Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18073 

1 J.W. Weber, ‘‘Concrete crossties in the United 

States,’’ International Journal Prestressed Concrete, 

Vol. 14 No. 1, February 1969. 

2 ‘‘Prestressed concrete crosstie investigation,’’ 

AAR, Engineering research division, Report No. 

ER–20 November 1961; and G.M. Magee and E. J. 

Ruble, ‘‘Service Test on Prestressed Concrete 

Crossties,’’ Railway Track and Structures, 

September 1960. 

metabolite(s) and with numerical values 

for creatinine and specific gravity; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–7828 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 213 

[Docket No. FRA–2009–0007, Notice No. 2] 

RIN 2130–AC01 

Track Safety Standards; Concrete 

Crossties 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FRA is amending the Federal 

Track Safety Standards to promote the 

safety of railroad operations over track 

constructed with concrete crossties. In 

particular, FRA is mandating specific 

requirements for effective concrete 

crossties, for rail fastening systems 

connected to concrete crossties, and for 

automated inspections of track 

constructed with concrete crossties. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Office of 

Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: (202) 493–6236); or Sarah 

Grimmer Yurasko, Trial Attorney, Office 

of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20950 

(telephone: (202) 493–6390). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Concrete Crossties Overview 

A. Derailment in 2005 near Home Valley, 

Washington 

B. General Factual Background on Concrete 

Crossties 

C. Statutory Mandate for this Rulemaking 

II. Overview of FRA’s Railroad Safety 

Advisory Committee (RSAC) 

III. RSAC Track Safety Standards Working 

Group 

IV. FRA’s Approach to Concrete Crossties 

A. Rail Cant 

B. Automated Inspections 

V. Response to Public Comment 

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Environmental Impact 

E. Federalism Implications 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Energy Impact 

H. Privacy Act Statement 

I. Concrete Crossties Overview 

A. Derailment in 2005 Near Home 

Valley, Washington 

On April 3, 2005, a National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

passenger train traveling at 60 miles per 

hour on the BNSF Railway Company’s 

(BNSF) line through the Columbia River 

Gorge (near Home Valley, Washington) 

derailed on a 3-degree curve. According 

to the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB), 30 people sustained 

injuries. Property damage totaled about 

$854,000. See NTSB/RAB–06–03. 

According to the NTSB, the accident 

was caused in part by excessive 

concrete crosstie abrasion, which 

allowed the outer rail to rotate outward 

and create a wide gage track condition. 

This accident illustrated the potential 

for track failure with subsequent 

derailment under conditions that might 

not be readily evident in a normal visual 

track inspection. Conditions giving rise 

to this risk may include concrete tie rail 

seat abrasion, track curvature, and 

operation of trains through curves at 

speeds leading to unbalance (which is 

more typical of passenger operations). 

Subsequently, this accident also called 

attention to the need for clearer and 

more appropriate requirements for 

concrete ties, in general. This final rule 

addresses this complex set of issues as 

further described below. 

B. General Factual Background on 

Concrete Crossties 

Traditionally, crossties have been 

made of wood, but due to improved 

continuous welded rail processes, 

elastic fastener technology, and concrete 

prestressing techniques, the use of 

concrete crossties is widespread and 

growing. On major railroads in the 

United States, concrete crossties make 

up an estimated 20 percent of all 

installed crossties. A major advantage of 

concrete crossties is that they transmit 

imposed wheel loads better than 

traditional wood crossties, although 

they are susceptible to stress from highimpact loads. Another advantage of 

concrete crossties over wood ties is that 

temperature change has little effect on 

concrete’s durability, and concrete ties 

often provide better resistance from 

track buckling. 

There are, however, situations that 

can negatively impact a concrete 

crosstie’s effectiveness. For example, in 

wet climates, eccentric wheel loads and 

non-compliant track geometry can cause 

high-concentrated non-uniform 

dynamic loading, usually toward the 

field-side of the concrete rail base. This 

highly-concentrated non-uniform 

dynamic loading puts stress on the 

crosstie that can lead to the 

development of a failure. Additionally, 

repeated wheel loading rapidly 

accelerates rail seat deterioration where 

the padding material fails and the rail 

steel is in direct contact with the 

concrete. The use of automated 

technology can help inspectors ensure 

rail safety on track constructed of 

concrete crossties. While wood and 

concrete crossties differ structurally, 

they both must still support the track in 

compliance with the Federal Track 

Safety Standards (49 CFR part 213). 

The use of concrete crossties in the 

railroad industry, either experimentally 

or under revenue service, dates back to 

1893. The first railroad to use concrete 

crossties was the Philadelphia and 

Reading Company in Germantown, PA.1

In 1961, the Association of American 

Railroads (AAR) 2 carried out 

comprehensive laboratory and field tests 

on prestressed concrete crosstie 

performance. Replacing timber crossties 

with concrete crossties on a one-to-one 

basis at 191⁄2-inch spacing proved 

acceptable based on engineering 

performance, but was uneconomical. 

Increasing crosstie spacing from the 

conventional 20 inches to 30 inches 

increased the rail bending stress and the 

load that each crosstie transmitted to the 

ballast; however, the increased rail 

bending stress was within design limits. 

Further, by increasing the crosstie base 

to 12 inches, the pressure transmitted 

from crosstie to ballast section was the 

same as for timber crossties. Thus, by 

increasing the spacing of the crossties 

while maintaining rail, crosstie, and 

ballast stress at acceptable levels, the 

initial research showed that fewer 

concrete crossties than timber crossties 

could be used, making the application 

of concrete crossties a possible 

economical alternative to timber 

crossties. 

Early research efforts in the 1960s and 

1970s were focused on the strength 

characteristics of concrete crossties, i.e., 

bending at the top center and at the 

bottom of the crosstie under the rail seat 

or the rail-crosstie interface, and 

material optimization such as aggregate 

and prestressing tendons and concrete 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18074 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3T.Y. Lin, ‘‘Design of Prestressed Concrete 

Structures,’’ Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons. 

4Albert J. Reinschmidt, ‘‘Rail-seat abrasion: 

Causes and the search for the cure,’’ Railway Track 

and Structures, July 1991. 5See 49 CFR 213.335(d). 

failure at the rail-crosstie and ballastcrosstie interface. Renewed efforts 

regarding the use of concrete crossties in 

the United States in the 1970s were led 

by a major research effort to optimize 

crosstie design at the Portland Cement 

Association Laboratories (PCA). 

The PCA’s research included the use 

of various shapes, sizes, and materials to 

develop the most economically 

desirable concrete crosstie possible. 

Extensive use of concrete crossties by 

railroads all over the world since the 

1970s indicates that concrete crossties 

are an acceptable design alternative for 

use in modern track. Test sections on 

various railroads were set up in the 

1970s to evaluate the performance of 

concrete crossties. Such installations 

were on the Alaska Railroad, Chessie 

System, The Atchison, Topeka and 

Santa Fe Railway Company, the Norfolk 

and Western Railway Company, and the 

Facility for Accelerated Service Testing 

(FAST) in Pueblo, Colorado.3

During the 1970s, PCA addressed 

several of the initial concrete design 

problems, including quality control 

issues and abrasion. Abrasion, or failure 

of the concrete surface between the rail 

and crossties, became apparent when 

large sections of track were converted to 

concrete crossties, especially on highcurvature and high-tonnage territories. 

This phenomenon, commonly termed 

‘‘rail seat abrasion,’’ was noted in one 

form or another on four major railroads 

in North America (or their 

predecessors): Canadian Pacific Railway 

(CP); Canadian National Railway (CN); 

BNSF; and Union Pacific Railroad 

Company (UP).4 CN’s concrete crosstie 

program started in 1976, and researchers 

noted that rail seat abrasion was 

generally less than 0.2 inches by 1991. 

In a few cases, particularly on curved 

track, rail seat abrasion of as much as 

1 inch has been noted. In the majority 

of cases, especially on tangent or light 

curvature track, rail seat abrasion was 

uniform across the rail seat. BNSF 

started its program in 1986 and noted 

the same pattern of abrasion as CN with 

most of the abrasion occurring on 

curves. At CP, rail seat abrasion was 

present on 5-degree curves, and CP used 

a bonded pad to reduce rail seat 

abrasion. CP’s experience indicated that 

evidence of abrasion appeared shortly 

after failure of the bonded pad. At other 

locations where test sites were set up 

under less severe environments, 

concrete crossties were installed with 

no apparent sign of rail seat abrasion. 

Mechanisms that lead to rail seat 

abrasion include the development of an 

abrasive slurry between the rail pad and 

the concrete crosstie. Slurry is made up 

of various materials including dust 

particles, fine material from the 

breakdown of the ballast particles, 

grinding debris from rail grinders, and 

sand from locomotive sanding or blown 

by the wind in desert areas of the 

southwest. This slurry, driven by the 

rail movement, abrades the concrete 

surface and leaves the concrete 

aggregate exposed, generating 

concentrated forces on the rail pads. 

This abrasion process is accelerated 

once the pad is substantially degraded 

and the rail base makes direct contact 

with the concrete crosstie. 

Recently, a new form of rail seat 

abrasion, which is believed to be 

attributable to excessive compression 

forces on the rail seat area, was noted on 

high-curvature territory. The wear 

patterns in these locations have a 

triangular shape when viewed from the 

side of the crosstie. These wear patterns 

are similar in shape to the rail seat 

pressure distribution calculated when a 

vertical load and overturning moment 

are applied. The high vertical and 

lateral forces applied to the high rail by 

a curving vehicle provide such a vertical 

load and an overturning moment that 

loads the rail base unevenly. 

Anecdotal evidence indicates that 

once this triangular shape wear pattern 

develops and moves beyond the twothirds point of the rail seat, as 

referenced from the field side, a high 

negative cant is created, leading to high 

compressive forces on the field side. 

These forces are high even in the 

absence of an overturning moment since 

the rail is now bearing on only a fraction 

of the original bearing area. Further, it 

is believed that once the rail seat wears 

to this triangular shape, the degradation 

rate is accelerated due to the high 

compressive forces. 

It is apparent that at this time, 

elimination of rail seat abrasion in 

existing concrete crossties would be 

difficult in areas with severe operating 

conditions. Thus, mitigation of the 

problem on new or existing crossties is 

required. For new crosstie construction, 

it is possible to focus research efforts on 

strengthening the rail seat area with use 

of high-strength concrete or with 

embedding a steel plate at the time new 

crossties are cast. Both options have a 

high probability of success, but could 

render concrete crossties uneconomical. 

