Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59677 

1Rail joints commonly consist of two joint bars 

that are bolted to the sides of the rail and that 

contact the rail at the bottom surface of the rail head 

and the top surface of the rail base. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E6–16812 Filed 10–10–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 213 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–22522] 

RIN 2130–AB71 

Track Safety Standards; Inspections of 

Joints in Continuous Welded Rail 

(CWR) 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FRA is amending the Federal 

Track Safety Standards to improve the 

inspection of rail joints in continuous 

welded rail (CWR). On November 2, 

2005, FRA published an Interim Final 

Rule (IFR) addressing the inspection of 

rail joints in CWR. FRA requested 

comments on the provisions of the IFR 

and stated that a final rule would be 

issued after a review of those comments. 

This final rule adopts a portion of the 

IFR and makes changes to other 

portions. This final rule requires track 

owners to develop and implement a 

procedure for the detailed inspection of 

CWR rail joints and also requires track 

owners to keep records of those 

inspections. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 31, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Office of 

Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20590, 

Telephone: (202) 493–6236; or Sarah 

Grimmer, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave NW., 

Washington, DC 20950, Telephone (202) 

493–6390. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

I. Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) 

A. General 

CWR refers to the way in which rail 

is joined together to form track. In CWR, 

rails are welded together to form one 

continuous rail that may be several 

miles long. Although CWR is normally 

one continuous rail, there can be joints 1

in it for one or more reasons: the need 

for insulated joints that electrically 

separate track segments for signaling 

purposes, the need to terminate CWR 

installations at a segment of jointed rail, 

or the need to remove and replace a 

section of defective rail. 

B. Statutory and Regulatory History of 

CWR 

The Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) issued the first Federal Track 

Safety Standards in 1971. See 36 FR 

20336 (October 20, 1971). FRA 

addressed CWR in a rather general 

manner, stating, in § 213.119, that 

railroads must install CWR at a rail 

temperature that prevents lateral 

displacement of track or pull-aparts of 

rail ends and that CWR should not be 

disturbed at rail temperatures higher 

than the installation or adjusted 

installation temperature. 

In 1982, FRA deleted § 213.119, 

because FRA believed it was so general 

in nature that it provided little guidance 

to railroads and it was difficult to 

enforce. See 47 FR 7275 (February 18, 

1982) and 47 FR 39398 (September 7, 

1982). FRA stated: ‘‘While the 

importance of controlling thermal 

stresses within continuous welded rail 

has long been recognized, research has 

not advanced to the point where 

specific safety requirements can be 

established.’’ 47 FR 7279. FRA 

explained that continuing research 

might produce reliable data in this area 

in the future. 

The Rail Safety Enforcement and 

Review Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–

365, September 3, 1992), required that 

FRA evaluate procedures for installing 

and maintaining CWR. In 1994, 

Congress required DOT to evaluate cold 

weather installation procedures for 

CWR (Federal Railroad Safety 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 103–272, 

July 5, 1994)). In light of the evaluation 

of those procedures, as well as 

information resulting from FRA’s own 

research and development, FRA 

addressed CWR procedures by adding 

§ 213.119 during its 1998 revision of the 

Track Safety Standards. See 63 FR 

33992 (June 22, 1998). 

Section 213.119, as added in 1998, 

requires railroads to develop procedures 

that, at a minimum, provide for the 

installation, adjustment, maintenance, 

and inspection of CWR, as well as a 

training program and minimal 

recordkeeping requirements. Section 

213.119 does not dictate which 

procedures a railroad must use in its 

CWR plan. It allows each railroad to 

develop and implement its individual 

CWR plan based on procedures which 

have proven effective for it over the 

years. Accordingly, procedures can vary 

from railroad to railroad. 

On August 10, 2005, President Bush 

signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), (Pub. 

L. 109–59, August 10, 2005) into law. 

Section 9005(a) of SAFETEA–LU 

amended 49 U.S.C. 20142 by adding a 

new subsection (e) as follows: 

(e) Track Standards.—

(1) In General.—Within 90 days after the 

date of enactment of this subsection, the 

Federal Railroad Administration shall—

(A) require each track owner using 

continuous welded rail track to include 

procedures (in its procedures filed with the 

Administration pursuant to section 213.119 

of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations) to 

improve the identification of cracks in rail 

joint bars; 

(B) instruct Administration track 

inspectors to obtain copies of the most recent 

continuous welded rail programs of each 

railroad within the inspectors’ areas of 

responsibility and require that inspectors use 

those programs when conducting track 

inspections; and 

(C) establish a program to review 

continuous welded rail joint bar inspection 

data from railroads and Administration track 

inspectors periodically. 

