS, for many years. This
effort has included multiple FRA-authored or sponsored technical
reports,\1\ as well as
[[Page 84846]]
FRA-approved Test Programs (49 CFR 211.51) with nearly every Class I
railroad,\2\ to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology. Based on
its years of research into TGMS, as well as its own Automated Track
Inspection Program (ATIP) and the Class I Test Programs, FRA
acknowledges the safety benefits of this technology, specifically its
ability to quickly and accurately detect small changes in track
geometry. FRA notes that TGMS is not a substitute for visual track
inspections, which inspect for numerous conditions aside from track
geometry and remain essential to ensuring railroad safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See e.g., Autonomous Track Geometry Measurement Technology
Design, Development, and Testing (2018), available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_5.pdf;
Evaluation of the Federal Railroad Administration's Autonomous Track
Geometry Measurement System Research and Development Program (2016),
available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/17086/ATGMS%20final%20report_final.pdf; FRA Autonomous Track
Geometry Measurement System Technology Development--Past, Present,
and Future (2014), available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_1.pdf; Development and Use of FRA
Autonomous Track Geometry Measurement System Technology (2014),
available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_3.pdf; Development of Autonomous Track Geometry
Measurement Systems for Overall Track Assessment (2011), available
at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_4.pdf; Autonomous Track Inspection Systems--Today and
Tomorrow (2009), available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_2.pdf.
\2\ See Docket Numbers FRA-2018-0091 (BNSF); FRA-2019-0099 (NS);
FRA-2020-0013 (CSX); FRA-2020-0014 (CN); FRA-2020-0031 (UP); FRA-
2020-0056 (CP) (available on www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, every Class I and II railroad uses some form of TGMS to
measure track geometry. FRA regulation already requires TGMS
inspections for high-speed track (Class 6 and above) as well as lower-
speed track with cant deficiency of higher than 5 inches.\3\ While
these existing requirements are applicable to a relatively small subset
of railroads in the United States, FRA's research indicates that all
railroads covered by this proposed rulemaking are already performing
TGMS inspections on their networks at or above the frequencies FRA is
proposing in this rule. Therefore, the purpose of this rulemaking is to
codify this industry practice while also setting baseline requirements
for areas such as TGMS calibration, recordkeeping, defect remediation
timeframes, and training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 49 CFR 213.57(i), 213.333. These TGMS inspections are in
addition to the visual inspections required by other sections of
part 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Major Provisions
FRA is proposing regulations to amend 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety
Standards (TSS), which prescribe the minimum safety requirements for
railroad track. The proposed changes would require all Class I and II
railroads, as well as intercity passenger railroads and commuter
railroads, to operate a qualifying TGMS, at specified frequencies on
all Class 1 through 5 mainline and controlled siding track that
transports: (1) annual tonnage greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly
scheduled passenger rail service; or (3) trains containing hazardous
materials, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. FRA also proposes increasing the
required frequency of TGMS inspections on Class 6 track.
Currently, the TSS require TGMS inspections for high-speed track
(Class 6 through 9), and lower speed track (Class 1 through 5) where
the cant deficiency is more than 5 inches. As noted above, FRA's
research indicates that all the railroads that would be subject to this
proposed rule are already performing all visual inspections required by
the TSS in addition to voluntarily performing TGMS inspections at or
above the frequency that would be required by this NPRM. Thus, this
NPRM would codify this industry practice as well as set forth
requirements that include remedial action of detected track geometry
defects within a specified timeframe, training, and recordkeeping.
The NPRM proposes adding 49 CFR 213.236 to 49 CFR part 213, subpart
F, and making conforming changes to Sec. 213.333 to require TGMS
inspections at least three times within a 365-day period on Class 1
through 5 mainline and controlled siding tracks that meets one of three
stated requirements, and all of Class 6 track. There would be no change
to the current frequency requirement for Class 7 and above track. The
TGMS must be capable of transmitting data in a manner that permits the
track owner to take proper remedial action within one hour of detection
of a defect. This one-hour timeframe would represent the maximum
permitted time between when a TGMS detects a geometry defect and when a
track owner must take remedial action.
The NPRM also proposes certain recordkeeping and training
requirements for TGMS inspections, as well as minimum requirements for
what must be included in TGMS reports.
The NPRM also proposes certain changes to Sec. 213.241 and
identical changes to Sec. 213.339. FRA proposes updating the list of
types of inspections that are required to produce reports that conform
with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 213.241(b) and 213.339(b), most
significantly adding special inspections (Sec. Sec. 213.239 and
213.367) to this list. These special visual inspections are required
after a specific occurrence, such as a fire or flood or storm, that may
have damaged the track structure. Under current FRA enforcement
practices, these inspections have historically not been required to be
documented. Documenting the data, as proposed will help railroads to
reduce risk of track damage from these events by ensuring the
inspections are performed, if possible, prior to train traffic. Also,
these inspections improve FRA oversight since without them, it can be
difficult to confirm that a required inspection was performed. Further,
FRA proposes revising the requirement for electronic recordkeeping to
add additional safeguards such as requiring training on the proper use
of the system, access controls, and an information technology security
program to ensure adequate integrity of the system.
Benefits and Costs
FRA analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule over a 10-
year period and estimated its benefits and costs. FRA expects the
proposed rule to enhance safety and promote innovation. According to
FRA's Railroad Equipment Accident Incident Database,\4\ Class I and
Class II railroads reported over $191.6 million in total damages from
track geometry caused accidents over the past 10 years from 2014 to
2023. FRA expects the reduction in track-related accidents due to the
proposed rule's one-hour remediation requirement to partially offset
the cost of the proposed rule. Section V.A of this document describes
more fully the benefits and costs that would result from issuing this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Railroad Equipment Accident Database (Form 54) at
https://data.transportation.gov/Railroads/Railroad-Equipment-Accident-Incident-Source-Data-F/aqxq-n5hy/about_data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would require track owners to take proper
remedial action no later than one hour following the identification of
any track geometry exception to the class of track identified by the
TGMS system. FRA expects the affected track owners would be required to
hire a total of 94 new maintenance-of-way (MOW) employees to accomplish
this proposed requirement.
The proposed rule would also require additional recordkeeping of
all track geometry exceptions detected by the TGMS vehicle. The report
and any revisions must be documented, signed, certified by a Sec.
213.7(b) qualified employee, and made available to FRA upon request.
The track owner would be responsible for training MOW employees,
recordkeeping requirements, and record storage and maintenance. FRA
estimates all affected track owners would be required to provide one
hour of training to each of their approximately 10,000 MOW employees
during the first year after the proposed rule goes into effect. FRA
estimates additional training would be required starting in the second
year after the proposed rule goes into effect as newly hired
maintenance workers replace the anticipated 2 percent of maintenance
workers expected to depart due to attrition. Overall, FRA estimates the
proposed rule would cost the affected track owners $123.4 million
discounted at a 2 percent rate over the 10-year period, as shown in
Table ES-1.
[[Page 84847]]
Table ES-1--Summary of Total NPRM Costs Over the 10-Year Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value Present value
Impact Undiscounted 7% ($) 3% ($) 2% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment...................................... $122,808,067 95,839,164 116,397,525 122,570,434
Training........................................ 837,480 750,278 796,637 809,594
-----------------------------------------------
Total cost.................................. 123,645,547 96,589,442 117,194,162 123,380,028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact.................... Annualized Annualized Annualized
7% 3% 2%
($) ($) ($)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment................ 13,645,341 13,645,341 13,645,341
Training.................. 106,822 93,390 90,129
-----------------------------------------------
Total cost............. 13,752,163 13,738,731 13,735,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Legal Authority
Section 20103 of title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
explicitly grants FRA comprehensive authority over all areas of
railroad safety and provides that, ``[t]he Secretary of Transportation,
as necessary, 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 Federal
Railroad Safety Act of 1970. The Secretary delegated this authority to
act under sec. 20103 to the Federal Railroad Administrator.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 49 CFR 1.89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to this authority, FRA published the first TSS on October
20, 1971. It was meant to be an evolving set of safety requirements
subject to continuous revision, thus allowing the regulations to keep
pace with industry innovations and agency research and development. The
TSS covers numerous areas such as drainage, vegetation, track geometry,
and track structure. Additionally, the TSS includes specific
requirements for different types of inspections, at specific
frequencies, meant to ensure the defective conditions covered under
other sections of the TSS are found and remediated prior to them posing
a safety risk. These inspection requirements are vitally important to
ensuring that the safety requirements in the TSS accomplish their
purpose of ensuring railroad safety by requiring railroad to actually
look for the defective conditions covered by the TSS and, if found,
repair them.
As explained in more detail below, many years of research,
development, and real-world use has proven the effectiveness of TGMS
inspections at detecting geometry conditions. These inspections, when
used as a supplement to the currently required visual inspections, have
been proven to increase railroad safety by detecting more geometry
conditions and, in many instances, due to the sensitivity of the
systems, detecting these conditions earlier in their degradation
process. Thus, TGMS inspections fall squarely within FRA's authority to
regulate areas of railroad safety.