Modern concrete crossties are 

designed to accept the stresses imposed 

by irregular rail head geometry and loss, 

excessive wheel loading caused by 

wheel irregularities (out of round), 

excessive unbalance speed, and track 

geometry defects. In developing the 

regulatory text, FRA considered the 

worst combinations of conditions, 

which can cause excessive impact and 

eccentric loading stresses that would 

increase failure rates. FRA also 

considered other measures in the 

requirements concerning loss of toeload 

and longitudinal and lateral restraint, in 

addition to improper rail cant. 

C. Statutory Mandate To Conduct This 

Rulemaking 

On October 16, 2008, the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110– 

432, Division A) (RSIA) was enacted. 

Section 403(d) of RSIA states that ‘‘[n]ot 

later than 18 months after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

shall promulgate regulations for 

concrete cross ties. In developing the 

regulations for class 1 through 5 track, 

the Secretary may address, as 

appropriate—(1) Limits for rail seat 

abrasion; (2) concrete cross tie pad wear 

limits; (3) missing or broken rail 

fasteners; (4) loss of appropriate toeload 

pressure; (5) improper fastener 

configurations; and (6) excessive lateral 

rail movement.’’ The Secretary delegated 

his responsibilities under RSIA to the 

Administrator of FRA. See 49 CFR 

1.49(oo). On August 26, 2010, FRA 

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) as a first step to the agency’s 

promulgation of concrete crosstie 

regulations per the mandate of the RSIA. 

See 75 FR 52490. This final rule is the 

culmination of FRA’s efforts to develop 

and promulgate concrete crosstie 

standards. In the Section-by-Section 

Analysis, below, FRA will discuss how 

the regulatory text addresses each 

portion of the RSIA mandate. 

Regulations governing the use of 

concrete crossties previously addressed 

only high-speed rail operations (Class 6 

track and above).5 For track Classes 1– 

5 (the lower speed classes of track), 

concrete crossties had been treated, 

from the regulatory aspect, as timber 

crossties. While this approach works 

well for the major concerns with 

concrete crossties, it does not address 

the critical issue of rail seat abrasion. 

Existing regulations also do not address 

the longitudinal rail restraint provided 

by concrete crossties, which is different 

than the restraint provided by timber 

crossties. This final rule addresses these 

shortcomings and establishes new 

methodologies for inspection. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18075 

6NTSB recommended that FRA ‘‘[e]xtend[,] to all 

classes of track[,] safety standards for concrete 

crossties that address at a minimum the following: 

limits for rail seat abrasion, concrete crosstie pad 

wear limits, missing or broken rail fasteners, loss of 

appropriate toeload pressure, improper fastener 

configurations, and excessive lateral rail 

movement.’’ NTSB Safety Recommendation R–06– 

19, dated October 25, 2006. 

II. Overview of FRA’s Railroad Safety 

Advisory Committee (RSAC) 

In March 1996, FRA established 

RSAC, which provides a forum for 

developing consensus recommendations 

to the Administrator of FRA on 

rulemakings and other safety program 

issues. RSAC includes representation 

from all of FRA’s major stakeholders, 

including railroads, labor organizations, 

suppliers and manufacturers, and other 

interested parties. An alphabetical list of 

RSAC members includes the following: 

AAR; 

American Association of Private 

Railroad Car Owners; 

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials; 

American Chemistry Council; 

American Petrochemical Institute; 

American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA); 

American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA); 

American Train Dispatchers Association 

(ATDA); 

Amtrak; 

Association of Railway Museums; 

Association of State Rail Safety 

Managers (ASRSM); 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen (BLET); 

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employes Division (BMWED); 

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS); 

Chlorine Institute; 

Federal Transit Administration;* 

Fertilizer Institute; 

High Speed Ground Transportation 

Association; 

Institute of Makers of Explosives; 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers; 

International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers; 

Labor Council for Latin American 

Advancement;* 

League of Railway Industry Women;* 

National Association of Railroad 

Passengers; 

National Association of Railway 

Business Women;* 

National Conference of Firemen & 

Oilers; 

National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association; 

NTSB;* 

Railway Supply Institute; 

Safe Travel America; 

Secretaria de Comunicaciones y 

Transporte;* 

Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association; 

Tourist Railway Association Inc.; 

Transport Canada;* 

Transport Workers Union of America; 

Transportation Communications 

International Union/BRC; 

Transportation Security Administration; 

and 

United Transportation Union (UTU). 

*Indicates associate, non-voting 

membership. 

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task 

to RSAC, and after consideration and 

debate, RSAC may accept or reject the 

task. If the task is accepted, RSAC 

establishes a working group that 

possesses the appropriate expertise and 

representation of interests to develop 

recommendations to FRA for action on 

the task. These recommendations are 

developed by consensus. A working 

group may establish one or more task 

forces to develop facts and options on 

a particular aspect of a given task. The 

task force then provides that 

information to the working group for 

consideration. 

If a working group comes to a 

unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

proposal is presented to the full RSAC 

for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by 

a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal 

is formally recommended to FRA. FRA 

then determines what action to take on 

the recommendation. Because FRA staff 

members play an active role at the 

working group level in discussing the 

issues and options and in drafting the 

language of the consensus proposal, 

FRA is often favorably inclined toward 

the RSAC recommendation. 

However, FRA is in no way bound to 

follow the recommendation, and the 

agency exercises its independent 

judgment on whether the recommended 

rule achieves the agency’s regulatory 

goal, is soundly supported, and is in 

accordance with policy and legal 

requirements. Often, FRA varies in some 

respects from the RSAC 

recommendation in developing the 

actual regulatory proposal or final rule. 

Any such variations would be noted and 

explained in the rulemaking document 

issued by FRA. If the working group or 

RSAC is unable to reach consensus on 

recommendations for action, FRA will 

proceed to resolve the issue through 

traditional rulemaking proceedings. 

III. RSAC Track Safety Standards 

Working Group 

The Track Safety Standards Working 

Group (Working Group) was formed on 

February 22, 2006. On October 27, 2007, 

the Working Group formed two 

subcommittees: the Rail Integrity Task 

Force and the Concrete Crosstie Task 

Force (CCTF). Principally in response to 

NTSB recommendation R–06–19,6 the 

Working Group directed the CCTF to 

consider improvements in the Track 

Safety Standards related to fastening of 

rail to concrete crossties. The Working 

Group specified that the CCTF do the 

following: (1) Provide background 

information regarding the amount and 

use of concrete crossties in the U.S. rail 

network; (2) review minimum safety 

requirements in the Federal Track 

Safety Standards for crossties at 49 CFR 

213.109 and 213.335, as well as relevant 

American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association 

(AREMA) concrete construction 

specifications; (3) understand the 

science (mechanical and compressive 

forces) of rail seat failure on concrete 

ties; (4) develop a performance 

specification for all types of crosstie 

material for FRA Class 2 through 5 main 

line track; (5) develop specifications for 

missing or broken concrete fastener and 

crosstie track structure components 

and/or establish wear limits for rail seat 

deterioration and rail fastener integrity; 

and (6) develop manual and automated 

methods to detect rail seat failure on 

concrete ties. 

The CCTF met on November 26–27, 

2007; February 13–14, 2008; April 16– 

17, 2008; July 9–10, 2008; and 

November 19–20, 2008. The CCTF’s 

findings were reported to the Working 

Group on November 19, 2008. The 

Working Group reached a consensus on 

the majority of the CCTF’s work and 

forwarded a proposal to RSAC on 

December 10, 2008. RSAC voted to 

approve the Working Group’s 

recommended text, which provided the 

basis of the NPRM. 

In addition to FRA staff, the members 

of the Working Group include the 

following: 

AAR, including members from BNSF, 

CN, CP, CSX Transportation, Inc., The 

Kansas City Southern Railway 

Company, Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company, and UP; 

Amtrak; 

APTA, including members from Port 

Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 

LTK Engineering Services, Northeast 

Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad 

Corporation (Metra), and Peninsula 

Corridor Joint Powers Board 

(Caltrain); 

ASLRRA (representing short line and 

regional railroads); 

BLET; 

BMWED; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18076 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

BRS; 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.; 

and 

UTU. 

Staff from the Department of 

Transportation’s John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center attended 

all of the meetings and contributed to 

the technical discussions. In addition, 

NTSB staff attended all of the meetings 

and contributed to the discussions as 

well. 

As FRA received only three public 

comments on the NPRM, the agency 

decided not to seek the assistance of the 

Working Group to respond to the 

comments and formulate this final rule. 

Due to the lack of major changes in 

response to public comment, this final 

rule is also based upon the Working 

Group’s recommended text provided at 

the NPRM stage of this proceeding. FRA 

has greatly benefited from the open, 

informed exchange of information 

during the meetings. There is a general 

consensus among railroads, rail labor 

organizations, State safety managers, 

and FRA concerning the primary 

principles that FRA sets forth in this 

final rule. FRA believes that the 

expertise possessed by the RSAC 

representatives enhances the value of 

the recommendations, and FRA has 

made every effort to incorporate them in 

this final rule. 

The Working Group was unable to 

reach consensus on one item that FRA 

has addressed in the final rule. The 

Working Group could not reach 

consensus on a single technology or 

methodology to measure the rail seat 

deterioration on concrete ties. Also, the 

group debated over whether or not the 

revised standards should contain 

language to accommodate the present 

technology. FRA will address its 

response to public comment on this 

particular issue in the Response to 

Public Comment section, below. 

IV. FRA’s Approach to Concrete 

Crossties 

In this final rule, FRA is establishing 

standards for the maintenance of 

concrete crossties in track Classes 1 

through 5. Specifically, FRA is 

establishing limits for rail seat abrasion, 

concrete crosstie pad wear limits, 

missing or broken rail fasteners, loss of 

appropriate toeload pressure, improper 

fastener configuration, and excessive 

lateral rail movement. FRA is also 

adding a section requiring the 

automated inspection of track 

constructed with concrete crossties. 