(2) Inspection.—Whenever the 

Administration determines that it is 

necessary or appropriate, the Administration 

may require railroads to increase the 

frequency of inspection, or improve the 

methods of inspection, of joint bars in 

continuous welded rail. 

Pursuant to this mandate, on 

November 2, 2005, FRA revised the 

Track Safety Standards of 49 CFR part 

213 by publishing the IFR, 70 FR 66288, 

which addresses CWR. FRA requested 

comments on the IFR and provided the 

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) with an opportunity to review 

the comments on the IFR. On February 

22, 2006, RSAC established the Track 

Safety Standards Working Group 

(working group). The working group 

was given two tasks: (1) Resolution of 

comments on the IFR, and (2) 

recommendations regarding FRA’s role 

in oversight of CWR programs, 

including analysis of data to determine 

effective management of CWR safety by 

the railroads. The first task, referred to 

as ‘‘Phase I’’ of the CWR review, 

includes analyzing the IFR on 

inspection of joint bars in CWR 

territory, reviewing the comments to the 

IFR, and preparing recommendations for 

the final rule. The publication of this 

final rule concludes ‘‘Phase I’’ of 

RSAC’s referral to the working group. 

The working group is currently 

reviewing ‘‘Phase II’’ of RSAC’s referral, 

which involves an examination of all of 

§ 213.119. The working group plans to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
59678 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

2NTSB Railroad Accident Report: Derailment of 

Canadian Pacific Railway Freight Train 292–16 and 

Subsequent Release of Anhydrous Ammonia Near 

Minot, North Dakota, January 18, 2002 (NTSB/ 

RAR–04–01) (March 9, 2004). 

report on its Phase II task to the RSAC 

at the next full RSAC meeting. 

II. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC) Overview 

In March 1996, FRA established 

RSAC, which provides a forum for 

developing consensus recommendations 

to FRA’s Administrator on rulemakings 

and other safety program issues. The 

RSAC includes representation from all 

of the agency’s major customer groups, 

including railroads, labor organizations, 

suppliers and manufacturers, and other 

interested parties. A list of group 

members follows: 

American Association of Private Railroad Car 

Owners (AARPCO); 

American Association of State Highway & 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO); 

American Chemistry Council; 

American Petrochemical Institute; 

American Public Transportation Association 

(APTA); 

American Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association (ASLRRA); 

American Train Dispatchers Association 

(ATDA); 

Association of American Railroads (AAR); 

Association of Railway Museums (ARM); 

Association of State Rail Safety Managers 

(ASRSM); 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and 

Trainmen (BLET); 

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division (BMWED); 

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS); 

Chlorine Institute; 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA);* 

Fertilizer Institute; 

High Speed Ground Transportation 

Association (HSGTA); 

Institute of Makers of Explosives; 

International Association of Machinists and 

Aerospace Workers; 

International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers (IBEW); 

Labor Council for Latin American 

Advancement (LCLAA)*; 

League of Railway Industry Women*; 

National Association of Railroad Passengers 

(NARP); 

National Association of Railway Business 

Women*; 

National Conference of Firemen & Oilers; 

National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association; 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak); 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB)*; 

Railway Supply Institute (RSI); 

Safe Travel America (STA); 

Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte*; 

Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association (SMWIA); 

Tourist Railway Association Inc.; 

Transport Canada*; 

Transport Workers Union of America (TWU); 

Transportation Communications 

International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC); 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA); 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 unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

package 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 

plays 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 

moves ahead to resolve the issue 

through traditional rulemaking 

proceedings. 

III. RSAC Track Safety Standards 

Working Group 

After its establishment on February 

22, 2006, the working group reconvened 

on April 4–5, 2006, April 26–28, 2006, 

May 24–25, 2006, and July 19–20, 2006 

to discuss revisions to the IFR for this 

final rule. The working group 

considered all the comments and 

reached consensus on recommendations 

for a final rule. These recommendations 

were presented to the RSAC and on 

August 11, 2006, the RSAC accepted 

these recommendations. The RSAC 

voted to forward these 

recommendations to FRA as the basis 

for a final rule on the inspection of CWR 

joints. 