III. Background
ATI technologies have been evolving since the 1970s and, with
advances in rail safety, the number of track-caused derailments in the
United States has steadily decreased since that time. In recent years,
however, the rate of the decrease has slowed. New and alternative track
inspection methodologies and associated technologies are being
developed to help continue to drive down the number of track-caused
derailments. Technological advancements, including ATI and other
emerging technologies, have become a key element of track asset
management and safety assurance practices. TGMS, ground penetrating
radar, track imaging systems, ultrasonic rail flaw detection systems,
machine learning-based track component (visual) inspection systems,
vertical track deflection systems, and Lidar 3-D scanning systems are
all now used to measure various aspects of track health.
Today, every Class I railroad uses some form of TGMS to measure
track geometry. Track geometry \6\ is a critically important parameter
for assessing the condition of railroad track and maintaining safety.
Class II railroads, and even some smaller railroads, also utilize this
technology. FRA, itself, runs a fleet of track inspection cars under
its ATIP, conducting compliance surveys on over 150,000 miles of track
annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Track geometry generally refers to the parameters listed in
49 CFR part 213, subpart C, as well as 49 CFR 213.323 through
213.332. This includes gage (the distance between the two rails),
alinement (how straight the rails are), crosslevel (the difference
in the height of the two rails), and profile (how level the two
rails are).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGMS provides an objective method to evaluate track conditions and
to identify defective conditions in the track or conditions that could
lead to defects in the track. In addition to these safety benefits,
TGMS technologies have operational benefits. As a supplement to visual
inspections by track inspectors, automated inspections can take key
measurements continuously and at track speed, allowing the inspection
of more track in any given time period, as compared to track inspectors
solely performing manual, visual inspections. Onboard computers process
an enormous amount of raw data in real time and produce concise track
condition reports, noting indications of track defects or deviations so
that track owners can take remedial actions promptly.
TGMS systems may also be autonomous, otherwise known as Autonomous
Track Geometry Measurement Systems (ATGMS), meaning the highly
specialized, automated inspection equipment is mounted to on-track
equipment (in some cases revenue trains) and the inspections are
conducted with minimal direct human involvement (e.g., uncrewed
operations). Autonomous technologies have been developed utilizing
revenue service trains equipped with data collection equipment that
employ wireless communications to provide inspection data with
increased frequency and reduced cost. By making inspection systems
autonomous, the data can be collected more frequently without consuming
track time. Autonomous inspection technologies provide earlier
detection of track defects and changing maintenance practices from
reactive to preventative, ultimately reducing the number of track-
caused derailments throughout the railroad industry.
[[Page 84848]]
FRA has conducted extensive research on ATGMS and drafted technical
documents and summaries on the subject. In 2008, FRA installed an ATGMS
on Amtrak's Auto Train route operating between Virginia and Florida.
The system detects, locates, and reports potential track geometry
defects in near real-time to a web-based inspection data management
system for review and remedial action. Since that test, industry
adoption of ATGMS has grown each year.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Railroad use of TGMS and ATGMS is generally not required for
Class 1 through 5 track, and supplements FRA-required visual
inspections and other automated inspections required under 49 CFR
part 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting in 2018, FRA approved Test Programs under 49 CFR 211.51
for nearly every Class I railroad \8\ to evaluate the effectiveness of
ATGMS in combination with different frequencies of visual inspections.
Additionally, in 2019, FRA tasked the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC) to enhance rail safety by improving track inspection
methods, frequency, and documentation. The RSAC provides a forum for
developing consensus recommendations and providing information to the
Administrator of FRA on rulemakings and other safety program issues,
and includes representatives from all the agency's major stakeholders.
The RSAC assigned the task \9\ to the Track Safety Standards Working
Group (Working Group), which met approximately 11 times over a span of
five years. For this task, the Working Group's main goal was to
recommend how to incorporate ATI technology into FRA's existing track
inspection requirements by leveraging the results of each Test Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See FRA-2018-0091 (BNSF); FRA-2019-0099 (NS); FRA-2020-0013
(CSX); FRA-2020-0014 (CN); FRA-2020-0031 (UP); FRA-2020-0056 (CP).
\9\ Track Inspection Task 2019-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, BNSF concluded its Test Program, and FRA approved a waiver
allowing BNSF to continue utilizing the methodologies from the Test
Program on a designated area of track, with additional metrics in place
to ensure safety.\10\ The Working Group continued to meet regularly to
discuss the task, and by November 2022, every Test Program had
concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FRA-2020-0064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2023, the Working Group determined it would not be able
to reach a consensus or provide FRA with a recommendation. However, the
Working Group agreed that railroad use of ATI technology, such as TGMS
and ATGMS, benefits track safety. In March 2024, the task was
officially closed without a recommendation.
This NPRM is based, in part, on FRA's research, ATIP operational
experience, the results of the Test Programs and BNSF's waiver, and
Working Group member involvement through the RSAC process. As proposed
in this NPRM and discussed in more detail below, this rulemaking would
revise the TSS to require all Class I and II railroads, as well as
intercity passenger railroads and commuter railroads, to operate a
qualifying TGMS at specified frequencies on all Class 1 through 5
mainline and controlled siding track that transports: (1) annual
tonnage greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly scheduled passenger rail
service; or (3) trains containing hazardous materials as defined in 49
CFR 171.8. FRA also proposes increasing the required frequency of TGMS
inspections on Class 6 track. FRA's research indicates that all the
track owners affected by this rulemaking are already performing TGMS
inspections at or above the frequency that would be required by this
NPRM. Thus, this NPRM would codify this industry practice as well as
set forth requirements that include remedial action of detected defects
within a specified timeframe, training, and recordkeeping.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.
Section 213.236 Automated Vehicle-Based Inspection System
FRA proposes to add this new section to require all Class I and II
railroads, as well as intercity passenger and commuter railroads, to
operate a qualifying TGMS on all class 1 through 5 mainline and
controlled siding track on which: (1) annual tonnage exceeds 10 MGT;
(2) there is regularly scheduled passenger service; or (3) there is the
transportation of hazardous material as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. The
terms ``exception'' and ``defect'' are used interchangeably throughout
this NPRM.
While there are meaningful differences, FRA generally based this
new section on existing Sec. 213.333, which requires TGMS inspections
on Class 6 through 9 track, as well as Class 1 through 5 track where
there are operations at a cant deficiency of greater than 5 inches.
Similarities and differences from Sec. 213.333 are discussed further
below.
Proposed paragraph (a) would require all Class I and II railroads,
as well as intercity passenger railroads and commuter railroads, to
operate a qualifying TGMS on all Class 1 through 5 mainline and
controlled siding track, where any of the following occur: annual
tonnage of greater than 10 MGT; regularly scheduled passenger service;
or transportation of hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR 171.8.
The qualifying TGMS inspection must be conducted at least three times
within any 365-day period, with not less than 90 days between
inspections. FRA invites comment on ``transportation of hazardous
materials,'' specifically the timeframe and frequency that should be
required before this element is met.
Proposed paragraph (b) mirrors, with one minor grammatical change
that does not alter its requirements, the current requirements of Sec.
213.333(b). It would require that a qualifying TGMS meet or exceed
specific design requirements. First, proposed paragraph (b)(1) would
require geometry measurements to be taken no more than 3 feet away from
the contact of wheels carrying the vertical load of no less than 10
kips per wheel, unless otherwise approved by FRA. Second, proposed
paragraph (b)(2) would require geometry measurements to be taken and
recorded on a distance-based sampling interval not exceeding 2 feet and
preferably at 1 foot. Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require
calibration procedures and parameters that ensure that values measured
and recorded by the TGMS accurately represent the actual track
conditions. Procedures and parameters that do not result in measured
and recorded values that accurately represent the track conditions, or
a TGMS system that does not accurately measure or record the values,
would not comply with this proposed provision. Proposed paragraph
(b)(3) would further require that measurements recorded by the system
not differ more than \1/8\ inch on repeated runs at the same site and
same speed.
Proposed paragraph (c) would, like existing Sec. 213.333(c),
require that the qualifying TGMS be capable of measuring and processing
the geometry measurements to determine compliance with the applicable
regulatory geometry limits. For purposes of proposed paragraph (c),
those sections would be Sec. 213.53, track gage; Sec. 213.55, track
alinement; Sec. 213.57, curves, elevation, and speed limitations; and
Sec. 213.63, track surface. Additionally, for operations at a
qualified cant deficiency of more than 5 inches, the TGMS must be
capable of measuring and processing the geometry measurements to
determine compliance with Sec. 213.65, combined track alinement and
surface deviations.