In developing this final rule, FRA 

relied heavily upon the work of the 

CCTF conducted during the 

development of the NPRM in this 

proceeding. The Working Group tasked 

the CCTF to consider available scientific 

and empirical data or direct new studies 

to evaluate the concrete crosstie rail seat 

deterioration phenomenon and, through 

consensus, propose best practices, 

inspection criteria, or standards to 

assure concrete crosstie safety. The 

members of the CCTF worked together 

to develop definitions and terminology 

as required and to disseminate pertinent 

information and safety concerns. 

The Federal Track Safety Standards 

prescribe minimum track geometry and 

structure requirements for specific 

railroad track conditions existing in 

isolation. Railroads are expected to 

maintain higher safety standards, and 

are not precluded from prescribing 

additional or more stringent 

requirements. 

Previously, crossties were evaluated 

individually by the definitional and 

functional criteria set forth in the 

regulations. As promulgated in 49 CFR 

213.109, crosstie ‘‘effectiveness’’ is 

naturally subjective, short of failure of 

the ties, and requires good judgment in 

the application and interpretation of the 

standard. The soundness of a crosstie is 

demonstrated when a 39-foot track 

segment maintains safe track geometry 

and structurally supports the imposed 

wheel loads with minimal deviation. 

Key to the track segment lateral, 

longitudinal, and vertical support is a 

strong track modulus, which is a 

measure of the vertical stiffness of the 

rail foundation, sustained by a superior 

superstructure (including rails, 

crossties, fasteners, etc.) and highquality ballast characteristics that 

transmit both dynamic and thermal 

loads to the subgrade. Proper drainage is 

an apparent and crucial factor in 

providing structural support. 

A. Rail Cant 

The Working Group discussed the 

concept of rail cant, but determined not 

to regulate this track geometric 

condition. The rail cant angle is 

described by AREMA as a degree of 

slope, or cant, designed toward the 

centerline of the crosstie. FRA does not 

specifically use the term ‘‘rail cant’’ in 

any of its track regulations, including 

the standards in subpart G of part 213, 

which apply to track used for the 

operation of trains at greater than 90 

miles per hour (mph) for passenger 

equipment and at greater than 80 mph 

for freight equipment (track Classes 6 

and higher). However, ‘‘rail cant’’ is 

widely accepted and understood in the 

rail industry, and accordingly FRA has 

decided to discuss this concept in the 

preamble to this final rule. ‘‘Rail cant 

deviation’’ refers to the inward or 

outward angle made by the rail from 

design cant. 

Automated technology that measures 

rail cant deviations exceeding proper 

design criteria is extremely efficient in 

identifying problems with the rail/ 

crosstie interface such as rail seat 

abrasion or deterioration, ineffective 

fasteners, crosstie plate cutting (wood), 

missing or worn crosstie pads, and rail/ 

plate misalignment. The deterioration or 

abrasion is the result of a compressive 

load and/or mechanical effects of 

deterioration from repetitious 

concentrated wheel loading, which 

typically develops a triangular void on 

the field side of the rail and allows the 

rail to tilt or roll outward under load, 

increasing gage widening and possible 

rail rollover relationships. 

The CCTF could not reach consensus 

on a single technology or methodology 

to measure the rail cant angle when the 

concrete crosstie rail seat deteriorates. 

Also, the CCTF could not reach 

consensus on whether the revised 

standards should contain language to 

accommodate the present technology. 

Therefore, the CCTF recommended that 

FRA and the industry continue 

evaluating the possibility of developing 

rail seat deterioration standards for 

concrete crossties for broader 

application within the industry. 

An improper rail cant angle may be an 

indication of rail seat deterioration, 

which can be detected by a variety of 

methods. One method currently used is 

a rail profile measurement system to 

measure rail cant angle. Other, perhaps 

less costly, methods have not been fully 

developed. CCTF members chose not to 

be confined to one measurement system 

technology when others were available 

to select from in the marketplace. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed that the 

automated inspection measurement 

system must be capable of measuring 

and processing rail cant requirements 

that specify the following: (1) An 

accuracy angle, in degrees, to within 1⁄2

of a degree; (2) a distance-based 

sampling interval not exceeding two 

feet; and (3) calibration procedures and 

parameters assigned to the system, 

which assure that measured and 

recorded values accurately represent rail 

cant. FRA did not propose to mandate 

the use of a particular technology, rather 

FRA proposed that the technology 

selected by the track owner be capable 

of measuring and processing the rail 

cant requirements specified in 49 CFR 

213.234(e). In this final rule, in response 

to public comment, FRA has required 

the track owner to use automated 

technology to measure rail seat 

deterioration. FRA’s rationale is 

discussed further in the Response to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18077 

7By ‘‘compliant but irregular geometry,’’ FRA 

notes that track geometry can become irregular 

when multiple geometry measurements (gage, 

profile, or alinement) near the compliance limits. 

This combination of geometry conditions can cause 

irregular geometry that, when coupled with 

excessive wheel loading, can cause the rapid 

development of rail seat deterioration. 

Public Comment Section and Sectionby-Section Analysis, below. 

B. Automated Inspections 

Current inspections of crossties and 

fasteners rely heavily on visual 

inspections by track inspectors, whose 

knowledge is based on varying degrees 

of experience and training. The 

subjective nature of those inspections 

can sometimes create inconsistent 

determinations regarding the ability of 

individual crossties and fasteners to 

support and restrain track geometry. 

Concrete crossties may not always 

exhibit strong indications of rail seat 

deterioration. Rail seat deterioration is 

often difficult to identify even while 

conducting a walking visual inspection. 

Combined with excessive wheel loading 

and combinations of compliant but 

irregular geometry,7 a group of concrete 

crossties remaining in track for an 

extended period of time may cause rail 

seat deterioration to develop rapidly. 

When a train applies an abnormally 

high lateral load to a section of track 

that exhibits rail seat deterioration, the 

result can be a wide gage or rail rollover 

derailment with the inherent risk of 

injury to railroad personnel and 

passengers, and damage to property. 

V. Response to Public Comment 

FRA received comments to the NPRM 

from: (1) Amtrak; (2) AAR; and (3) 

ATDA, BLET, BMWED, BRS, and the 

UTU (labor). The comments pertained to 

both the requirements for concrete 

crossties as well as the requirements for 

the automated inspections of track. One 

of the comments also asked for FRA’s 

perspective on the possibility of a track 

owner combining crossties constructed 

of wood and concrete in the same 

section of track. The major points of the 

comments are addressed below, and 

individual points made are covered in 

more depth in the Section-by-Section 

Analysis. 

Concrete Crosstie Requirements 

Both Amtrak and AAR argued against 

FRA’s proposal in § 213.109(d) that 

concrete ties cannot be ‘‘deteriorated to 

the point that prestressing material is 

visible.’’ The commenters argued that 

the language failed to distinguish 

between cases where the prestressing 

material has truly been compromised 

and cases where a small section of the 

outer prestressing material is exposed 

due to small nicks or maintenance work. 

Instead, the commenters suggested that 

FRA adopt the requirement that a 

concrete crosstie cannot be ‘‘completely 

broken through.’’ FRA elects not to 

accept this comment, as the distinction 

between the pre-existing regulatory 

language of ‘‘broken through’’ for wood 

ties in § 213.109(c) and ‘‘completely 

broken through’’ for concrete ties in 

§ 213.109(d) would be unnecessarily 

confusing. Also, FRA maintains that 

there are situations where concrete ties 

that are not completely broken through 

have, nonetheless, become ineffective. 

Additionally, there is a distinction 

between a concrete tie being simply 

chipped due to wheel impact as 

opposed to actual deterioration. 

Moreover, FRA clarifies that this 

regulation is not concerned with 

reinforcing material that may be left 

visible on the end of a tie during the 

manufacturing process. FRA’s rationale 

is described further in the Section-bySection Analysis, below. 

AAR also commented on the 

proposed requirement in 

§ 213.109(d)(4), which provides that the 

deterioration or abrasion under the rail 

seat cannot be 1⁄2 of an inch or more in 

order for the crosstie to be counted in 

satisfying the mandate for a minimum 

number of crossties, as set forth in 

§ 213.109(b)(4). AAR points out that 

FRA stated in the NPRM preamble that 

the measurement of 1⁄2 of an inch 

includes depth from the loss of rail pad 

material. AAR argues that the rail pad 

material is not part of the concrete 

crosstie and that the loss of the rail pad 

material should not be included in the 

1⁄2 of an inch calculation. FRA 

maintains that, when a concrete tie is 

constructed with a rail pad, loss of the 

rail pad material must be included in 

the 1⁄2 of an inch calculation. FRA 

addresses this point further in the 

Section-by-Section Analysis, below. 

Additionally, AAR asserts that FRA’s 

proposed requirement in § 213.109(d)(6) 

that concrete crossties cannot be 

configured with less than two fasteners 

on the same rail is overly stringent for 

Class 1 and 2 track. AAR argues that, if 

the fastenings on two adjacent ties on 

Class 1 or 2 track, neither of which fully 

comply with § 213.109(d)(5), provide 

the equivalent of the fastenings on one 

tie, the two adjacent ties should be 

counted as one tie for the purposes of 

§ 213.109(a)(4). AAR provides that this 

flexibility could be useful in the case of 

a derailment where one axle derails. For 

example, this type of derailment can 

result in a large number of concrete ties 

where the inner clip on one rail can no 

longer function, but the other three clips 

are fine. AAR proposes that these ties 

can be safely reused in Class 1 and 2 

tracks by turning every second tie end 

for end. FRA responds that, as with nonconcrete ties, one of the safety 

requirements of an effective concrete tie 

is that it be able to hold fasteners. 

Consequently, FRA is declining to 

accept AAR’s recommended change to 

the regulatory text due to this safety 

concern. 

Automated Inspections 

All three commenters provided their 

thoughts and concerns regarding 

automated inspections. The broadest 

concern that the comments seemed to 

share pertained to FRA’s proposal that 

track owners use rail cant measurements 

in § 213.234(d) to obtain the depth of 

rail seat deterioration. AAR suggested 

that some automated systems might use 

the angle of rail cant to obtain the depth 

of deterioration, but that method should 

not be mandated by regulation. Labor 

also commented that any automated 

technology that can be proven to 

accurately detect and measure rail seat 

abrasion within the tolerances 

established by FRA should be allowed. 

In response to these concerns, FRA 

accepts the commenters’ suggestion that 

the regulation require that an automated 

system measure rail seat deterioration 

instead of rail cant. FRA has determined 

to hold the track owner to a 

performance-based standard of having 

an automated system that accurately 

measures rail seat deterioration without 

mandating which technology should be 

used. This point is discussed further in 

the Section-by-Section Analysis related 

to § 213.234(d). 