FRA has worked closely with the 

RSAC in developing its 

recommendations and believes that the 

RSAC has effectively addressed 

inspection of CWR joints. FRA has 

greatly benefitted from the open, 

informed exchange of information 

during the meetings. There is a general 

consensus among the railroads, rail 

labor organizations, state safety 

managers, and FRA concerning the 

primary principles FRA sets forth in this 

final rule. The working group has also 

benefitted from participation of NTSB 

staff. 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 

rule. 

IV. Train Accidents Involving Joints in 

CWR 

Since FRA’s 1998 revision of the 

Track Safety Standards, there have been 

a number of train accidents in which the 

failure of a rail joint in CWR was a 

factor. The NTSB investigated three 

recent accidents and made 

recommendations to FRA concerning 

joints in CWR. The NTSB 

recommendations closely parallel the 

statutory mandate requiring this IFR. 

The three accidents and subsequent 

NTSB recommendations are described 

below. 

A. Derailment of Canadian Pacific 

Railroad Train 292–16 Near Minot, ND 

On January 18, 2002, Canadian Pacific 

Railway (CPR) freight train 292–15 

derailed 31 of its 112 cars about 1⁄2 mile 

west of the city limits of Minot, North 

Dakota. Five tank cars carrying 

anhydrous ammonia, a liquefied 

compressed gas, catastrophically 

ruptured, and a vapor plume covered 

the derailment site and surrounding 

area. About 11,600 people occupied the 

area affected by the vapor plume. One 

resident was fatally injured, and 60 to 

65 residents of the neighborhood nearest 

the derailment site were rescued. As a 

result of the accident, 11 people 

sustained serious injuries, and 322 

people, including the two train crew 

members, sustained major injuries. 

Damages exceeded $2 million, and more 

than $8 million has been spent in 

environmental remediation. 

In its Railroad Accident Report,2 the 

NTSB determined that the probable 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59679 

3A ‘‘plug rail’’ describes a short piece of rail 

inserted into a length of CWR to replace a similar 

piece that was removed because of defects or 

damage. 

4Railroad Accident Report: Derailment of Amtrak 

Train No. 58, City of New Orleans, Near Flora, 

Mississippi, April 6, 2004 (NTSB/RAR–05/02) (July 

26, 2005). 

5NTSB Railroad Accident Brief: Accident No. 

DCA–05–FR–002 (NTSB/RAB–05/02) (March 9, 

2004). 

cause of the derailment was ‘‘an 

ineffective Canadian Pacific Railway 

inspection and maintenance program 

that did not identify and replace 

cracked joint bars before they 

completely fractured and led to the 

breaking of the rail at the joint.’’ The 

NTSB found that the catastrophic failure 

of five tank cars and the instantaneous 

release of 146,700 gallons of anhydrous 

ammonia also contributed to the 

severity of the accident. 

The NTSB issued several findings in 

its report. The NTSB found that the 

train derailed because joint bars at the 

east end of the plug rail 3 fractured 

(either under the previous train or as the 

accident train passed over the joint), 

and then, after the joint bars fractured, 

the rail itself also fractured and broke 

away. The NTSB found that CPR’s 

inspection procedures regarding rail 

joint bars in CWR were inadequate to 

properly inspect and maintain joints 

within CWR, and those inadequate 

procedures allowed undetected cracking 

in the joint bars at the accident location 

to grow to a critical size. In a similar 

vein, the NTSB found that FRA’s 

requirements regarding rail joint bars in 

CWR were ineffective, because they did 

not require on-the-ground visual 

inspections or nondestructive testing 

adequate to identify cracks before they 

grow to critical size and result in joint 

bar failure. 

The NTSB also found that FRA’s 

oversight of CPR’s CWR program was 

ineffective, because FRA neither 

reviewed the CWR program nor ensured 

that its track inspectors had copies of 

the CWR programs to determine if the 

railroad was in compliance with it. As 

a result of these findings, the NTSB 

made seven safety recommendations, of 

which the most relevant are quoted 

below. 

Require all railroads with continuous 

welded rail track to include procedures (in 

the programs that are filed with the Federal 

Railroad Administration) that prescribe onthe-ground visual inspections and 

nondestructive testing techniques for 

identifying cracks in rail joint bars before 

they grow to critical size. (R–04–1). 

Establish a program to periodically review 

continuous welded rail joint bar inspection 

data from railroads and Federal Railroad 

Administration track inspectors and, when 

determined necessary, require railroads to 

increase the frequency or improve the 

methods of inspection of joint bars in 

continuous welded rail. (R–04–2). 