Proposed paragraph (d) would impose certain requirements on the
data from a TGMS. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would require that a TGMS
transmit the data in a manner that enables the track
[[Page 84849]]
owner to take proper remedial action within one hour of identification
of any exception to the class of track the TGMS inspects. This one-hour
time period would commence at the time the TGMS passes over the section
of track containing the geometry defect. This means that track owners
will need to have the resources and the procedures to ensure that
within one hour of the TGMS passing over that section of track, the
measurements from the TGMS are processed and proper remedial action is
put in place.
FRA invites comment on this one-hour remediation requirement,
including potential issues involving areas of track where limitations,
such as lack of cell coverage, may impair data transmission and
possible solutions for these problems and estimated costs. If a
commenter believes that a one-hour remediation requirement is not
feasible, FRA requests that alternative timeframes be proposed and that
the comment include a discussion about the potential risks of leaving a
geometry defect in the track for a longer period of time and possible
ways to mitigate such a risk.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would require, just as currently required
by Sec. 213.333(d)(1), that the TGMS provide a continuous plot, on a
constant-distance axis, of all measured track geometry parameters
required in proposed paragraph (c). Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would
require the TGMS to provide a report containing a comprehensive listing
of all exceptions to track geometry requirements detected by the TGMS
vehicle. Further, this proposed paragraph requires that any revisions
to the information in the report, as well as any revisions to the raw
data from the TGMS, be documented, signed, and certified by a Sec.
213.7(b) qualified employee in accordance with proposed paragraph (f),
discussed below, and in a manner that correctly identifies the person
who made the revision, the original information along with the
revision(s), and the basis for the revision. This paragraph is meant to
ensure accuracy of the data. It recognizes that the reports and/or the
data may need to be modified as they are processed, but aims to ensure
that any such modification is tracked so that both the source and the
content of the modification is stored. This is important so that both
the track owner and, if necessary, FRA can determine who made
modification, what modifications were made, and the basis for such
modification. This may also help track potential errors in the data
from the TGMS.
Proposed paragraph (e) would essentially mirror existing section
Sec. 213.333(e) and would require that the reports required under
proposed paragraph (d) contain sufficient location identification
information to enable field forces to easily locate indicated
exceptions. Whatever manner the track owner chooses to identify this
information must allow both FRA and railroad employees to accurately
locate the exception with repeatable accuracy.
Proposed paragraph (f) would require track owners to initiate
proper remedial action for defects detected by the TGMS immediately
upon analysis by a Sec. 213.7(b) qualified person, or within 1 hour of
detection (i.e., the moment the TGMS passes over the defect), whichever
is sooner. As discussed above for proposed paragraph (d), FRA invites
comment on this requirement. This one-hour requirement would thus start
at different times for each defect. If, before the expiration of that
one-hour time period, a Sec. 213.7(b) qualified person reviews the
TGMS data, they must immediately initiate proper remedial action. There
is an inherent danger whenever a train passes over a defective
condition, and the remediation requirements proposed in this paragraph
are intended to minimize that danger. FRA also notes that in the event
a Sec. 213.7 qualified person determines that a defect detected by the
TGMS is a false positive, or not actually a defective condition in the
field, further remedial action would not be required. However, that
determination must be noted and explained on the report required under
proposed paragraph (d)(3), and the revision must be documented as
required by proposed paragraph (d)(3).
Proposed paragraph (f) would further require that exceptions
detected on a crewed TGMS vehicle be remediated immediately. This
follows from the first part of the paragraph since on a crewed vehicle,
the data is being reviewed and analyzed in real time by an individual
on the vehicle. Thus, when a defect is detected by the system, the
track owner must immediately initiate proper remedial action.
Proposed paragraph (g) would require that the reports, required by
proposed paragraph (d), be interpreted and electronically signed or
otherwise certified by a Sec. 213.7(b) qualified employee. This is
meant to ensure that TGMS reports are reviewed by a properly trained
individual who can interpret the reports, determine the required
remedial action, and put such remedial action in place. By requiring
that the report be electronically signed or otherwise certified, the
person who reviews the report must attest that they properly
interpreted the report. This can be accomplished through any means,
such as an electronic signature, so long as it achieves the required
purpose and properly identifies the person making the certification.
Proposed paragraph (h) would cover situations where a track owner
wants to conduct a TGMS inspection as well as a visual inspection from
the same vehicle. A visual inspection meant to satisfy the frequency
requirements of Sec. 213.233(c) may not be performed by any individual
involved in the TGMS inspection. This includes any individual reviewing
or interpreting any results from the TGMS vehicle as well as any
operator of the TGMS vehicle. A visual inspection may be performed so
long as it is by a dedicated track inspector whose sole responsibility
is conducting a visual inspection and all requirements of Sec. 213.233
are met.
Proposed paragraph (i) would require specific training related to
TGMS inspections. This would be in addition to any existing training
requirements in 49 CFR parts 213 and 243,\11\ and would require that
all Sec. 213.7 qualified persons who review or interpret TGMS reports
be properly trained on, at minimum, interpreting TGMS data and reports,
prioritizing and conducting site inspections to verify defects, and
recordkeeping requirements. The training must be done in a manner and
at a frequency to ensure the qualified individuals responsible for
reviewing and/or interpreting TGMS reports have sufficient knowledge of
at least the three listed subjects to accomplish their
responsibilities. The track owners must make available to FRA
sufficient records to show compliance with the requirements of proposed
paragraph (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety-Related
Railroad Employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 213.241 Inspection Records
Currently, Sec. 213.241 provides that track owners must 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 proposes revising paragraph (b) by adding
Sec. Sec. 213.234 and 213.239 to the list of sections that require
inspections for which records must comply with the requirements of
paragraph (b). Section 213.234 covers automated inspection of track
constructed with concrete crossties. While Sec. 213.234(f) already
[[Page 84850]]
lists recordkeeping requirements specific for these types of
inspections, it is important that those records also comply with the
requirements of Sec. 213.241(b). Among other things, this would
require that the record be signed or otherwise certified by the
person(s) making the inspection. Section 213.239 covers special
inspections. These special inspections are conducted after fire, flood,
severe storms, or other events that might have damaged track, and a
record of them is vitally important both to document findings following
such events as well as to provide oversight to ensure track owners are
completing such inspections when required. However, under current FRA
enforcement practices, track owners have historically not been required
to keep records of special inspections. FRA is not aware of any
justification for this omission and proposes to require Sec. 213.239
records to comply with Sec. 213.241(b).
FRA proposes redesignating current paragraphs (c) through (j) as
paragraphs (d) through (k), respectively, and revising some of them.
FRA further proposes adding a new paragraph (c). Proposed paragraph (c)
would list recordkeeping requirements for TGMS inspections performed
under proposed Sec. 213.236. It would require that track owners
maintain a copy of the report, required by proposed Sec. 213.236(d),
for a period of two years following the TGMS inspection. Proposed
paragraph (c)(1) would also require records specifying the date the
inspection was made and the track segment involved. Proposed paragraph
(c)(2) would require records to specify the date of any follow-up
inspection, the type of inspection, location of any defects, the type
and size of each defect, and the type and date of any remedial action
taken. This is meant to cover any follow-up inspection done to field-
verify the TGMS data. It is essential to keep this information in order
to identify potential issues with a TGMS system that might be causing
errors in the geometry measurements.
FRA proposes redesignating existing paragraph (c) as paragraph (d),
existing paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), existing paragraph (e) as
paragraph (f), existing paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), and existing
paragraph (g) as paragraph (h). FRA proposes redesignating existing
paragraph (h) as paragraph (i) and revising it by adding a sentence at
the end requiring the most recent TGMS inspection report to be provided
to the persons performing subsequent inspections of the track segment.
The existing paragraph requires that track inspection records be made
available to persons performing subsequent inspections, and requiring
that they also have a copy of the past TGMS inspection report will
ensure they continue to have access to the most up-to-date information
on the condition of the track to better complete their inspections.
FRA proposes redesignating existing paragraph (i) as paragraph (j),
and existing paragraph (j) as paragraph (k). Redesignated paragraph (k)
would address electronic recordkeeping systems and list requirements
for such systems. FRA proposes adding a proposed paragraph (k)(3),
which would require track owners to train their employees, who use the
electronic recordkeeping system, on the proper use of the system. An
employee who uses the system should know how to properly use the system
to ensure they do not inadvertently compromise the system or the
records it contains. FRA proposes redesignating existing paragraph
(j)(3) as paragraph (k)(4), and adding proposed paragraph (k)(5), which
would require the track owner to control accessibility to the
electronic records and identify the individuals who have access. This
is meant to ensure only the appropriate individuals have access to the
system. FRA proposes redesignating existing paragraph (j)(4) as
paragraph (k)(6), existing paragraph (j)(5) as paragraph (k)(7), and
adding proposed paragraph (k)(8). This proposed paragraph would require
track owners to maintain an information technology security program
adequate to ensure the integrity of the electronic system. This would
include preventing unauthorized access to the records. Finally, FRA
proposes redesignating existing paragraph (k)(6) as paragraph (k)(9).