Concrete and Other Than Concrete 

Crossties 

Labor commented that the proposed 

regulations would not prohibit a track 

owner from using a mixture of crossties 

constructed of both wood and concrete 

in the same 39-foot segment of track. 

The comment requested FRA’s opinion 

on this practice. FRA declines to 

mandate the type of material that must 

be used in track. The final rule provides 

that, based upon the class of track, a 

39-foot segment of track must have a 

certain number of non-defective 

crossties. The rule goes on to define 

what constitutes a non-defective crosstie 

for both concrete crossties and nonconcrete crossties. In using the term 

‘‘crossties, other than concrete’’ in the 

rule, FRA has allowed for future 

advances in technology that could allow 

for crossties to be constructed out of 

alternative materials. FRA has mandated 

that there be a specified number of nondefective crossties in a 39-foot segment 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

of track, but has left the type of material 

that compose the crossties in that 

segment to the track owner’s discretion. 

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 213.2 Preemptive Effect 

FRA is removing this section from 49 

CFR part 213. This section was 

prescribed in 1998 and has become 

outdated and, therefore, misleading 

because it does not reflect post-1998 

amendments to 49 U.S.C. 20106. 63 FR 

34029, June 22, 1998; Sec. 1710(c), 

Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2319; 

Sec. 1528, Public Law 110–53, 121 Stat. 

453. Although FRA considered updating 

this regulatory section, FRA now 

believes that the section is unnecessary 

because 49 U.S.C. 20106 sufficiently 

addresses the preemptive effect of part 

213. In other words, providing a 

separate Federal regulatory provision 

concerning the regulation’s preemptive 

effect is duplicative of 49 U.S.C. 20106 

and, therefore, unnecessary. 

Section 213.109 Crossties 

FRA is amending this section to 

reflect recommendations made by the 

CCTF and adopted by RSAC. After 

discussion and review of concrete 

crosstie requirements in the higher 

speed subpart (subpart G of the Track 

Safety Standards), the CCTF concluded 

that performance specifications for 

concrete crossties are needed in the 

lower-speed standards. Specifically, 

requirements are needed to establish 

limits for rail seat abrasion, concrete 

crosstie pad wear limits, missing or 

broken rail fasteners, loss of appropriate 

toeload pressure, improper fastener 

configuration, and excessive lateral rail 

movement. The CCTF reviewed the 

method and manner of manual and 

automated inspection methods and 

technology to abate track-caused 

reportable derailments. FRA is revising 

this section to clarify the type of crosstie 

that will fulfill the requirements of 

paragraph (b) and to include 

requirements specific to concrete 

crossties. 

Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA 

is clarifying that only non-defective 

crossties may be counted to fulfill the 

requirements of the paragraph. Nondefective crossties are defined in 

paragraphs (c) and (d). FRA is also 

making other minor grammatical 

corrections to this paragraph, including 

moving the table of minimum number of 

crossties from paragraph (d) to 

paragraph (b)(4). 

Paragraph (c). FRA makes clear that 

this paragraph is specific to crossties 

other than concrete crossties. 

Paragraph (d). FRA is moving the 

existing table of minimum number of 

crossties from this paragraph, to 

paragraph (b)(4). FRA is substituting 

language that delineates the 

requirements related to concrete 

crossties. 

Paragraph (d)(1). In this paragraph, 

FRA states that, as with non-concrete 

crossties, concrete crossties counted to 

fulfill the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(4) must not be broken through or 

deteriorated to the extent that 

prestressing material is visible. Crossties 

must not be so deteriorated that the 

prestressing material has visibly 

separated from, or visibly lost bond 

with, the concrete, resulting either in 

the crosstie’s partial break-up, or in 

cracks that expose prestressing material 

due to spalls or chips, or in significant 

broken-out areas exposing prestressed 

material. Currently, metal reinforcing 

bars are used as the prestressing 

material in concrete crossties. FRA is 

using the term ‘‘prestressing material’’ in 

lieu of ‘‘metal reinforcing bars’’ to allow 

for future technological advances. 

As stated in the Response to Public 

Comment section of the preamble, FRA 

has elected to require that a concrete 

crosstie must not be ‘‘broken through’’ or 

‘‘deteriorated to the extent that 

prestressing material is visible.’’ Crosstie 

failure is exhibited in three distinct 

ways: Stress induced (breaks, cracks); 

mechanical (abrasion); or chemical 

decomposition. FRA continues to 

believe that breaks, cracking, 

mechanical abrasion, or chemical 

reaction in small or large degrees 

compromise the crosstie’s ability to 

maintain the rails in proper gage, 

alignment, and track surface. 

FRA notes that there is a distinction 

between the phrases ‘‘broken through’’ 

and ‘‘deteriorated to the extent that 

prestressing material is visible.’’ 

Concrete crossties are manufactured in 

two basic designs: Twin-block and 

mono-block. Twin-block crossties are 

designed with two sections of concrete 

connected by exposed metal rods. A 

mono-block crosstie is similar in 

dimension to a timber or wood crosstie 

and contains prestress metal strands 

embedded into the concrete. The metal 

reinforcing strands in the concrete are 

observed at the ends of the crosstie for 

proper tension position. Prestressed 

reinforced concrete, including 

prestressed concrete ties, is made by 

stressing the reinforcing material in a 

mold, then pouring cement concrete 

over the reinforcing material in the 

mold. After the concrete cures, the 

tension on the reinforcing material is 

released, and the ends of the reinforcing 

material are trimmed, if appropriate for 

the use. The reinforcing material 

remains in tension against the concrete, 

which is very strong in compression. 

This allows the prestressed concrete to 

withstand both compressive and tensile 

loads. If the concrete spalls, or if the 

reinforcing material is otherwise 

allowed to come out of contact with the 

concrete, then the reinforcing material is 

no longer in tension. When this 

happens, the once prestressed concrete 

can no longer withstand tensile loads, 

and it will fail very rapidly in service, 

such as in a concrete tie. 

FRA notes that prestressing material 

can be exposed in a concrete crosstie in 

a crack, but it can also be exposed on 

the side of the tie. When prestressing 

material becomes exposed on the side of 

the tie, the reinforcing material is no 

longer in tension, the prestressed 

concrete can no longer withstand the 

tensile loads, and therefore a concrete 

crosstie can structurally fail. This does 

not apply to reinforcing material left 

visible at the end of the tie during the 

manufacturing process. 

The compressive strength of the 

concrete material and the amount of 

prestress applied in the manufacturing 

process provide the strength and 

stiffness necessary to adequately 

support and distribute wheel loads to 

the subgrade. The reinforcing metal 

strands/wires encased in concrete hold 

the crosstie together and provide tensile 

strength. However, significant cracking 

or discernible deterioration exposure of 

the reinforcing strands to water and 

oxygen produces loss of the prestress 

force through corrosion, concrete 

deterioration, and poor bonding. Loss of 

the prestress force renders the crosstie 

susceptible to structural failure and as a 

consequence, stability failure relating to 

track geometry non-compliance. 

During routine inspections, spalls, 

chips, cracks, and similar breaks are 

easily visible. However, the 

compression of prestressed concrete 

crossties may close cracks as they occur, 

making them difficult to observe. Even 

such closed cracks probably weaken the 

crossties. Breaks or cracks are divided 

into three general conditions: 

Longitudinal; center; and rail seat. 

Longitudinal cracks are horizontal 

through the crosstie and extend parallel 

to its length. They are initiated by high 

impacts on one or both sides of the rail 

bearing inserts. Crosstie center cracks 

are vertical cracks extending 

transversely or across the crosstie. These 

cracks are unusual and are the result of 

high negative bending movement 

(centerbound), originating at the crosstie 

top and extend to the bottom. Generally, 

the condition is progressive, and 

adjacent crossties may be affected. Rail 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18079 

seat cracks are vertical cracks that are 

not easily visible. They usually extend 

from the bottom of the crosstie on one 

or both sides of the crosstie and are 

often hard to detect. It is possible for a 

crosstie to be broken through, but, due 

to the location of the break, the 

prestressing material may not be visible. 

Crosstie strength, generally, does not fail 

unless the crack extends through the top 

layer of the prestress strands. Once the 

crack extends beyond the top layer, 

there is usually a loss of strand and 

concrete bond strength. 

Paragraph (d)(2). This paragraph 

makes clear that crossties counted to 

fulfill the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section must not be 

deteriorated or broken off in the vicinity 

of the shoulder or insert so that the 

fastener assembly can either pull out or 

move laterally more than 3⁄8 inch 

relative to the crosstie. These conditions 

weaken rail fastener integrity. 

Paragraph (d)(3). This paragraph 

requires that crossties counted to fulfill 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section must not be deteriorated 

such that the base of either rail can 

move laterally more than 3⁄8 inch 

relative to the crosstie on curves of 

2 degrees or greater; or can move 

laterally more than 1⁄2 inch relative to 

the crosstie on tangent track or curves 

of less than 2 degrees. FRA’s intent is to 

allow for a combination rail movement 

up to the dimensions specified, but not 

separately. The rail and fastener 

assembly work as a system, capable of 

providing electrical insulation, and 

adequate resistance to lateral 

displacement, undesired gage widening, 

rail canting, rail rollover, and abrasive 

or excessive compressive stresses. This 

paragraph specifically addresses Section 

403(d)(6) of the RSIA, which states that 

the Secretary may address excessive 

lateral rail movement in the concrete 

crosstie regulations. 

Paragraph (d)(4). In this paragraph, 

FRA is requiring that crossties counted 

to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section must not be 

deteriorated or abraded at any point 

under the rail seat to a depth of 1⁄2 inch 

or more. The measurement of 1⁄2 inch 

includes depth from the loss of rail pad 

material. The importance of having pad 

material in place with sufficient 

hysteresis (i.e., resilience (elasticity) to 

dampen high impact loading and 

recover) is paramount to control rail seat 

cracks caused by rail surface defects, 

wheel flats, or out of round wheels. 