Instruct Federal Railroad Administration 

track inspectors to obtain copies of the most 

recent continuous welded rail programs of 

the railroads that fall within the inspectors’

areas of responsibility and require that 

inspectors use those programs when 

conducting track inspections. (R–04–3). 

B. Derailment of Amtrak Train No. 58 

Near Flora, MS 

On April 6, 2004, National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train 

No. 58 (City of New Orleans) derailed on 

Canadian National Railway Company 

track near Flora, Mississippi. The entire 

train derailed, including one 

locomotive, one baggage car, and eight 

passenger cars. The derailment resulted 

in one fatality, three serious injuries, 

and 43 minor injuries. The equipment 

costs associated with the accident 

totaled about $7 million. 

In its Railroad Accident Report,4 the 

NTSB determined that the probable 

cause of the accident was ‘‘the failure of 

the Canadian National Railway 

Company to properly maintain and 

inspect its track, resulting in rail shift 

and the subsequent derailment of the 

train, and the Federal Railroad 

Administration’s ineffective oversight to 

ensure proper maintenance of the track 

by the railroad.’’ The NTSB made two 

recommendations to FRA, one of which 

is relevant to the discussion here. 

Emphasize to your track inspectors the 

importance of enforcing a railroad’s 

continuous welded rail program as a part of 

the Federal Track Safety Standards, and 

verify that inspectors are documenting 

noncompliance with the railroad’s program. 

(R–05–05). 

C. Derailment of Union Pacific Train 

ZLAMN–16 Near Pico Rivera, CA 

On October 16, 2004, Union Pacific 

(UP) freight train ZLAMN–16 derailed 3 

locomotives and 11 cars near Pico 

Rivera, California. Small amounts of 

hazardous materials were released from 

the transported cargo. There were no 

injuries to area residents, the train crew, 

or the emergency response personnel. 

UP estimated the monetary damage at 

$2.7 million. 

In its Railroad Accident Brief,5 the 

NTSB determined ‘‘that the probable 

cause of the derailment was the failure 

of a pair of insulated joint bars due to 

fatigue cracking. Contributing to the 

accident was the lack of an adequate onthe-ground inspection program for 

identifying cracks in rail joint bars 

before they grow to critical size.’’

The NTSB reiterated two of the 

recommendations that it had made to 

FRA after the Minot, North Dakota 

accident: (1) R–04–01 about on-theground visual inspections and 

nondestructive testing techniques and 

(2) R–04–02 about a program to review 

joint bar inspection data. The NTSB 

stated further in its brief: 

The CWR track involved in the Pico Rivera 

accident had all the inspections required by 

the UP and the FRA. In some instances, the 

inspections were done more frequently than 

required. Nevertheless, the inspections failed 

to detect the developing problems and 

ultimate failure. Additionally, during the 2 

days after the last inspection, more than 100 

trains passed over the insulated joint bars 

without either discovering or reporting a 

defect. Trains traversed the area after the 

insulated joint bars were completely broken, 

as evidenced by the rail batter in both 

directions. 

Several indications of an imminent or 

actual defect were present before this 

accident, which the inspection from a 

moving vehicle did not discover: 

• The epoxy bead was missing from the 

center section of the insulated joint bar, 

indicating vertical movement. 

• The joint bars cracked before they 

completely fractured. Part of each crack was 

visible on the lower outer portion of the bar 

for some time before its failure. 

• Rail end batter developed when the joint 

bars completely fractured and trains 

continued to pass over them in both 

directions. 

These indications developed over time, 

and a close visual inspection from the ground 

would have likely uncovered the emerging 

problem and allowed corrective action to be 

taken to avoid the accident. 

V. FRA’s Approach to CWR in This 

Final Rule 

Earlier versions of § 213.119 did not 

require track owners to include any 

provisions in their CWR plans related to 

joints in CWR. Track owners were 

required simply to address joints in 

CWR in the same manner as they 

addressed joints in conventional jointed 

rail. See 49 CFR 213.121. The IFR 

required track owners to specifically 

address joints in CWR in their 

respective CWR plans. The IFR focused 

on the track owner maintaining and 

submitting to FRA a joint inventory 

which would enable the track owner to 

identify joints due for periodic 

inspections. FRA’s gathering of this 

information would have satisfied its 

obligations under SAFETEA–LU. While 

this final rule also requires track owners 

to specifically address joints in CWR in 

their CWR plans, it eliminates the joint 

inventory requirement of the IFR. 