Section 213.333 Automated Vehicle-Based Inspection Systems
FRA proposes to revise existing Sec. 213.333 to make it consistent
with the requirements of proposed Sec. 213.236. Section 213.333
addresses the requirements for TGMS inspections, currently required for
high-speed track Classes 6 through 9 (paragraphs (a)(2) though (a)(4)),
and for track Classes 1 through 5 where operations are at a qualified
cant deficiency of more than 5 inches (paragraph (a)(1)). FRA proposes
removing existing paragraph (a)(1) since proposed Sec. 213.236 will
now cover required TGMS inspections on track Classes 1 through 5. FRA
proposes redesignating existing paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a)(1)
and revising it to increase the number of required TGMS inspections on
track Class 6 from once per calendar year to three times within any
365-day period, with not less than 90 days between inspections. This is
the same inspection frequency in proposed section Sec. 213.236 that
would apply to track Classes 1 through 5. FRA further proposes
redesignating existing paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(2), and
existing paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph (a)(3).
FRA proposes to revise paragraph (c) to remove reference to track
Classes 1 through 5, since those types of TGMS inspections will be
covered by proposed Sec. 213.236. FRA proposes removing paragraph
(c)(1) and combining the content of paragraph (c)(2) with the content
of paragraph (c) so that it is a single paragraph with no sub-
paragraphs.
FRA proposes to revise paragraph (d) to make it consistent with the
requirements of proposed Sec. 213.236(d) by removing reference to the
current requirement that the TGMS produce an output report within 24
hours of the inspection. Further, FRA proposes to redesignate paragraph
(d)(1) as paragraph (d)(2), and add proposed paragraph (d)(1), which
would require that a TGMS transmit the data in a manner that enables
the track owner to take proper remedial action within one hour of
identification of any exception to the class of track the TGMS
inspects. This one-hour time period would commence at the time the TGMS
passes over the section of track containing the geometry defect. This
means that track owners will need to have in place the resources and
the procedures to ensure that, within one hour of the TGMS passing over
that section of track, the measurements from the TGMS are processed and
proper remedial action is put in place.
As stated above for proposed Sec. 213.236(d), FRA invites comment
on this one-hour remediation requirement, including potential issues
involving areas of track where limitations, such as lack of cell
coverage, may impair data transmission and possible solutions for these
problems and estimated costs. If a commenter is of the opinion that a
one-hour remediation requirement is not feasible, FRA requests that
alternative timeframes be proposed and that the comment include a
discussion about the potential risks of leaving a geometry defect in
the track for a longer period of time and possible ways to mitigate
such a risk.
FRA proposes removing existing paragraph (d)(2), which discusses
the requirements for an exception report, and replacing it with
proposed paragraph (d)(3), which would require the TGMS provide a
report containing a comprehensive listing of all exceptions to track
geometry requirements detected
[[Page 84851]]
by the TGMS vehicle. Further, this proposed paragraph would require
that any revisions to the information in the report, as well as any
revisions to the raw data from the TGMS, be documented, signed and
certified by a Sec. 213.305(b) qualified employee in accordance with
proposed paragraph (f), discussed below, and in a manner that correctly
identifies the person who made the revision, the original information
along with the revision(s), and the basis for the revision. This
paragraph is meant to ensure accuracy of the data. It recognizes that
the reports and/or the data may need to be modified as they are
processed, but aims to ensure that any such modification is tracked so
that both the source and the content of the modification is stored.
This is important so that the track owner and, if necessary, FRA can
determine who made the modification, what modifications were made, and
the basis for such modification. This may be especially useful for
tracking potential errors in the data from the TGMS, as well as
preventing malfeasance.
FRA proposes slight revisions to existing paragraph (e), removing
the word ``output'' from ``output report,'' so that it simply reads
``report.'' This is meant to make the paragraph consistent with the
terminology used in proposed paragraph (d)(3). FRA also proposes to
correct the erroneous citation to paragraph (c) and change it to a
reference to paragraph (d) since that is the paragraph that discusses
the report generated by the TGMS.
FRA proposes replacing existing paragraph (f), which gives track
owners two days following a TGMS inspection to field-verify and
initiate remedial action. FRA proposes replacing existing paragraph (f)
with a new paragraph (f), which would require track owners to initiate
proper remedial action for defects detected by the TGMS immediately
upon analysis by a Sec. 213.305(b) qualified person, or within 1 hour
of detection (i.e. the moment the TGMS passes over the defect),
whichever is sooner. As discussed above for proposed paragraph (d), FRA
invites comment on this requirement. This one-hour requirement would
thus start at different times for each defect. If, before the
expiration of that one-hour time period, a Sec. 213.305(b) qualified
person reviews the TGMS data, they must immediately initiate proper
remedial action. There is an inherent danger whenever a train passes
over a defective condition, and the remediation requirements proposed
in this paragraph are intended to minimize that danger. FRA also notes
that, in the event a Sec. 213.305 qualified person determines that a
defect detected by the TGMS is a false positive, or not actually a
defective condition in the field, further remedial action would not be
required, but that determination must be noted and explained on the
report required under proposed paragraph (d)(3), and the revision must
be documented as required by proposed paragraph (d)(3).
Proposed paragraph (f) would further require that exceptions
detected on a crewed TGMS vehicle be remediated immediately. This
follows from the first part of the paragraph since, on a crewed
vehicle, the data is being reviewed and analyzed in real time by an
individual on the vehicle. Thus, when a defect is detected by the
system, the track owner must immediately initiate proper remedial
action.
FRA proposes removing existing paragraph (g), which, among other
things, requires that track owners maintain inspection records for one
year. Since this paragraph deals specifically with inspection records,
it is better suited to be included in existing Sec. 213.369. Thus, FRA
proposes moving its requirements, with some revisions, to proposed
Sec. 213.369(c), discussed below.
FRA proposes replacing existing paragraph (g) with a new paragraph
(g), which would require that the reports required by paragraph (d) be
interpreted and electronically signed or otherwise certified by a Sec.
213.305(b) qualified employee. This is meant to ensure that TGMS
reports are reviewed by a properly trained individual who can interpret
the reports, determine the required remedial action, and put such
remedial action in place. By requiring that the report be
electronically signed or otherwise certified, the person who reviews
the report must attest that they properly interpreted the report. This
can be accomplished through an electronic signature or another
alternative means so long as it accomplishes the required purpose and
properly identifies the person making the certification.
FRA proposes adding paragraph (h), which would cover situations
where a track owner wants to conduct a TGMS inspection as well as a
visual inspection from the same vehicle. A visual inspection meant to
satisfy the frequency requirements of Sec. 213.365(c) may not be
performed by any individual involved in the TGMS inspection. This
includes any individual reviewing or interpreting any results from the
TGMS vehicle as well as any operator of the TGMS vehicle. A visual
inspection may be performed so long as it is by a dedicated track
inspector whose sole responsibility is conducting a visual inspection
and all requirements of Sec. 213.365 are met.
FRA proposes adding paragraph (i), which would require specific
training related to TGMS inspections. This would be in addition to any
existing part 213 and part 243 training requirements and would require
that all Sec. 213.305 qualified persons who review or interpret TGMS
reports be properly trained on, at a minimum, interpreting TGMS data
and reports, prioritizing and conducting site inspections to verify
defects, and recordkeeping requirements. The training must be done in
such a way and at such a frequency that the qualified individuals
responsible for reviewing and/or interpreting TGMS reports have
sufficient knowledge of at least the three listed subjects to
accomplish their responsibilities. Track owners must make available to
FRA sufficient records to show compliance with the requirements of
proposed paragraph (i).
Section 213.369 Inspection Records
Proposed revisions to this section are intended to mirror the
relevant proposed revisions to Sec. 213.241, discussed above. FRA
proposes removing the part of paragraph (b), which states, ``Except as
provided in paragraph (e) of this section.'' Since there is no
exception stated in paragraph (e), or elsewhere in Sec. 213.369, it is
unclear what this statement originally referred to and the language
appears to be unnecessary. FRA also proposes adding Sec. 213.367 to
the list of sections that require inspections for which records must
comply with the requirements of paragraph (b). Section 213.367 covers
special inspections. These special inspections are conducted after
fire, flood, severe storms, or other events that might have damaged
track, and a record of them is vitally important both to document their
findings as well as oversight to ensure track owners are completing
such inspections when required. However, under current FRA enforcement
practices, track owners have historically not been required to keep
records of special inspections. FRA is not aware of any justification
for this omission and proposes requiring Sec. 213.367 records comply
with Sec. 213.369(b). Further, FRA proposes slight revisions to the
second sentence of paragraph (b) to make it mirror Sec. 213.214. Aside
from one purely grammatical change, the proposed revision would change
``nature of any deviation'' to ``location and nature of any
deviation.'' FRA is confident inspection records already include this
information and that this change will have no burden upon the industry.