Additionally, concrete crossties must be 

capable of providing adequate rail 

longitudinal restraint from excessive rail 

creepage or thermally induced forces or 

stress. As mentioned above, ‘‘rail 

creepage’’ is the tractive effort or pulling 

force exerted by a locomotive or car 

wheels, and ‘‘thermally induced forces 

or stress’’ is the longitudinal expansion 

and contraction of the rail, creating 

either compressive or tensile forces as 

the rail temperature increases or 

decreases, respectively. The loss of pad 

material causes a loss of toeload force, 

which may decrease longitudinal 

restraint. This paragraph specifically 

addresses Section 403(d)(1) of the RSIA, 

which states that the Secretary may 

address limits for rail seat abrasion in 

the concrete crosstie regulations. 

Paragraph (d)(5). This paragraph 

requires that crossties counted to fulfill 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section must not be deteriorated 

such that the crosstie’s fastening or 

anchoring system is unable to maintain 

longitudinal rail restraint, maintain rail 

hold down, or maintain gage, due to 

insufficient fastener toeload. Inspectors 

evaluate crossties individually by 

‘‘definitional and functional’’ criteria. A 

compliant crosstie is demonstrated 

when a 39-foot track segment maintains 

safe track geometry and structurally 

supports the imposed wheel loads. In 

addition to ballast, anchors bear against 

the sides of crossties to control 

longitudinal rail movement, and certain 

types of fasteners also act to control rail 

movement by exerting a downward 

clamping force (toeload) on the upper 

rail base. Part of the complexity of 

crosstie assessment is the fastener 

component. Both crossties and fasteners 

act as a system to deliver the expected 

performance effect. A non-compliant 

crosstie and defective fastener assembly 

improperly maintains the rail position 

and support on the crosstie and 

contributes to excessive lateral gage 

widening (rail cant-rail rollover), and 

longitudinal rail movement because of 

loss of toeload. 

Fastener assemblies or anchoring 

systems allow a certain amount of rail 

movement through the crosstie to 

effectively relieve rail creepage (tractive 

and thermal force build-up). However, 

because of the unrestrained buildup 

caused by rail creep, the longitudinal 

expansion and contraction of the rail 

creates either compressive or tensile 

forces, respectively. When longitudinal 

rail movement is uncontrolled, it may 

disturb the track structure, causing 

misalignment (compression) or pullapart (tensile) conditions to catastrophic 

failure. Specific longitudinal 

performance metrics would be 

undesirable and restrict certain fastener 

assembly designs and capabilities to 

control longitudinal rail movement. 

Therefore, track inspectors must use 

good judgment in determining fastener 

assembly and crosstie effectiveness. 

This paragraph specifically addresses 

Sections 403(d)(3) and (d)(4) of the 

RSIA, which state that the Secretary 

may address, in the concrete crosstie 

regulations, missing or broken rail 

fasteners, and loss of appropriate 

toeload pressure. 

In its comments on the NPRM, AAR 

recommended that the phrase, 

‘‘including rail anchors 

(see § 213.127(b))’’ be added directly 

after the word ‘‘system’’ in this 

paragraph. FRA agrees with this 

recommendation and has incorporated 

this change into the final rule text. 

Paragraph (d)(6). This paragraph 

makes clear that crossties counted to 

fulfill the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section must not be 

configured with less than two fasteners 

on the same rail except as provided in 

§ 213.127(c). FRA is revising 

§ 213.127(c), discussed further below, to 

include requirements specific to 

fasteners utilized in conjunction with 

concrete crossties. 

In response to the NPRM, AAR 

commented that FRA’s proposed 

requirement in § 213.109(d)(6) that 

concrete crossties cannot be configured 

with less than two fasteners on the same 

rail is overly stringent for Class 1 and 2 

track. AAR argues that, if the fastenings 

on two adjacent ties on Class 1 or 2 

track, neither of which fully comply 

with paragraph (d)(5) of this section, 

provide the equivalent of the fastenings 

on one tie, the two adjacent ties should 

be counted as one tie for the purposes 

of paragraph (a)(4) of this section. AAR 

provides that this flexibility could be 

useful in the case of a derailment where 

one axle derails. For example, this type 

of derailment can result in a large 

number of concrete ties where the inner 

clip on one rail can no longer function, 

but the other three clips are fine. AAR 

asserts that these ties can be safely 

reused in Class 1 and 2 tracks by turning 

every second tie end for end. FRA 

contends that, as with non-concrete ties, 

one of the safety requirements of an 

effective concrete tie is that it be able to 

hold fasteners. Thus, FRA is declining 

to accept this suggested change to the 

regulatory text due to this safety 

concern. 

Section 213.127 Rail Fastening 

Systems 

FRA is revising this section by 

designating the existing rule text as 

paragraph (a) and adding new 

paragraphs (b) and (c). 

Paragraph (b). This paragraph requires 

that if rail anchors are applied to 

concrete crossties, then the combination 

of the crossties, fasteners, and rail 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

anchors must provide effective 

longitudinal restraint. FRA has elected 

not to define ‘‘effective longitudinal 

restraint,’’ choosing instead to make this 

provision a performance-based 

standard. 

Paragraph (c). This paragraph 

addresses instances where fastener 

placement impedes insulated joints 

from performing as intended by 

permitting the fastener to be modified or 

removed, provided that the crosstie 

supports the rail. By ‘‘supports,’’ FRA 

means that the crosstie is in direct 

contact with the rail or leaves an 

incidental space between the tie and 

rail. Certain joint configurations do not 

permit conventional fasteners to fit 

properly. As a result, manufacturers 

offer a modified fastener to fit along the 

rail so that the fastener provides the 

longitudinal requirement, or it is 

removed completely, providing lateral 

restraint is accomplished by ensuring 

full contact with the rail. 

Labor representatives commented that 

FRA should not allow for the removal 

of fasteners at insulated joints in any 

case where modified fasteners are 

offered by the manufacturer or are 

otherwise available from any source. In 

cases where removal of the fastener is 

the only option, such removal should be 

limited to insulated joints only, the 

crossties without fasteners must fully 

support the rail with no incidental 

space between the tie and rail, and that 

a minimum of three non-defective 

crossties on each side of the unfastened 

insulated joint be required. FRA 

believes that, without an engineering 

rationale to support labor’s proposal, it 

is unnecessarily restrictive. 

Additionally, FRA points out that the 

requirement of having an effective 

crosstie within a prescribed distance of 

a joint contained in § 213.109(e) would 

apply, and FRA does not see a need to 

modify this requirement for insulated 

joints. Finally, FRA has elected not to 

mandate what type of equipment or 

what manufacturer a track owner must 

use, but instead has determined to 

regulate the performance of the material 

to the minimum safety standards 

promulgated in part 213. 

Section 213.234 Automated Inspection 

of Track Constructed With Concrete 

Crossties 

FRA is adding a new section requiring 

the automated inspection of track 

constructed with concrete crossties. 

Automated inspection technology is 

available to perform essential tasks 

necessary to supplement visual 

inspection, quantify performance-based 

specifications to guarantee safe car 

behavior, and provide objective 

confidence and ensure safe train 

operations. Automated inspections 

provide a level of safety superior to that 

of manual inspection methods by better 

analyzing weak points in track geometry 

and structural components. The 

computer systems in automated 

inspection systems can accurately detect 

geometry deviations from the Track 

Safety Standards and can analyze areas 

that are often hard to examine manually. 

Railroads benefit from automated 

inspection technology by having 

improved defect detection capabilities, 

suffering fewer track-related 

derailments, and improving overall 

track maintenance. 

Automated inspection technology is 

used in Track Geometry Measurement 

Systems (TGMS), Gage Restraint 

Measurement Systems (GRMS), and 

Vehicle/Track Interaction (VTI) 

performance measurement systems. 

TGMS identify single or multiple noncompliant track geometry conditions. 

GRMS aid in locating good or poor 

performing track strength locations. VTI 

performance measurement systems 

encompass both acceleration and wheel 

forces that, when exceeding established 

thresholds, often cause damage to track 

components and rail equipment. These 

automated technologies may be 

combined in the same or different 

geometry car platforms or vehicles and 

require vehicle/track measurements to 

be made by truck frame accelerometers, 

carbody accelerometers, or by 

instrumented wheelsets to measure 

wheel/rail forces, ensuring performance 

limits are not exceeded. Moreover, rail 

seat deterioration can be very difficult 

and time consuming for a track 

inspector to detect manually. 

Automated inspection vehicles have 

proven effective in measuring rail seat 

deterioration, and the inspection 

vehicles can inspect much more rapidly 

and accurately than a visual track 

inspection. 

Paragraph (a). In this paragraph, FRA 

is requiring that automated inspection 

technology be used to supplement 

visual inspection by Class I railroads 

including Amtrak, Class II railroads, 

other intercity passenger railroads, and 

commuter railroads or small 

governmental jurisdictions that serve 

populations greater than 50,000, on 

track constructed of concrete crossties 

for Class 3 main track over which 

regularly scheduled passenger service 

trains operate, and for all Class 4 and 5 

main track constructed with concrete 

crossties. FRA is also requiring that 

automated inspections identify and 

report concrete crosstie deterioration or 

abrasion prohibited by § 213.109(d)(4). 

The purpose of the automated 

inspection is to measure for rail seat 

deterioration. As previously discussed, 

rail seat deterioration is the failure of 

the concrete surface between the rail 

and crossties. In § 213.109(d)(4) FRA 

requires that the crosstie must not be 

‘‘deteriorated or abraded at any point 

under the rail seat to a depth of 1⁄2 inch 

or more.’’ The depth includes the loss of 

rail pad material. 

This paragraph also explicitly states, 

that the requirements for automated 

track inspections do not become 

applicable until January 1, 2012. The 

paragraph also intends to make clear 

that the requirements do not apply to 

sections of tangent track that are 600 

feet or less in length that are constructed 

of concrete crossties, including, but not 

limited to, isolated track segments, 

experimental or test track segments, 

highway-rail crossings, and wayside 

detectors. 

Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA 

is stating the frequencies at which track 

constructed of concrete crossties shall 

be inspected by automated means. An 

automated inspection must be 

conducted twice each calendar year, 

with no less than 160 days between 

inspections, if the annual tonnage on 

Class 4 and 5 main track and Class 3 

main track with regularly scheduled 

passenger service exceeds 40 million 

gross tons (mgt). An automated 

inspection must be conducted at least 

once each calendar year if annual 

tonnage on Class 4 and 5 main track and 

Class 3 track with regularly scheduled 

passenger service equals or is less than 

40 mgt annually. FRA is also requiring 

that either an automated or walking 

inspection be conducted once per 

calendar year on Class 3, 4 and 5 main 

track with exclusively passenger 

service. Finally, this paragraph makes 

clear that track not inspected in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) or 

(b)(2) of this section because of train 

operation interruption must be 

reinspected within 45 days of the 

resumption of train operations by a 

walking or automated inspection. If this 

inspection is conducted as a walking 

inspection, FRA requires that the next 

scheduled inspection be an automated 

inspection as required by this 

paragraph. 