Alternatively, this final rule requires 

track owners to inspect CWR joints at 

minimum intervals specific to the class 

of track, annual tonnage, and whether 

the track is used for freight or passenger 

trains. See § 213.119(g)(6)(i). This final 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
59680 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

6The Rail Integrity Task Force is a joint FRA/ 

industry working group. It was convened in April 

2002 to identify ‘‘best practices’’ within the railroad 

industry regarding the inspection, maintenance, 

and replacement of rail. The goal of the task force 

is to ‘‘reduce rail-related accidents and casualties 

resulting from derailments caused by broken rail.’’

The task force is comprised of subject-matter 

experts from the major heavy-haul railroads, the 

AAR, FRA’s Office of Safety Assurance and 

Compliance, FRA’s Office of Railroad Development, 

as well as technical support from the Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center. The task 

force has also requested and received input from all 

of the service providers in the field of 

nondestructive testing of rail. 

rule also requires the track owner to 

submit a Fracture Report when a 

cracked or broken CWR joint is 

discovered pursuant to a § 213.119, 

§ 213.233, or § 213.235 inspection. The 

Fracture Reports will give FRA the 

information that a joint inventory would 

have provided. See § 213.119(g)(7)(ii). 

To meet the statutory requirement 

that FRA issue this regulation within 90 

days of the enactment of SAFETEA–LU, 

FRA issued the IFR on November 2, 

2005. This final rule addresses 49 U.S.C. 

20142(e)(1)(A) and (e)(1)(C) (hereinafter 

referred to as (e)(1)(A) and (e)(1)(C)). 

Because 49 U.S.C. 20142(e)(1)(B) does 

not require regulatory action on the part 

of FRA, FRA is not addressing it in this 

rulemaking. 

Paragraph (e)(1)(A) mandates that 

FRA require each track owner to 

‘‘include procedures * * * to improve 

the identification of cracks in rail joint 

bars.’’ Congress did not specify how 

FRA should effect that improvement. 

One way of improving the identification 

of such cracks is through on-foot 

inspection of joints in CWR. Because 

most cracks in joint bars can be detected 

by eye before they grow to failure, onfoot inspections can be of great value in 

identifying joint failure. Accordingly, 

FRA is requiring railroads to conduct 

periodic on-foot inspections of CWR 

joints. See § 213.119(g)(1). 

Rather than limit these on-foot 

inspections to the identification of joint 

bar cracks, FRA is requiring track 

owners to also inspect for joint 

conditions that can lead to the 

development of joint bar cracks. Track 

owners should inspect all safety-critical 

aspects of joints, including any 

indications of potential failure of the 

joint itself; any indications of potential 

failure of any components of the joint 

(e.g., rails, bolts, supporting crossties, 

and track fasteners); and the track itself 

in the vicinity of the joint (including the 

effectiveness of rail anchors or other 

devices for restraint of longitudinal 

movement of the rail). In this final rule, 

FRA lists examples of conditions that 

may indicate potential failure. This list 

is not all-inclusive. There are other 

conditions that could indicate failure, 

and FRA urges track owners to consider 

all conditions, not just the listed 

examples. 

In doing this, railroads will address a 

preemptive solution—i.e., preventing 

cracks from developing—rather than 

merely reacting to cracks after they have 

developed. It is understood that certain 

conditions involving rail joints and the 

surrounding CWR contribute to the 

development and propagation of cracks 

in rail joints. If track inspectors inspect 

for these conditions, detect these 

conditions, and provide information so 

that railroads can correct these 

conditions, it will reduce the probability 

of joint failures and subsequent train 

accidents. 

Furthermore, this preventive 

approach is more appropriate given that 

the development of a crack in a rail joint 

bar can progress at an unpredictable 

rate. Some cracks might exist for years 

without causing a rupture of the joint, 

while other cracks can progress rapidly 

from an undetectable size to complete 

failure. For example, a joint can 

completely fail under a single impact 

load if the joint is subjected to low 

temperatures and very high-tension 

forces. 