[[Page 84852]]
FRA proposes redesignating current paragraphs (c) through (i) as
paragraphs (d) through (j), respectively, revising some of them, and
adding a new paragraph (c). Proposed paragraph (c), which mirrors, with
some revisions, existing Sec. 213.333(g), would list recordkeeping
requirements for TGMS inspections performed under proposed Sec.
213.333. It would require track owners to maintain a copy of the
report, required by proposed Sec. 213.333(d), for a period of two
years following the TGMS inspection. Currently, Sec. 213.333(g)
requires that these records be retained for one year. FRA is proposing
to increase the retention period to two years. Proposed paragraph
(c)(1) would also require records to specify the date the inspection
was made and the track segment involved. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)
would require records specify the date of any follow-up inspection, the
type of inspection, location of any defects, the type and size of each
defect, and the type and date of any remedial action taken. This is
meant to cover any follow-up inspection done to field-verify the TGMS
data. It is essential to keep this information in order to identify
potential issues with a TGMS systems that might be causing errors in
the geometry measurements.
FRA proposes redesignating existing paragraph (c) as paragraph (d),
existing paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), and existing paragraph (e) as
paragraph (f). FRA also proposes redesignating existing paragraph (f)
as paragraph (g) and revising it by adding a sentence at the end
requiring that the most recent TGMS inspection report be provided to
the persons performing subsequent inspections of the track segment. The
existing paragraph requires that track inspection records be made
available to persons performing subsequent inspections, and requiring
that they also have a copy of the past TGMS inspection report will
ensure they continue to have access to the most up-to-date information
on the condition of the track to better complete their inspections.
FRA proposes redesignating existing paragraph (g) as paragraph (h),
and existing paragraph (h) as paragraph (i). Redesignated paragraph (i)
would address electronic recordkeeping systems and lists specific
requirements for such systems. FRA proposes to add a paragraph (i)(3),
which would require track owners to train their employees who use the
electronic recordkeeping system on the proper use of the system. An
employee who uses the system should know how to properly use it to
ensure they do not inadvertently compromise the system or the records
it contains. FRA proposes redesignating existing paragraph (h)(3) as
paragraph (i)(4), and adding proposed paragraph (i)(5), which would
require the track owner to control accessibility to the electronic
records and identify the individuals who have access. This is meant to
ensure only the proper individuals have access to the system. FRA
proposes redesignating existing paragraph (h)(4) as paragraph (i)(6),
and existing paragraph (h)(5) as paragraph (i)(7), and adding proposed
paragraph (i)(8). This proposed paragraph would require track owners to
maintain an information technology security program adequate to ensure
the integrity of the electronic system. This would include preventing
unauthorized access to the records. Finally, FRA proposes redesignating
existing paragraph (h)(6) as paragraph (i)(9), and existing paragraph
(i) as paragraph (j).
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by Executive Order 14094
The proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094,
``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' \12\ and DOT Order 2100.6A
(``Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures''). FRA made this determination
by finding that the economic effects of the proposed rulemaking will
not exceed the $200 million annual threshold defined by Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. FRA expects this proposed
rule will improve railroad safety by codifying existing industry
practices and requiring track owners to take proper remedial action
within one hour of the TGMS identifying an exception. FRA also expects
the proposed rule will encourage future improvements to ATI
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA complied with OMB Circular A-4 when accounting for the NPRM
costs relative to a baseline condition. \13\ Typically, a baseline
represents a best judgement about what the world would look like in the
absence of the regulatory intervention. FRA accounts for the NPRM costs
as any change from current industry practice. FRA's research indicates
that all 64 railroads covered by this proposed rulemaking are already
voluntarily performing TGMS inspections at or above the frequency that
would be required by the NPRM. Therefore, the affected railroads would
not incur any additional costs related to conducting the inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Railroad use of TGMS and ATGMS is generally not required
for Class 1 through 5 track, and supplements FRA-required visual
inspections and other automated inspections required under 49 CFR
part 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, proposed Sec. Sec. 213.236(d)(1) and 213.333(d)(1) would
require qualifying TGMS vehicles to transmit inspection data in a
manner that allows the track owner to take proper remedial action no
later than one hour following the identification of any exception
identified by the TGMS system. The one-hour timeframe differs from
current industry practice, where railroads remediate track defects
based on their operating rules or practices and can vary from
immediately--on crewed TGMS vehicles--to 24 hours or more on uncrewed
ATGMS. Because this proposed rule would not change the inspection
frequency from current industry practice, the only slow order cost
relevant to this proposal is the time between the one-hour timeframe
for remediation and the timeframe each railroad currently follows by
practice. FRA requests comments regarding the potential increased
number, duration, and cost of TGMS track exception-related slow orders
on freight and passenger rail service.
To quantify the one-hour remediation cost, FRA estimates the 64
affected railroads would need to hire a total of 94 new full-time MOW
employees to ensure proper remediation within the required timeframe.
For FRA's estimate, remediation refers to a Sec. 213.7(b) qualified
employee reviewing the data, determining the exception is not a false
positive, and contacting the dispatcher to place an appropriate speed
restriction. FRA estimated that railroads would need to hire between
one and six employees depending on the railroad's operations and number
of required inspections. The additional employee costs would be
approximately $13.6 million annually and $122.5 million over 10 years
at the 2-percent discount rate as shown in Table 1.
The proposed rule would also require additional reporting of all
track geometry exceptions detected by the TGMS vehicle. The report, and
any revisions, must be documented, signed, and certified by a Sec.
213.7(b) qualified employee, and made available to FRA upon request.
The track owner is also responsible for the cost of training
maintenance employees, reporting requirements, and report storage and
maintenance.
FRA estimates the new training requirement in Sec. Sec. 213.236(i)
and 213.333(i) affects 10,000 railroad MOW employees (Group No
300).\14\ Each
[[Page 84853]]
worker will require one hour of training in the first year after the
rule is published. FRA also assumed a 2 percent annual attrition rate
among railroad employees. The estimated replacement employees will need
to be trained. MOW workers' hourly salary is $39.88, hours were
considered at the burdened wage rate by multiplying the actual rate by
175 percent. This would result in a 10-year total training cost of
approximately $837,000 or approximately $810,000 discounted at a
present value of 2 percent. The total costs of the proposed rule would
be approximately $124 million over 10 years discounted at a present
value of 2 percent. These costs are shown in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2023 Surface
Transportation Board Full Year Wage A&B data series using the
employee group 300 hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent
overhead charges.
Table 1--Ten Year Costs in 2023 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value Present value
Impact Undiscounted 7% ($) 3% ($) 2% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment...................................... $122,808,067 $95,839,164 $116,397,525 $122,570,434
Training........................................ 837,480 750,278 796,637 809,594
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost.................................. 123,645,547 96,589,442 117,194,162 123,380,028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact.................... Annualized Annualized Annualized
7% 3% 2%
($) ($) ($)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment................ 13,645,341 13,645,341 13,645,341
Training.................. 106,822 93,390 90,129
-----------------------------------------------
Total cost...................... 13,752,163................ 13,738,731 13,735,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \15\ and Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
\16\ require agency review of proposed and final rules to assess their
impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a
rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. FRA has not determined whether
this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities and has therefore prepared this
IRFA. FRA seeks public comment from small entities on the economic
impacts of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\16\ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reasons for Considering Agency Action
FRA seeks to revise its regulations governing the minimum safety
requirements for railroad track. The proposed changes would require all
Class I and Class II railroads, intercity passenger railroads, and
commuter railroads to operate qualifying TGMS vehicles over mainline
and controlled siding track at specific frequencies.
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
This rulemaking seeks to improve compliance with the TSS by
requiring all Class I railroads, Class II railroads, intercity
passenger railroads, and commuter railroads to operate a qualifying
TGMS three times within a 365-day period over all Class 1 through 5
mainline and controlled siding track that transports: (1) annual
tonnage greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly scheduled passenger rail
service; or (3) hazardous materials. Qualified TGMS inspections are
already required for Class 6 through 9 track at varying frequencies, as
well as Class 1 through 5 track for operations at a qualified cant
deficiency of more than 5 inches. The proposed rule would also increase
the required frequency of TGMS inspections on Class 6 track from once
per calendar year to three times within a 365-day period.
FRA's research indicates that all the railroads affected by this
rulemaking are already performing TGMS inspections at or above the
frequency that would be required by this NPRM. Thus, this proposed
rulemaking would codify this industry practice as well as set forth
requirements that include remedial action of detected defects within a
specified time limit. FRA expects the NPRM to improve compliance with
the TSS and potentially reduce derailments.