In its comment, labor representatives 

recommended that FRA should reduce 

the 40 mgt threshold to 30 mgt. The 

comment points out that the Working 

Group’s Rail Integrity Task Force, which 

operated concurrently within the same 

basic timeframe as the CCTF, reached 

consensus to reduce the threshold for 

automated internal rail flaw detection 

from 40 mgt to 30 mgt. These 

commenters also recommended that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18081 

FRA consider adding one additional 

automated inspection for track 

exceeding 60 mgt and one additional 

automated inspection for track 

exceeding 90 mgt, for a maximum of 

four automated inspections per calendar 

year with at least 70 days between 

inspections. FRA believes that without 

technical information supporting such a 

change, FRA is not persuaded to change 

the limits agreed upon by the Working 

Group. Additionally, internal rail flaw 

detection equipment is not the same as 

equipment designed to measure track 

geometry. A railroad is likely to use 

different equipment to measure rail cant 

and to detect internal rail flaws, so there 

is no particular savings in attempting to 

conduct both inspections on the same 

intervals. Further, development of 

internal rail flaws to failure has different 

characteristics from development of tie 

failures. There is no particular reason to 

establish both at the same intervals. The 

different RSAC recommendations reflect 

those differences, and FRA sees no need 

to adopt the more frequent intervals 

recommended for rail flaw detection for 

measurement of possible rail seat 

abrasion. 

AAR commented that paragraph (b)(4) 

addresses instances where automated 

inspections have not taken place 

because of train interruption. The 

comment states that the NPRM failed to 

account for instances where inspections 

cannot take place because of stopped 

trains or because the automated 

equipment has failed. AAR suggested 

amending the text to state that it also 

applies whether inspections are 

interrupted because of a standing train 

or by failure of the inspection 

equipment. FRA asserts that the track 

owner is provided a year to conduct 

either one or two inspections. This 

section was intended for circumstances 

out of the track owner’s control, such as 

extreme weather conditions. FRA 

believes the rule provides sufficient 

flexibility to permit a track owner to 

schedule the inspections to allow for 

foreseeable operational conditions such 

as a standing train or failed equipment 

and still be able to conduct the required 

one or two inspections within a 

calendar year. 

Paragraph (c). In this paragraph, FRA 

excludes from the required automated 

inspections sections of tangent track of 

600 feet or less constructed of concrete 

crossties, including, but not limited to, 

isolated track segments, experimental or 

test track segments, highway/rail 

crossings, and wayside detectors. These 

exclusions are specified because FRA 

recognizes the economic burden caused 

by requiring automated inspections to 

be made on short isolated locations 

constructed of concrete crossties that 

may be difficult to measure without 

removal of additional material, such as 

grade crossing planking. 

Paragraph (d). In this final rule, FRA 

requires that the automated inspection 

measurement system must be capable of 

measuring and processing rail seat 

deterioration requirements which 

specify the following: (1) An accuracy, 

to within 1⁄8 of an inch; (2) a distancebased sampling interval not exceeding 

five feet; and (3) calibration procedures 

and parameters assigned to the system, 

which assure that measured and 

recorded values accurately represent rail 

seat deterioration. 

While other automated inspection 

technologies may exist in the field, FRA 

believes that the Rail Profile 

Measurement System (RPMS) is 

currently the best developed technology 

to measure rail seat deterioration. RPMS 

determines rail seat deterioration by 

measuring rail cant in tenths of a degree. 

It is often difficult to measure rail cant 

in the field with hand measurement 

tools because of the small dimension, 

e.g., one degree rail cant angle equates 

to 1⁄8 inch depth between the rail seat 

and the rail. Typically the RPMS 

instrumentation onboard FRA geometry 

cars are set to notify an advisory 

exception when the angle exceeds four 

degrees of negative or outward rail cant. 

This paragraph was specifically added 

to address Section 403(d)(1) of the RSIA, 

which states that, in the concrete 

crosstie regulations, the Secretary may 

address limits for rail seat abrasion. 

As mentioned above, FRA received 

several comments relating to the 

NPRM’s proposed requirement that 

track owners to use only automated 

systems measuring rail cant to 

determine rail seat abrasion was too 

restrictive. Additionally, both Amtrak 

and AAR commented that the system 

should be required to measure rail seat 

deterioration within an accuracy of 1⁄8 of 

an inch. AAR also requested that the 

sampling rate be changed from two to 

five feet, and Amtrak requested that the 

sampling rate be changed from two feet 

to ten feet. 

FRA has decided to accept the 

commenters’ suggestion to prescribe the 

results that an automated inspection 

system must be capable of producing, 

but to decline mandating which 

technology the track owner must use for 

the automated inspection system. FRA 

believes that current automated 

inspection systems that measure rail 

cant provide a reliable method of 

determining rail seat deterioration. 

However, to allow for future advances 

in technology, FRA will not mandate 

that a track owner’s automated system 

must measure rail cant to determine rail 

seat deterioration. Additionally, FRA is 

accepting the recommendation that the 

distance-based sampling system should 

not exceed five feet as opposed to the 

two feet proposed in the NPRM. FRA 

believes that five feet in a distancebased sampling system will produce 

results to a sufficient accuracy level. 

Paragraph (e). In this paragraph, FRA 

is requiring that the automated 

inspection measurement system 

produce an exception report containing 

a systematic listing of all exceptions to 

§ 213.109(d)(4), identified so that 

appropriate persons designated as fully 

qualified under § 213.7 can field-verify 

each exception. This paragraph requires 

that each exception be located and fieldverified no later than 48 hours after the 

automated inspection, and that all fieldverified exceptions are subject to all the 

requirements of part 213. 

FRA expects that the track owner 

would want to ensure that any 

exception that the automated inspection 

detects would be field-verified by a 

qualified person under § 213.7. This is 

not only to ensure that the exception 

report accurately reflects the conditions 

of the track, but also to ensure that a 

qualified person can take appropriate 

remedial action in a timely manner. 

Additionally, FRA reminds track 

owners that all field-verified exceptions 

are subject to all of the requirements 

contained in FRA’s Track Safety 

Standards. 

Labor representatives recommended 

that the exception report should also be 

given to the person that the track owner 

has designated as being responsible for 

frequency inspections pursuant to 

§ 213.233. Although FRA refuses to 

interfere with a track owner’s 

assignment process and is not willing to 

accept this comment, FRA agrees that it 

would be a best practice for the track 

owner to ensure that the person 

responsible for performing the 

frequency inspections required by 

§ 213.233 be provided a copy of the 

exception report, as all field-verified 

exceptions are subject to all of FRA’s 

Track Safety Standards. 

Paragraph (f). This paragraph requires 

that the track owner maintain a record 

of the inspection data and the exception 

record for the track inspected in 

accordance with this section for a 

minimum of two years. The record must 

include the date and location of limits 

for the inspection, type and location of 

each exception, the results of field 

verification, and any remedial action if 

required. The location identification 

must be provided either by milepost or 

by some other objective means, such as 

by the location description provided by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18082 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the Global Positioning System. This new 

regulation is intended to require the 

track owner to keep a good record of the 

conditions of track constructed of 

concrete crossties and, through such 

records, FRA track inspectors will have 

a greater ability to gain access to and 

accurately assess the railroad’s 

compliance history. 

Paragraph (g). This paragraph requires 

that the track owner institute the 

necessary procedures for maintaining 

the integrity of the data collected by the 

measurement system. The track owner 

must maintain and make available to 

FRA documented calibration procedures 

of the measurement system that, at a 

minimum, specifies an instrument 

verification procedure that will ensure 

correlation between measurements 

made on the ground and those recorded 

by the instrumentation. Also, the track 

owner must maintain each instrument 

used for determining compliance with 

this section. The purpose of this 

paragraph is to ensure that the 

equipment that the track owner is using 

to comply with the regulations 

accurately detects what it is designed to 

detect. FRA has accepted a small 

comment from labor representatives 

removing the reference to the cant angle, 

as FRA has allowed for track owners to 

use alternative means of technology in 

their automated inspections. 

Paragraph (h). This paragraph requires 

that the track owner provide annual 

training in handling rail seat 

deterioration exceptions to all persons 

designated as fully qualified under 

§ 213.7 and whose territories are subject 

to the requirements of § 213.234. At a 

minimum, the training required by this 

paragraph shall address interpretation 

and handling of the exception reports 

generated by the automated inspection 

measurement system, locating and 

verifying exceptions in the field and 

required remedial action, and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

FRA’s objective is to ensure that all 

persons required to comply with the 

regulations are properly trained. Such 

persons should at least understand the 

basic principles of the required 

automated inspection process, including 

handling of the exception reports, field 

verification, and recordkeeping 

requirements. FRA accepted labor’s 

comment that the training be provided 

annually. 

VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

This final rule has been evaluated in 

accordance with existing policies and 

procedures and determined to be nonsignificant under both Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 and DOT policies and 

procedures. See 44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979. FRA has prepared and placed 

in the docket a regulatory evaluation 

addressing the economic impact of this 

final rule. FRA has met with and made 

presentations to those who are likely to 

be affected by this rule in order to seek 

their views on the rule. As part of the 

regulatory evaluation, FRA has assessed 

quantitative measurements of the cost 

streams expected to result from the 

implementation of this final rule. The 

final rule has been determined to be 

non-significant under both Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT 

policies and procedures. 

Document inspection and copying 

facilities are available at the Department 

of Transportation, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. Docket material is also 

available for inspection on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Photocopies may also be obtained by 

submitting a written request to the FRA 

Docket Clerk at the Office of Chief 

Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; 

please refer to Docket No. FRA–2009– 

0007. 

The concrete crosstie standards are 

intended to avoid a relatively new type 

of derailment where a train traveling 

over concrete ties causes the rail to roll 

to the outside of a curve, because the 

rail seat has worn away (abraded). The 

final rule clarifies what constitutes an 

effective concrete tie and fastening 

system, and also requires railroads, 

other than small entities, to conduct 

automated inspections of the concrete 

ties. 