FRA believes that the time and effort 

it takes a track inspector to perform a 

complete inspection will be minimal 

while the benefit of a complete 

inspection will be high. Once a track 

inspector arrives at a location to inspect 

a joint and begins inspecting that joint, 

it takes little time and effort (beyond the 

effort to search for and identify cracks 

in joint bars) for him or her to note the 

condition of the entire joint and its 

surroundings. There are both safety and 

management benefits to a complete 

inspection. The safety benefit is obvious 

in that it prevents derailments. As for 

management benefits, track owners will 

save money and time, because it is 

easier and more cost effective to repair 

incipient joint conditions than actual 

joint cracks. For example, it is more 

economical to replace joint bolts or to 

reset rail anchors (i.e., potential failure 

conditions) than it is to replace a joint 

bar after it has developed a crack. 

FRA realizes that inspections at a 

frequency that could detect incipient 

cracks prior to the possibility of failure 

in every case are not feasible given the 

current levels of railroad staffing and 

railroad traffic, and in light of the 

impediments to train operations that 

would result from restrictions required 

to provide for the safety and mobility of 

inspection personnel. Proper 

preparation and maintenance of joints, 

however, together with appropriate joint 

inspection instructions, can reduce the 

frequency of crack formation and also 

prevent rapid propagation in most 

cases—making a sound program of 

inspection both feasible and more cost 

effective. 

Paragraph (e)(1)(C) requires that FRA 

‘‘establish a program to [periodically] 

review continuous welded rail joint bar 

inspection data’’ from railroads and 

FRA track inspectors. Clearly, FRA can 

gather and review the joint bar 

inspection data from its own inspectors’

inspections. In order for FRA to review 

railroad CWR joint bar inspection data, 

however, track owners must gather that 

data and make it available to FRA for 

review. Accordingly, this rule now 

requires track owners to compile a 

Fracture Report and submit it to FRA. 

See § 213.119(g)(7)(ii). As discussed in 

more detail below, a Fracture Report is 

a record which the track owner must 

prepare whenever a cracked or broken 

CWR joint is discovered pursuant to a 

§ 213.119, § 213.233, or § 213.235 

inspection. 

There is not yet an established, 

efficient method for detecting cracks in 

joint bars by traditional means of 

automated non-destructive testing 

(NDT). FRA believes that such a system 

might be developed, and that a 

requirement for effective joint bar 

inspection by either visual or other 

effective means can provide an 

incentive for the railroad industry to 

develop such a system. FRA is aware 

that some railroads do employ portable, 

hand-held equipment to conduct NDT 

of joint bars. The use of NDT will be 

discussed further in the section-bysection analysis of § 213.119(g)(8). 

NDT technology, in addition to 

careful visual inspection, could be used 

where judged effective. FRA notes, 

however, that there is insufficient 

engineering data to establish the 

effectiveness of NDT techniques as 

applied to joint bars in the service 

environment. Further, as illustrated by 

the examination of NDT technology and 

services by the joint FRA/industry Rail 

Integrity Task Force,6 operator 

qualification and quality control remain 

areas of concern. Accordingly, FRA 

focuses the ‘‘benchmark’’ inspection 

requirements of this IFR on visual 

inspection by a qualified track 

inspector. 

VI. Response to Public Comments 

FRA received seventeen comments in 

response to the IFR. The comments 

addressed concerns over a variety of 

issues, including: inspection 

frequencies, the economic analysis of 

the regulation, the training of track 

inspectors, the availability of CWR 

plans, the joint inventory requirement of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59681 

the IFR, the recordkeeping 

requirements, and other various issues. 

The working group addressed each 

comment in its meetings. A more 

detailed discussion of the public 

comments will be found in the sectionby-section analysis. 

A. Inspection Frequency 

The IFR required a track owner’s CWR 

plan to specify the timing of joint 

inspections based on the configuration 

and condition of the particular joint. 

The IFR provided minimum inspection 

intervals of every 190 days for track 

classes 4 and higher and every 370 days 

for class 3 track and class 2 track on 

which passenger trains operate. Public 

comments on the required inspection 

frequency were numerous and varied. 

For example, BMWED desired much 

more frequent inspections (i.e., 

monthly), while other commenters 

suggested risk-based (variable) 

inspection intervals taking into account 

the presence of passenger trains, 

hazardous materials or the proximity of 

railroad operations to population 

centers. Suggestions to increase 

inspection frequency dominated 

comments addressing inspection 

frequency. Further, railroad commenters 

were almost unanimously opposed to 

the inventory requirements imposed by 

the IFR, and some implied that the 

inventory was far more burdensome 

than increased inspection frequency 

would be. 