3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of, the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires a review of
proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities,
unless the Secretary certifies that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field of
operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has authority
to regulate issues related to small businesses and stipulates in its
size standards that a ``small entity'' in the railroad industry
includes a for-profit ``line-haul railroad'' that has fewer than 1,500
employees and a ``short line railroad'' with fewer than 1,500
employees.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards,'' 13 CFR part
121, subpart A. NAIC Code 482111 and 482112 indicate ``Line Haul''
and ``Short Line'' railroads respectively. Per SBA, any firm under
NAICS code 48112 that employs more than 1,500 employees cannot
qualify as a small business. See U.S. Small Business Administration,
Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American
Industry Classification Codes, effective March 3, 2024, available at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-121#121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small
entities in consultation with SBA and in conjunction with public
comment. Under that authority, FRA has published a final statement of
agency policy that formally establishes ``small
[[Page 84854]]
entities'' or ``small businesses'' as railroads, contractors, and
hazardous materials shippers that meet the revenue requirements of a
Class III railroad as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, which is $46.4 \18\
million or less in inflation-adjusted annual revenues; and commuter
railroads or small governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of
50,000 or less.\19\ The $46.4 million limit is based on the Surface
Transportation Board's revenue threshold for a Class III railroad
carrier. Railroad revenue is adjusted for inflation by applying a
revenue deflator formula in accordance with 49 CFR 1201.1-1.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Class III railroad revenue threshold is $46,352,455 or
less, for 2022. (The Class II railroad threshold is between
$46,352,455 and $1,032,002,719; and the Class I railroad threshold
is $1,023,002,719 or more.) See Surface Transportation Board
Regulatory Deflators at https://www.stb.gov/reports-data/economic-data/.
\19\ Codified at appendix C to 49 CFR part 209 as of 11/27/2023,
available at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/.
\20\ See Surface Transportation Board Decision, Docket No. EP
748, Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of Railroads, Decided
June 4, 2020, available at https://prod.stb.gov/reports-data/economic-data/railroad-revenue-deflator-factors/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, FRA assumes that the proposed rule, if issued, would not
negatively impact any small entities as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1.
FRA invites comment, particularly from members of the public who
believe there will be a significant negative impact on a substantial
number of small communities or Class III railroads.
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the Class
of Small Entities That Will be Subject to the Requirements and the Type
of Professional Skill Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record
FRA does not expect projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
costs of compliance with this NPRM to affect small entities.
Small entities that fall below the FRA size standards, including
Class III railroads, commuter rail passenger rail services, and small
government jurisdictions serving populations of 50,000 or less, would
not bear any short- or long-term costs.
5. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
FRA is not aware of any relevant Federal rule that duplicates,
overlaps with, or conflicts with the proposed rule.
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
FRA is proposing this rulemaking to codify industry best practice
and ensure the TGMS inspections are conducted at least 3 times per
year, detected defects are remediated within one hour of detection,
railroad employees have sufficient training to implement these
requirements, and that TGMS inspection data and records are maintained
in a secure and accurate manner.
FRA considered several regulatory alternatives before deciding to
impose the one-hour time limit to remediate TGMS-identified defects.
FRA considered requiring track owners to immediately remediate a
detected defect. FRA rejected this alternative as it would essentially
prohibit the use of ATGMS. ATGMS is uncrewed and relies on the
transmission of the data for analysis at a different location, meaning
there is no practical way to immediately remediate identified defects.
FRA also considered requiring remediation of a defect within 48 hours
of detection as this is the current requirement for TGMS inspections
for high-speed track. FRA's research concluded that railroads are not
utilizing the allowed 48 hours and are remediating defects as soon as
possible. Further, FRA determined that 48 hours was too long to allow a
detected geometry defect to remain in the track and could increase the
risk of a derailment. FRA instead chose to impose a one-hour time limit
to remediate any TGMS identified defect.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this
proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) \21\ for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.\22\ Please note that any new or revised requirements, as proposed
in this NPRM, are marked by asterisks (*) in the table below. The
sections that contain the proposed and current information collection
requirements under OMB Control No. 2130-0010 and the estimated time to
fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ FRA will be using the OMB control number (OMB No. 2130-
0010) for this information collection.
\22\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Average time per annual Wage Total cost
CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses response burden rate equivalent in
hours U.S. dollar
(A).................... (B).................... (C = A * B) (D = C * wage
rates) \23\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213.4(f)--Excepted track............. 784 railroads........... 15 notices............. 10 minutes............. 2.50 89.13 $222.83
--Notification to FRA about removal
of excepted track
213.5(c)--Responsibility for 784 railroads........... 15 notices............. 1 hour................. 15.00 89.13 1,336.95
compliance.
--Notification of assignment to FRA
213.7(a)(b)--Designations: Names on 784 railroads........... 2,500 names............ 10 minutes............. 416.67 89.13 37,137.80
list with written authorizations.
213.17(a)--Waivers................... 784 railroads........... 10 petitions........... 2 hours................ 20.00 89.13 1,782.60
213.57(e)--Curves; elevation and 784 railroads........... 4 requests............. 8 hours................ 32.00 89.13 2,852.16
speed limitations.
--Request to FRA for vehicle type
approval
--(f) Written notification to FRA 784 railroads........... 4 notifications........ 2 hours................ 8.00 89.13 713.04
prior to implementation of higher
curving speeds.
[[Page 84855]]
--(g) Written consent of track owners 784 railroads........... 4 written consents..... 45 minutes............. 3.00 89.13 267.39
obtained by railroad providing
service over that track.
213.110(a)--Gage restraint 784 railroad............ 1 notification......... 45 minutes............. 0.75 89.13 66.85
measurement systems (GRMS).
--Implementing GRMS
--Notices & reports
--(g) GRMS vehicle output reports.... 784 railroad............ 1 report............... 5 minutes.............. 0.08 89.13 7.13
--(h) GRMS vehicle exception reports. 784 railroad............ 1 report............... 5 minutes.............. 0.08 89.13 7.13
--(j) GRMS/PTLF--procedures for data 784 railroad............ 1 documented procedure. 1 hour................. 1.00 89.13 89.13
integrity.
--(n) GRMS inspection records........ 784 railroad............ 2 records.............. 30 minutes............. 1.00 89.13 89.13
213.118(a)-(c)--Continuous welded 438 railroads........... 10 plans............... 4 hours................ 40.00 89.13 3,565.20
rail (CWR).
--Revised plans w/procedures for CWR
--(d) Notification to FRA and RR 438 railroads........... 750 notices............ 15 seconds............. 3.13 89.13 278.98
employees of CWR plan effective date.
--(e) Written submissions after plan 438 railroads........... 5 written submissions.. 2 hours................ 10.00 89.13 891.30
disapproval.
--(e) Final FRA disapproval and plan 438 railroads........... 5 amended plans........ 1 hour................. 5.00 89.13 445.65
amendment.
213.234(e)--Automated inspection of 30 railroads............ 125 reports............ 15 minutes............. 31.25 69.60 2,175.00
track constructed with concrete
crossties.
--Exception reports listing all
exception to Sec. 213.109(d)(4)
Added requirement and burden hours
from 2130-0592
--(f) Automated inspection of track 30 railroads............ 2,000 records.......... 30 minutes............. 1,000.00 89.13 89,130.00
constructed with concrete crossties.
--Recordkeeping requirements
--(g) Procedure for integrity of data 30 railroads............ 30 revised procedures.. 2 hours................ 60.00 118.46 7,107.60
--Track owners to institute
procedures for maintaining the
integrity of the data collected by
the measurement system Added
requirement and burden hours from
2130-0592.
--(h)(3) Training Track owners to 30 railroads............ 2,250 records of 5 minutes.............. 187.50 $69.60 13,050.00
provide annual training in handling trained employees.
rail seat deterioration exceptions
to all persons designated as fully
qualified under Sec. 213.7 and
whose territories are subject to the
requirements of Sec. 213.234--
Recordkeeping. Added requirement and
burden hours from 2130-0592.
* 213.236(d)(3)--Automated vehicle- 64 railroads............ 7,500 report records... 10 minutes............. 1,275 89.13 113,640.75
based inspection systems. TGMS Track
classes 1 through 5 report records
(New proposed requirement).
*--(i) training records (New proposed 9,500 employees......... 3,167 training records. 5 minutes.............. 250.96 89.13 22,368.06
requirement).
213.237(b)(2)--Inspection of Rail.... 65 railroads............ 4 requests............. 15 minutes............. 1.00 89.13 89.13
[[Page 84856]]
--Detailed request to FRA to change
designation of a rail inspection
segment or establish a new segment
--(b)(3) Notification to FRA and all 65 railroads............ 1 notice to FRA + 15 15 minutes............. 4.00 89.13 356.52
affected employees of designation's bulletins.
effective date after FRA's approval/
conditional approval.
--(d) Notice to FRA that service 65 railroads............ 4 notices.............. 15 minutes............. 1.00 89.13 89.13
failure rate target in paragraph (a)
of this section is not achieved.
--(d)--Explanation to FRA as to why 65 railroads............ 4 letters of 15 minutes............. 1.00 89.13 89.13
performance target was not achieved explanation/plans.
and provision to FRA of remedial
action plan.