For those automated inspection cars 

with a sufficient number of sensors to 

measure rail cant, but that do not 

currently measure rail cant, the owner, 

either a railroad or contractor, would 

have to modify the software to calculate 

rail cant and provide alarms for rail cant 

in excess of limits. This is the basic cost 

burden associated with this final rule. 

FRA believes that measuring the rail 

cant will avoid future accidents such as 

the accident near Home Valley, 

Washington, described above, in which 

30 people (22 passengers and 8 

employees) sustained minor injuries; 14 

of those people were taken to local 

hospitals. Two of the injured passengers 

were kept overnight for further 

observation; the rest were released. 

Track and equipment damages, in 

addition to clearing costs associated 

with the accident, totaled about 

$854,000. 

FRA is confident that implementation 

of the final rule would result in safety 

benefits of $124,800 annually after an 

initial cost of $1,400,000. Over 20 years, 

the discounted total benefit would be 

$1,414,682 at a 7 percent annual 

discount rate and $1,912,410 at a 3 

percent annual discount rate. The costs 

are not discounted because they are 

incurred in the initial year, so the 

discounted net benefit will be $14,682 

at a 7 percent annual discount rate and 

$512,410 at a 3 percent annual discount 

rate. FRA believes the actual costs may 

be lower, because in the final rule, in 

response to AAR’s comment, FRA 

allows the railroads to sample rail cant 

at intervals as long as five feet, rather 

than the two foot intervals proposed in 

the NPRM. FRA did not reduce the cost 

estimates, as no data was available from 

which to estimate this reduced cost. 

Safety benefits would justify the initial 

investment. Based on a 7 percent 

discount rate, the benefits are slightly 

higher than the costs, and there is a 

meaningful reduction in safety risk, 

which is not fully quantified because 

some accident costs were not quantified. 

The net benefits are more significant at 

the 3 percent discount rate. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(the Act) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 

Executive Order 13272 require a review 

of proposed and final rules to assess 

their impact on small entities. An 

agency must prepare an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis unless it 

determines and certifies that a rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) stipulates in its 

‘‘Size Standards’’ that the largest a 

railroad business firm that is ‘‘for-profit’’ 

may be, and still be classified as a 

‘‘small entity,’’ is 1,500 employees for 

‘‘Line-Haul Operating Railroads’’ and 

500 employees for ‘‘Switching and 

Terminal Establishments.’’ 13 CFR part 

121. ‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in the Act 

as a small business that is 

independently owned and operated, and 

is not dominant in its field of operation. 

5 U.S.C. 601. Additionally, 5 U.S.C. 

601(5) defines ‘‘small entities’’ as 

governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts with populations less 

than 50,000. SBA’s ‘‘Size Standards’’ 

may be altered by Federal agencies after 

consultation with SBA and in 

conjunction with public comment. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18083 

Pursuant to that authority, FRA has 

published a final policy that formally 

establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as Class III 

railroads, contractors, and shippers 

meeting the economic criteria 

established for Class III railroads in 49 

CFR 1201.1–1, and commuter railroads 

or small governmental jurisdictions that 

serve populations of 50,000 or less. 

49 CFR part 209, app. C. FRA believes 

that no shippers, contractors, or small 

governmental jurisdictions would be 

affected by this final rule. At present 

there are no commuter railroads that 

would be considered small entities. The 

revenue requirement for Class III 

railroads is currently nominally $20 

million or less in annual operating 

revenue. The $20 million limit (which 

is adjusted by applying the railroad 

revenue deflator adjustment) is based on 

the Surface Transportation Board’s 

threshold for a Class III railroad carrier. 

FRA uses the same revenue dollar limit 

to determine whether a railroad or 

shipper or contractor is a small entity. 

Class I railroads have significant 

segments of concrete crossties, and own 

the overwhelming majority of all 

installed crossties. About a dozen Class 

II railroads that were formerly parts of 

Class I systems may have limited 

segments and some Class III railroads 

may have remote locations with 

concrete crossties, typically in turnouts 

and other segment locations less than 

600 feet in length. Small railroads were 

consulted during the RSAC Working 

Group deliberations, and their interests 

have been taken into consideration in 

this final rule. The provisions requiring 

automated inspections do not apply to 

Class III railroads or any commuter 

railroads that may be considered small 

entities. Such entities would only be 

subject to new requirements for tie and 

fastener conditions; however, small 

railroads typically do not have large 

numbers of concrete ties, and the cost 

associated with meeting such 

requirements is not significant. 

Therefore, FRA is certifying that it 

expects there will be no significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The section that 

contains the new information collection 

requirements is noted below, and the 

estimated burden time to fulfill each 

requirement is as follows: 

49 CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

213.234—Automated Inspection of Track Constructed with Concrete Crossties: 

—Exception Reports ..................................... 18 Railroads ................. 150 reports ................... 8 hours ......................... 1,200 

—Field-Verified Exception Reports .............. 18 Railroads ................. 150 field verifications ... 2 hours ......................... 300 

—Records of Inspection Data and Exception Records.18 Railroads ................. 150 records .................. 30 minutes ................... 75 

—Procedures for Maintaining Data Integrity 

Collected by Measurement System.

18 Railroads ................. 18 procedures .............. 4 hours ......................... 72 

—Training of Employees in Handling Seat 

Deterioration.

18 Railroads ................. 2,000 trained employees.8 hours ......................... 16,000 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. For 

information or a copy of the information 

collection submission sent to OMB, 

please contact Mr. Robert Brogan at 

202–493–6292 or Ms. Kimberly Toone at 

202–493–6132 or via e-mail at the 

following addresses: 

Robert.Brogan@dot.gov; 

Kimberly.Toone@dot.gov. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 

17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

attn: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may 

also be sent via e-mail to the Office of 

Management and Budget at the 

following address: 

oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. 

FRA cannot impose a penalty on 

persons for violating information 

collection requirements which do not 

display a current OMB control number, 

if required. FRA intends to obtain 

current OMB control numbers for any 

new information collection 

requirements resulting from this 

rulemaking action prior to the effective 

date of this final rule. The OMB control 

number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

D. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this final rule in 

accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts’’ 

(FRA’s Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 

26, 1999) as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and related 

regulatory requirements. FRA has 

determined that this action is not a 

major FRA action (requiring the 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment) 

because it is categorically excluded from 

detailed environmental review pursuant 

to section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. 

64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In 

accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of 

FRA’s Procedures, the agency has 

further concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

final rule that might trigger the need for 

a more detailed environmental review. 

As a result, FRA finds that this final rule 

is not a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. 

E. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

(64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires 

FRA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18084 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, the agency may not issue 

a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. If adopted, this final rule would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the Federal government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. FRA has also 

determined that this final rule would 

not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

Moreover, FRA notes that RSAC, 

which endorsed and recommended the 

majority of this final rule, has as 

permanent members, two organizations 

representing State and local interests: 

AASHTO and ASRSM. Both of these 

State organizations concurred with the 

RSAC recommendation made in this 

rulemaking. RSAC regularly provides 

recommendations to the Administrator 

of FRA for solutions to regulatory issues 

that reflect significant input from its 

State members. To date, FRA has 

received no indication of concerns 

about the federalism implications of this 

rulemaking from these representatives 

or from any other representatives of 

State government. 

However, this final rule could have 

preemptive effect by operation of law 

under 49 U.S.C. 20106 (Section 20106). 

Section 20106 provides that States may 

not adopt or continue in effect any law, 

regulation, or order related to railroad 

safety or security that covers the subject 

matter of a regulation prescribed or 

order issued by the Secretary of 

Transportation (with respect to railroad 

safety matters) or the Secretary of 

Homeland Security (with respect to 

railroad security matters), except when 

the State law, regulation, or order 

qualifies under the ‘‘local safety or 

security hazard’’ exception to Section 

20106. 

In sum, FRA has analyzed this final 

rule in accordance with the principles 

and criteria contained in Executive 

Order 13132. As explained above, FRA 

has determined that this final rule has 

no federalism implications, other than 

the possible preemption of State laws 

under Sec. 20106. Accordingly, FRA has 

determined that preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement 

for this final rule is not required. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to Sec. 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal 

agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in 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) [currently 

$140,800,000] 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 final rule 

will not result in the expenditure, in the 

aggregate, of $140,800,000 or more in 

any one year, and thus preparation of 

such a statement is not required. 

G. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001). Under the Executive Order a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. FRA has 

evaluated this final rule in accordance 

with Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this final rule is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Consequently, FRA has 

determined that this final rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ within the 

meaning of the Executive Order. 

H. Privacy Act Statement 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of DOT’s dockets by 

the name of the individual submitting 

the comment (or signing the comment, 

if submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement published in the Federal 

Register on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, 

Number 70, Pages 19477–78), or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213 

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Final Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA amends part 213 of 

chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 213—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 213 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and 

20142; Sec. 403, Div. A, Pub. L. 110–432, 122 

Stat. 4885; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 

1.49. 

§ 213.2 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 213.2. 

■ 3. Section 213.109 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.109 Crossties. 

(a) Crossties shall be made of a 

material to which rail can be securely 

fastened. 

(b) Each 39-foot segment of track shall 

have at a minimum— 

(1) A sufficient number of crossties 

that in combination provide effective 

support that will— 

(i) Hold gage within the limits 

prescribed in § 213.53(b); 

(ii) Maintain surface within the limits 

prescribed in § 213.63; and 

(iii) Maintain alinement within the 

limits prescribed in § 213.55; 

(2) The minimum number and type of 

crossties specified in paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section and described in paragraph 

(c) or (d), as applicable, of this section 

effectively distributed to support the 

entire segment; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18085 

(3) At least one non-defective crosstie 

of the type specified in paragraphs (c) 

and (d) of this section that is located at 

a joint location as specified in paragraph 

(e) of this section; and 

(4) The minimum number of crossties 

as indicated in the following table. 