Several Senators urged FRA to 

increase the required inspection 

frequencies. In a filing supported by 

three members of the California 

congressional delegation and several 

local officials, the California Public 

Utilities Commission recommended that 

FRA require more frequent inspections 

and take into consideration more factors 

in determining inspection intervals, 

such as population density and risk 

associated with hazardous materials. 

FRA and the RSAC carefully considered 

these comments. FRA also took into 

account the fact that railroad CWR 

procedures filed in response to the IFR 

failed to address circumstances that 

might warrant more frequent inspection. 

The FRA decided upon an inspection 

frequency in lieu of an inventory 

requirement after considering many 

different approaches. The inspection 

frequency was based upon model results 

developed by the Department of 

Transportation’s Volpe Center (Volpe), 

the practical realities of railroad 

operations, as well as discussions, 

negotiations, and compromises 

combining practicality, enforceability, 

and effectiveness. The RSAC working 

group discussed all of these 

considerations at its meetings. 

Volpe developed several engineering 

models to estimate the loads imposed 

on a rail joint. As is true of all models, 

they were simplifications of reality 

designed to give insight into underlying 

facts. The models considered the effects 

of various joint characteristics such as 

rail section, rail end gap, batter, height 

mismatch and vertical support. Loads 

were used to infer stresses in the joint 

bar which permitted the conduct of a 

fatigue analysis to determine the 

tonnage, expressed as million gross tons 

(MGT), required to develop a fatigue 

crack in the bar. The models were based 

on an assumed rectangular cross 

section, which, although very different 

from the actual joint bar shape, seemed 

to give adequate direction when later 

compared to actual experience. Under 

the assumed baseline joint conditions, 

bar fatigue life was estimated to be 

greater than 5,000 MGT. 

Fatigue life is only tangentially 

related to a reasonable inspection 

interval. Crack growth life after crack 

initiation is far more important. Volpe 

applied fracture mechanics principles to 

estimate the tonnage required to grow 

the crack from a barely detectable size 

to the size at which the bar would 

fracture under the next train. For the 

same baseline joint conditions, the 

analysis yielded a fatigue crack growth 

life estimate of 13 MGT, using a 

minimum detectable crack size of onesixteenth of an inch. Smaller initial 

crack sizes yielded dramatically longer 

fatigue lives, and larger initial crack 

sizes yielded dramatically shorter 

fatigue lives. Further, the fatigue and 

crack growth lives are extremely 

sensitive to the conditions of the joint. 

Poor joint conditions result in shorter 

estimated lifetimes, while better 

conditions increase the expected joint 

bar life. For each case, Volpe fatigue life 

estimates are conservative, as the 

analysis predicts first percentile life. 

That is, the fatigue life estimate is the 

tonnage at which one percent of joint 

population can be expected to have 

formed a crack—a standard engineering 

approach to estimating fatigue life. The 

Volpe crack growth models also have 

some conservative features. The Volpe 

model seemed to forecast slightly more 

failures than are being realized in actual 

railroad service, but FRA will compare 

the model to actual data once fracture 

reports become available. 

These results were considered by the 

RSAC working group and compared to 

real life experiences. Many railroads 

already had inspection plans for their 

CWR joints. During the RSAC working 

group meetings, numerous inspection 

intervals were suggested. Certain parties 

suggested that 40 MGT be used, while 

others wanted 10 MGT. A consensus 

was reached that 20 MGT would be a 

reasonable inspection interval. 

Although Volpe’s model had suggested 

13 MGT, the Volpe representatives 

assured FRA that 20 MGT is an 

appropriate inspection interval. Given 

the practical realities of conducting the 

required on-foot visual inspections 

required under the new rule, and FRA’s 

heightened concerns about tracks with 

40–60 MGT per year, certain trade-offs 

were made by RSAC in recommending 

the inspection frequency schedule. FRA 

has adopted the RSAC 

recommendations regarding inspection 

frequency. 

For freight-only operations, the 

inspection interval depends on the 

annual tonnage and the FRA track class. 

The inspection interval is 

approximately once every 20 MGT up to 

60 MGT (or three times per year) for 

Class 4 and Class 5 track, with less 

frequent intervals for Class 3 track. 

These intervals are greater than the 

estimated crack growth life; however, 

they represent a practical baseline and 

account for the likely increased severity 

of accidents on higher track classes. 