213.238--Qualified operators......... 3 railroads + 5 testing 250 records............ 5 minutes.............. 20.83 89.13 1,856.58
entities.
--Written or electronic of
qualification
213.240(b)--Continuous Rail Testing.. 12 railroads............ 4 procedures........... 8 hours................ 32.00 89.13 2,852.16
--Procedures for conducting
continuous testing
----(c) Type of rail test (continuous 12 railroads............ 25,000 documents/ 2 seconds.............. 13.89 89.13 1,238.02
or stop-and-verify). records.
--Record
----(c)--Type of rail test 12 railroads............ 100 documents.......... 1 minute............... 1.67 89.13 148.85
(continuous or stop-and-verify).
--Documented changes
--(g) Annual reports to FRA.......... 12 railroads............ 12 reports............. 4 hours................ 48.00 89.13 4,278.24
* 213.241--Inspection records Class I 784 railroads........... 1,400,000 records...... 10 minutes............. 238,000.00 89.13 21,212,940.00
through 5. (Revised requirement).
213.303(b)--Responsibility for 2 railroad.............. 5 notices.............. 30 minutes............. 2.50 89.13 222.83
compliance.
--Notification of assignment to FRA
213.305(c)(4)--Designation of 2 railroads............. 20 written documents... 30 minutes............. 10.00 89.13 891.30
qualified individuals; general
qualifications.
--Written authorization for remedial
actions
--(e) Railroads produced designation 2 railroads............. 200 records............ 10 minutes............. 33.33 89.13 2,970.70
record upon FRA request.
213.317(a) through (b)--Waivers...... 2 railroads............. 2 petitions............ 8 hours................ 16.00 89.13 1,426.08
213.329(e)--Curves, elevation, and 2 railroads............. 2.00 cover letters + 30.00 minutes + 16.00 33.50 89.13 2,985.86
speed limitations--FRA approval of 2.00 technical reports hours + 15.00 minutes.
qualified vehicle types based on + 2.00 diagrams.
results of testing.
--(f) Written notification to FRA 30 2 railroads............. 2 notices.............. 2 hours................ 4.00 89.13 356.52
days prior to implementation of
higher curving speeds.
--(g) Written consent of other 2 railroads............. 2 written consents..... 45 minutes............. 1.50 89.13 133.70
affected track owners by railroad.
* 213.333(d)--Automated vehicle-based 5 railroads............. 150 reports............ 10 minutes............. 25.50 89.13 2,272.82
inspection systems. TGMS track
classes 6-9 report records. (Revised
requirement).
*--(i) training records (New proposed 500 employees........... 167 training records... 5 mins................. 13.36 89.13 1,190.78
requirement).
[[Page 84857]]
213.341(b)-(d)--Initial inspection of 2 railroads............. 800 records............ 2 minutes.............. 26.67 89.13 2,377.10
new rail & welds.
--Inspection records
213.343(a)-(e)--CWR.................. 2 railroads............. 2 plans................ 4 hours................ 8.00 89.13 713.04
--Procedures for installations and
adjustments of CWR.
--(h) Recordkeeping requirements..... 2 railroads............. 8,000 records.......... 2 minutes.............. 266.67 89.13 23,768.30
213.345(a)-(c)--Vehicle qualification 2 railroads............. 2 program plans........ 120 hours.............. 240.00 89.13 21,391.20
testing.
--Vehicle qualification program for
all vehicle types operating at track
Class 6 speeds or above.
--(d) Previously qualified vehicle 2 railroads............. 2 program plans........ 8 hours................ 16.00 89.13 1,426.08
types of qualification programs.
--(h) Written consent of other 2 railroads............. 4 written consents..... 30 minutes............. 2.00 118.46 236.92
affected track owners by railroad.
213.369--Visual track inspection 5 railroads............. 15,273 records......... 10 minutes............. 2,596.41 89.13 231,418.02
records (Revised requirement).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \24\....................... 784 railroads........... 1,468,401 responses.... N/A.................... 244,781 ....... 21,814,944
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized. Organizations and individuals
desiring to submit comments on the collection of information
requirements or to request a copy of the paperwork package submitted to
OMB should contact Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or telephone:
(571) 609-1285 or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection Clearance
Officer, at email: [email protected] or telephone: (757) 897-
9908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2023 Surface
Transportation Board Full Year Wage A&B data series using the
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent
overhead charges.
\24\ Totals may not add up due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this proposed 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. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal. 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.
D. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,\25\ 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 Executive Order 13132 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, the agency
consults with 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has
determined that this proposed 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.
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 \26\ prohibits Federal agencies
from
[[Page 84858]]
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. This proposed rule is purely domestic in nature and is not
expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business
overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 19 U.S.C. ch. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act \27\ (NEPA), the Council on Environmental
Quality's NEPA implementing regulations,\28\ and FRA's NEPA
implementing regulations \29\ 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.\30\ Specifically, FRA has determined that this
proposed rule is categorically excluded from detailed environmental
review.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
\28\ 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508.
\29\ 23 CFR part 771.
\30\ 40 CFR 1508.4.
\31\ See 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15) (categorically excluding
``[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 main purpose of this rulemaking is to require the use of TGMS
technology at specific frequencies. This rule would not directly or
indirectly impact any environmental resources and would not result in
significantly increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise.
In analyzing the applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether
unusual circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed
environmental review.\32\ FRA has concluded that no such unusual
circumstances exist with respect to this proposed rule, and it meets
the requirements for categorical exclusion.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 23 CFR 771.116(b).
\33\ 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.\34\ FRA has also
determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project resulting in
a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f).\35\ Further, FRA
reviewed this proposed rulemaking and found it consistent with
Executive Order 14008, ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 16 U.S.C. 470.
\35\ See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended
(Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' and DOT
Order 5610.2C \36\ 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, and also requires consideration of the benefits of
transportation programs, policies, and other activities where minority
populations and low-income populations benefit, at a minimum, to the
same level as the general population as a whole when determining
impacts on minority and low-income populations. FRA has evaluated this
proposed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/Final-for-OST-C-210312-003-signed.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,\37\
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 \38\ further requires that ``before promulgating
any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the 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 1 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 proposed rule would not result
in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as
adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year, and thus preparation
of such a statement is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Public Law 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 1531.
\38\ 2 U.S.C. 1532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any
``significant energy action.'' \39\ FRA evaluated this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211 and determined that this regulatory action
is not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 13211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Privacy Act Statement
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through
www.dot.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, we
encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their
organization; however, submission of names is completely optional.
Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will
be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing
proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for
alternate submission instructions.
K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order
[[Page 84859]]
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
dated November 6, 2000. The proposed rule would not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and
would not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply, and a Tribal
summary impact statement is not required.
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be
found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry
for this rulemaking at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2130-AC96.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend
part 213 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 213--TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 213 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461
note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
Subpart F--Inspection
0
2. Add Sec. 213.236 to read as follows:
Sec. 213.236 Automated vehicle-based inspection systems.
(a) A qualifying Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) shall be
operated by all Class I railroads, Class II railroads, intercity
passenger railroads, and commuter railroads on all mainline and
controlled sidings for track Classes 1 through 5 on which any of the
following occur: annual tonnage of greater than 10 MGT, regularly
scheduled passenger service, or transportation of hazardous materials
as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. A TGMS inspection shall be conducted at
least three times within any 365-day period with not less than 90 days
between inspections.
(b) A qualifying TGMS shall meet or exceed minimum design
requirements which specify that--
(1) Track geometry measurements shall be taken no more than 3 feet
away from the contact point of wheels carrying a vertical load of no
less than 10 kips per wheel, unless otherwise approved by FRA;
(2) Track geometry measurements shall be taken and recorded on a
distance-based sampling interval preferably at 1 foot not exceeding 2
feet; and
(3) Calibration procedures and parameters assigned to the system
ensure that measured and recorded values accurately represent track
conditions. Track geometry measurements recorded by the system shall
not differ more than 1/8 inch on repeated runs at the same site at the
same speed.
(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be capable of measuring and processing
the necessary track geometry parameters to determine compliance with:
Sec. 213.53, Track gage; Sec. 213.55, Track alinement; Sec. 213.57,
Curves; elevation and speed limitations; and Sec. 213.63 Track
surface; and, for operations at a qualified cant deficiency,
Eu, of more than 5 inches, Sec. 213.65, Combined track
alinement and surface deviations.
(d) A qualifying TGMS shall--
(1) Transmit data in a manner that enables the track owner to take
proper remedial action not later than one hour following identification
of any exception to the class of track by the TGMS system;
(2) Provide a continuous plot, on a constant-distance axis, of all
measured track geometry parameters required in paragraph (c) of this
section;
(3) Provide a report containing a comprehensive listing of all
track geometry exceptions detected by the TGMS vehicle. Any revision to
this information and/or the raw data from the vehicle must be
documented, signed, and certified by a Sec. 213.7(b) qualified
employee in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section in a manner
that correctly identifies the person who made the revision(s), and must
show the original information along with the subsequent revision(s) and
the basis or reason for the revision(s).