FRA track class 

Tangent track, turnouts, and 

curves 

Tangent track 

and curved 

track less than 

or equal to 2 

degrees 

Turnouts and 

curved track 

greater than 2 

degrees 

Class 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 6 

Class 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 9 

Class 3 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 10 

Class 4 and 5 .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 14 

(c) Crossties, other than concrete, 

counted to satisfy the requirements set 

forth in paragraph (b)(4) of this section 

shall not be— 

(1) Broken through; 

(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the 

extent the crosstie will allow the ballast 

to work through, or will not hold spikes 

or rail fasteners; 

(3) So deteriorated that the crosstie 

plate or base of rail can move laterally 

1⁄2 inch relative to the crosstie; or 

(4) Cut by the crosstie plate through 

more than 40 percent of a crosstie’s 

thickness. 

(d) Concrete crossties counted to 

satisfy the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall not 

be— 

(1) Broken through or deteriorated to 

the extent that prestressing material is 

visible; 

(2) Deteriorated or broken off in the 

vicinity of the shoulder or insert so that 

the fastener assembly can either pull out 

or move laterally more than 3⁄8 inch 

relative to the crosstie; 

(3) Deteriorated such that the base of 

either rail can move laterally more than 

3⁄8 inch relative to the crosstie on curves 

of 2 degrees or greater; or can move 

laterally more than 1⁄2 inch relative to 

the crosstie on tangent track or curves 

of less than 2 degrees; 

(4) Deteriorated or abraded at any 

point under the rail seat to a depth of 

1⁄2 inch or more; 

(5) Deteriorated such that the 

crosstie’s fastening or anchoring system, 

including rail anchors (see § 213.127(b)), 

is unable to maintain longitudinal rail 

restraint, or maintain rail hold down, or 

maintain gage due to insufficient 

fastener toeload; or 

(6) Configured with less than two 

fasteners on the same rail except as 

provided in § 213.127(c). 

(e) Class 1 and 2 track shall have one 

crosstie whose centerline is within 24 

inches of each rail joint (end) location. 

Class 3, 4, and 5 track shall have either 

one crosstie whose centerline is within 

18 inches of each rail joint location or 

two crossties whose centerlines are 

within 24 inches either side of each rail 

joint location. The relative position of 

these crossties is described in the 

following three diagrams: 

(1) Each rail joint in Class 1 and 2 

track shall be supported by at least one 

crosstie specified in paragraphs (c) and 

(d) of this section whose centerline is 

within 48 inches as shown in Figure 1. 

(2) Each rail joint in Class 3, 4, and 

5 track shall be supported by either at 

least one crosstie specified in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section 

whose centerline is within 36 inches as 

shown in Figure 2, or: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULESER01AP11.002</GPH>
18086 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Two crossties, one on each side of 

the rail joint, whose centerlines are 

within 24 inches of the rail joint 

location as shown in Figure 3. 

(f) For track constructed without 

crossties, such as slab track, track 

connected directly to bridge structural 

components, track over servicing pits, 

etc., the track structure shall meet the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

■ 4. Section 213.127 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.127 Rail fastening systems. 

(a) Track shall be fastened by a system 

of components that effectively 

maintains gage within the limits 

prescribed in § 213.53(b). Each 

component of each such system shall be 

evaluated to determine whether gage is 

effectively being maintained. 

(b) If rail anchors are applied to 

concrete crossties, the combination of 

the crossties, fasteners, and rail anchors 

must provide effective longitudinal 

restraint. 

(c) Where fastener placement impedes 

insulated joints from performing as 

intended, the fastener may be modified 

or removed, provided that the crosstie 

supports the rail. 

■ 5. A new § 213.234 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.234 Automated inspection of track 

constructed with concrete crossties. 

(a) General. Except for track described 

in paragraph (c) of this section, the 

provisions in this section are applicable 

on and after January 1, 2012. In addition 

to the track inspection required under 

§ 213.233, for Class 3 main track 

constructed with concrete crossties over 

which regularly scheduled passenger 

service trains operate, and for Class 4 

and 5 main track constructed with 

concrete crossties, automated inspection 

technology shall be used as indicated in 

paragraph (b) of this section, as a 

supplement to visual inspection, by 

Class I railroads (including Amtrak), 

Class II railroads, other intercity 

passenger railroads, and commuter 

railroads or small governmental 

jurisdictions that serve populations 

greater than 50,000. Automated 

inspection shall identify and report 

exceptions to conditions described in 

§ 213.109(d)(4). 

(b) Frequency of automated 

inspections. Automated inspections 

shall be conducted at the following 

frequencies: 

(1) If annual tonnage on Class 4 and 

5 main track and Class 3 main track 

with regularly scheduled passenger 

service, exceeds 40 million gross tons 

(mgt) annually, at least twice each 

calendar year, with no less than 160 

days between inspections. 

(2) If annual tonnage on Class 4 and 

5 main track and Class 3 main track 

with regularly scheduled passenger 

service is equal to or less than 40 mgt 

annually, at least once each calendar 

year. 

(3) On Class 3, 4, and 5 main track 

with exclusively passenger service, 

either an automated inspection or 

walking inspection must be conducted 

once per calendar year. 

(4) Track not inspected in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section because of train operation 

interruption shall be reinspected within 

45 days of the resumption of train 

operations by a walking or automated 

inspection. If this inspection is 

conducted as a walking inspection, the 

next inspection shall be an automated 

inspection as prescribed in this 

paragraph. 

(c) Nonapplication. Sections of 

tangent track 600 feet or less 

constructed of concrete crossties, 

including, but not limited to, isolated 

track segments, experimental or test 

track segments, highway-rail crossings, 

and wayside detectors, are excluded 

from the requirements of this section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULESER01AP11.046</GPH> ER01AP11.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18087 

(d) Performance standard for 

automated inspection measurement 

system. The automated inspection 

measurement system must be capable of 

measuring and processing rail seat 

deterioration requirements that specify 

the following: 

(1) An accuracy, to within 1⁄8 of an 

inch; 

(2) A distance-based sampling 

interval, which shall not exceed five 

feet; and 

(3) Calibration procedures and 

parameters assigned to the system, 

which assure that measured and 

recorded values accurately represent rail 

seat deterioration. 

(e) Exception reports to be produced 

by system; duty to field-verify 

exceptions. The automated inspection 

measurement system shall produce an 

exception report containing a systematic 

listing of all exceptions to 

§ 213.109(d)(4), identified so that an 

appropriate person(s) designated as 

fully qualified under § 213.7 can fieldverify each exception. 

(1) Each exception must be located 

and field-verified no later than 48 hours 

after the automated inspection. 

(2) All field-verified exceptions are 

subject to all the requirements of this 

part. 

(f) Recordkeeping requirements. The 

track owner shall maintain and make 

available to FRA a record of the 

inspection data and the exception 

record for the track inspected in 

accordance with this paragraph for a 

minimum of two years. The exception 

reports must include the following: 

(1) Date and location of limits of the 

inspection; 

(2) Type and location of each 

exception; 

(3) Results of field verification; and 

(4) Remedial action if required. 

(g) Procedures for integrity of data. 

The track owner shall institute the 

necessary procedures for maintaining 

the integrity of the data collected by the 

measurement system. At a minimum, 

the track owner shall do the following: 

(1) Maintain and make available to 

FRA documented calibration procedures 

of the measurement system that, at a 

minimum, specify an instrument 

verification procedure that ensures 

correlation between measurements 

made on the ground and those recorded 

by the instrumentation; and 

(2) Maintain each instrument used for 

determining compliance with this 

section such that it accurately measures 

the depth of rail seat deterioration in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section. 

(h) Training. The track owner shall 

provide annual training in handling rail 

seat deterioration exceptions to all 

persons designated as fully qualified 

under § 213.7 and whose territories are 

subject to the requirements of § 213.234. 

At a minimum, the training shall 

address the following: 

(1) Interpretation and handling of the 

exception reports generated by the 

automated inspection measurement 

system; 

(2) Locating and verifying exceptions 

in the field and required remedial 

action; and 

(3) Recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 

2011. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7666 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2008–0071; 

92220–1113–0000–C6] 

RIN 1018—AW95 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the 

Okaloosa Darter From Endangered to 

Threatened and Special Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

reclassifying the Okaloosa darter 

(Etheostoma okaloosae) from 

endangered to threatened under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act). The 

endangered designation no longer 

correctly reflects the current status of 

this fish due to a substantial 

improvement in the species’ status. This 

action is based on a thorough review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data, which indicate a 

substantial reduction in threats to the 

species, a significant habitat restoration 

in most of the species’ range, and a 

stable or increasing trend of darters in 

all darter stream systems. We also 

establish a special rule under section 

4(d) of the Act. This special rule allows 

Eglin Air Force Base to continue 

activities with a reduced regulatory 

burden and will provide a net benefit to 

the Okaloosa darter. 

DATES: This final rule is effective May 2, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Panama 

City Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama 

City, FL 32405. 

You may obtain copies of this final 

rule from the address above, by calling 

850/769–0552, or at the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Imm, Field Supervisor, at the Panama 

City Field Office (see ADDRESSES) 

(telephone 850/769–0552; facsimile 

850/763–2177). Individuals who are 

hearing-impaired or speech-impaired 

may call the Federal Information Relay 

Service at 800/877–8339 for TTY 

assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

We proposed listing the Okaloosa 

darter as endangered on January 15, 

1973 (38 FR 1521) and listed the species 

as endangered under the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) on June 4, 1973 (38 FR 

14678) due to its extremely limited 

range, habitat degradation, and apparent 

competition from a possibly introduced 

related species, the brown darter. We 

completed a recovery plan for the 

species on October 23, 1981, and a 

revised recovery plan on October 26, 

1998. 

On June 21, 2005, we provided notice 

in the Federal Register that we were 

initiating a 5-year status review under 

the Act for the Okaloosa darter (70 FR 

35689).The 5-year status review was 

completed in July 2007, and is available 

on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/ 

okaloosa_darterfinal.pdf. 

On February 2, 2010, we published a 

proposed rule to reclassify the Okaloosa 

darter from endangered to threatened 

and a proposed special rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act (75 FR 5263). We 

requested that all interested parties 

submit comments and information 

concerning the proposed reclassification 

of the Okaloosa darter. We provided 

notification of the publication of the 

proposed rule through e-mail, facsimile, 

telephone calls, letters, and news 

releases sent to the appropriate Federal, 

State, and local agencies; county 

governments; elected officials; media 

outlets; local jurisdictions; scientific 

organizations; interest groups; and other 

interested parties. We also posted the 

proposed rule on the Service’s Panama 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES