[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 http://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 http://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