(e) The reports required under paragraph (d) of this section shall
contain sufficient location identification information to enable field
forces to easily locate indicated exceptions.
(f) Upon analysis of the TGMS data by a Sec. 213.7(b) qualified
person, or within one hour of detection (i.e., the moment the TGMS
passes over the defect) of an exception to the class of track by the
TGMS system, whichever is sooner, the track owner must initiate proper
remedial action. Analysis of the TGMS data may occur concurrently with
the TGMS inspection. For any exception to the class of track observed
from a crewed TGMS vehicle, the track owner shall immediately initiate
proper remedial action.
(g) The reports required under paragraph (d) of this section shall
be interpreted and electronically signed or otherwise certified by a
Sec. 213.7(b) qualified employee.
(h) A visual inspection intended to satisfy the frequency
requirement of Sec. 213.233(c) may not be conducted from a vehicle
that is also conducting a TGMS inspection, unless there is a dedicated
track inspector whose sole responsibility is conducting a visual
inspection and all requirements of Sec. 213.233 are met.
(i) In addition to any applicable training requirement of this part
and 49 CFR part 243, the track owner shall ensure Sec. 213.7 qualified
persons who review and/or interpret reports under this section are
properly trained on, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Interpreting TGMS data and reports;
(2) Prioritizing and conducting site inspections to verify defects;
and
(3) Recordkeeping requirements.
0
3. Amend Sec. 213.241 by revising paragraphs (b) through (j), and
adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.241 Inspection records.
* * * * *
(b) Each record of an inspection under Sec. Sec. 213.4, 213.119,
213.137, 213.233, 213.234, 213.235, and 213.239 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.
(c) The track owner required to conduct inspections under Sec.
213.236 shall maintain for a period of two years following an
inspection performed by a qualifying TGMS, a copy of the report
required by Sec. 213.236(d), and additional records which:
(1) Specify the date the inspection was made and the track segment
involved; and
[[Page 84860]]
(2) Specify the date of any follow-up inspection, the type of
inspection, the location of each defect, the type and size of each
defect, and the remedial action taken and the date thereof.
(d) Records of internal rail inspections required by Sec. 213.237
shall specify the--
(1) Date of inspection;
(2) Track inspected, including beginning and end points;
(3) Location and type of defects found under Sec. 213.113;
(4) Size of defects found under Sec. 213.113, if not removed prior
to the next train movement;
(5) Initial remedial action taken and the date thereof; and
(6) Location of any track not tested pursuant to Sec. 213.237(g).
(e) The track owner shall retain a rail inspection record under
paragraph (d) of this section for at least two years after the
inspection and for one year after initial remedial action is taken.
(f) The track owner shall maintain records sufficient to
demonstrate the means by which it computes the service failure rate on
all track segments subject to the requirements of Sec. 213.237(a) for
the purpose of determining compliance with the applicable service
failure rate target.
(g) 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.
(h) 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.
(i) Track inspection records shall be kept available to persons who
performed the inspections and to persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment. The most recent report from a TGMS
inspection conducted under Sec. 213.236 shall be provided to persons
performing subsequent inspections of the track segment.
(j) 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.
(k) 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--
(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 track owner trains its employees who use the system on the
proper use of the electronic recordkeeping management system;
(4) The electronic system is designed to uniquely identify the
author of the record. No two persons shall have the same electronic
identity;
(5) The track owner controls accessibility to such records and
identifies individuals who have such access;
(6) The electronic system ensures that each record cannot be
modified in any way, or replaced, once the record is completed;
(7) The electronic storage of each record shall be initiated by the
person making the inspection within 72 hours following the completion
of that inspection;
(8) The track owner maintains an information technology security
program adequate to ensure the integrity of the system, including the
prevention of unauthorized access to the records; and
(9) 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
4. Amend Sec. 213.333 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) as paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1), and paragraphs (b)(3),
and paragraphs (c) through (g);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (h) through (m) as paragraphs (j) through
(o); and
0
e. Adding new paragraphs (h) and (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 213.333 Automated vehicle-based inspection systems.
(a) * * *
(1) For track Class 6, at least three times within any 365-day
period with not less than 90 days between inspections.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Calibration procedures and parameters are assigned to the
system which assure that measured and recorded values accurately
represent track conditions. Track geometry measurements recorded by the
system shall not differ more than \1/8\ inch on repeated runs at the
same site at the same speed.
(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be capable of measuring and processing
the necessary track geometry parameters to determine compliance with:
Sec. 213.323, Track gage; Sec. 213.327, Track alinement; Sec.
213.329, Curves; elevation and speed limitations; Sec. 213.331, Track
surface; and for operations at a cant deficiency of more than 5 inches
Sec. 213.332, Combined track alinement and surface deviations.
(d) A qualifying TGMS shall--
(1) Transmit data in a manner that enables the track owner to take
proper remedial action not later than one hour following identification
of any exception to the class of track by the TGMS system;
(2) Provide a continuous plot, on a constant-distance axis, of all
measured track geometry parameters required in paragraph (c) of this
section; and
(3) Provide a report containing a comprehensive listing of all
track geometry exceptions detected by the TGMS vehicle. Any revision to
this information and/or the raw data from the vehicle must be
documented, signed, and certified by a Sec. 213.305(b) qualified
employee in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section in a manner
that correctly identifies the person who made the revisions, and must
show the original information along with the subsequent revision(s) and
the basis or reason for the revision.
(e) The reports required under paragraph (d) of this section shall
contain sufficient location identification information which enable
field forces to easily locate indicated exceptions.
(f) Upon analysis of the TGMS data by a Sec. 213.305(b) qualified
person, or within one hour of detection (i.e., the
[[Page 84861]]
moment the TGMS passes over the defect) of an exception to the class of
track by the TGMS system, whichever is sooner, the track owner must
initiate proper remedial action. Analysis of the TGMS data may occur
concurrently with the TGMS inspection. For any exception to the class
of track observed from a crewed TGMS vehicle, the track owner shall
immediately initiate proper remedial action.
(g) The reports required under paragraph (d) of this section shall
be interpreted and electronically signed or otherwise certified by a
Sec. 213.305(b) qualified employee.
(h) A visual inspection intended to satisfy the frequency
requirement of Sec. 213.365(c) may not be conducted from a vehicle
that is also conducting a TGMS inspection, unless there is a dedicated
track inspector whose sole responsibility is conducting a visual
inspection and all requirements of Sec. 213.365 are met.
(i) In addition to any applicable training requirement of this part
and part 243 of this chapter, the track owner shall ensure Sec.
213.305 qualified persons who review and/or interpret reports under
this section are properly trained on, at minimum, the following:
(1) Interpreting TGMS data and reports;
(2) Prioritizing and conducting site inspections to verify defects;
and
(3) Recordkeeping requirements.
0
5. Amend Sec. 213.369 by revising paragraphs (b) through (i), and
adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 213.369 Inspection records.
* * * * *
(b) Each record of an inspection under Sec. Sec. 213.365 and
213.367 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 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.
(c) The track owner required to conduct inspections under Sec.
213.333 shall maintain for a period of two years following an
inspection performed by a qualifying TGMS, a copy of the report
required by Sec. 213.333(d), and additional records which:
(1) Specify the date the inspection was made and the track segment
involved; and
(2) Specify the date of any follow-up inspections, the type of
inspection, the location of each defect, the type and size of each
defect, and the remedial action taken and the date thereof.
(d) Rail inspection records shall specify the date of inspection,
the location and nature of any internal defects found, the remedial
action taken and the date thereof, and the location of any intervals of
track not tested per Sec. 213.339(d). The owner shall retain a rail
inspection record for at least two years after the inspection and for
one year after remedial action is taken.
(e) 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 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;
(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.
(f) 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.
(g) Track inspection records shall be kept available to persons who
perform the inspections and to persons performing subsequent
inspections. The most recent report from a TGMS inspection conducted
under Sec. 213.333 shall be provided to persons performing subsequent
inspections of the track segment.
(h) 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.
(i) 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 track owner trains its employees who use the system on the
proper use of the electronic recordkeeping management system;
(4) The electronic system is designed to uniquely identify the
author of the record. No two persons shall have the same electronic
identity;
(5) The track owner controls accessibility to such records and
identifies individuals who have such access;
(6) The electronic system ensures that each record cannot be
modified in any way, or replaced, once the record is completed;
(7) The electronic storage of each record shall be initiated by the
person making the inspection within 72 hours following the completion
of that inspection;
(8) The track owner maintains an information technology security
program adequate to ensure the integrity of the system, including the
prevention of unauthorized access to the records; and
(9) 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.
(j) 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.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-24153 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