They are also reflective of the vast 

majority of freight traffic in the U.S. as 

most lines accumulate an average of 

approximately 60 MGT per year. Higher 

annual tonnage lines generally represent 

unit train operations consisting of coal, 

for example. Track with higher speeds 

is subject to more frequent inspections, 

because higher speed accidents are 

likely on the average to be more severe. 

The inspection intervals provide some 

balance between risk and cost of 

inspection. 

For track upon which passenger trains 

operate, a different schedule was 

developed which considers the 

potentially greater severity, especially in 

terms of loss of life, from possible future 

passenger train accidents. The 

inspection intervals are again graduated 

based on track class and whether the 

line experiences more or less than 20 

MGT per year with more frequent 

inspections required for higher classes 

of track. If a track owner operates both 

freight and passenger trains over a given 

segment of track and there are two 

different possible inspection interval 

requirements, the more frequent 

inspection interval applies. 

FRA also provided relief requested by 

ASLRRA on behalf of smaller railroads, 

which run occasional passenger service. 

Pursuant to the frequency chart in 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(i), those railroads can 

run passenger trains at the maximum 

speed authorized for the next lower 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
59682 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

class of track. FRA believes this is safe, 

because track with freight service is 

inspected at frequencies higher or equal 

to the inspection frequency of the next 

lower class track with passenger service. 

FRA considered adding further 

complexity to the required inspection 

frequency, but decided that would not 

be either necessary or productive. It is 

not necessary because the inspection 

strategy embodied in this final rule 

should be sufficient to address joint 

integrity issues (conditions that foster 

development of cracks) and to detect 

cracks before failure in the vast majority 

of cases. Further complexity would not 

be productive because available 

information does not support 

development of a useful inspection 

strategy built on other factors. For 

instance, protecting nearby populations 

from hazardous material accidents is 

always a desirable objective; however, 

most hazardous materials releases 

(which are infrequent events) occur 

along the railroads in unpopulated areas 

or in small rural communities—

thousands of which lie along major rail 

lines. Hazardous materials shipments 

traverse most rail lines, yet there is no 

data suggesting that the volume of 

shipments predicts the likelihood of a 

release in a train accident. After 

discussion of these issues, the RSAC 

agreed that an inspection strategy based 

on class of track, tonnage, and presence 

or absence of passenger traffic was the 

best approach. The RSAC also 

developed the Fracture Report process, 

which may lead to further refinement of 

inspection intervals over time. 

B. Economic Analysis 

AAR had extensive comments on the 

IFR’s economic analysis. First, AAR 

stated that the recordkeeping costs were 

underestimated, and stressed that the 

IFR’s proposed inventory requirement 

would be more costly than estimated by 

FRA. FRA agrees that the cost estimates 

developed in connection with the IFR 

were based on an excessively optimistic 

assumption regarding the extent of 

railroads’ use of electronic technology 

which would have been necessary to 

keep inventory costs reasonable. As 

FRA is no longer requiring an inventory, 

these costs will not be analyzed further 

for the final rule. 

AAR also stated that FRA 

underestimated the burden imposed 

upon inspectors by underestimating the 

time per inspection and by 

underestimating the number of joints to 

be inspected. In response to this 

comment, FRA will use a longer time 

period for inspection as part of a 

sensitivity analysis; four minutes will be 

allocated for each joint inspection in 

this analysis and the originally 

proposed one minute per joint 

inspection in a separate analysis. 

Although FRA worked with the AAR to 

obtain more accurate data to better 

estimate the number of joints to be 

inspected and the frequency to which 

they will be inspected, the AAR was not 

able to provide significantly improved 

data in the time available. In its 

comments, AAR had estimated the 

number of joints by extrapolating a total 

number from a six-and-a-half mile 

segment of track. FRA believes its 

estimates are at least as good as AAR’s 

extrapolation from a six-and-a-half mile 

segment. 

C. Joint Inventory Requirement in the 

IFR 

Commenters such as AAR, Long 

Island Railroad (LIRR) and Metro-North 

found the joint inventory requirements 

in the CFR to be extremely burdensome. 

In response to these comments and 

discussions of the RSAC working group, 

FRA has eliminated the inventory 

requirement of the IFR. The RSAC 

working group agreed that in lieu of the 

data supplied by a CWR Joint Inventory, 

the track owner would be required to 

submit Fracture Reports to the FRA 

twice annually. FRA will analyze the 

data provided in the reports to enhance 

industry knowledge with regard to the 

factors causing broken joint bars. 

D. Training 

FRA received a comment from 

BMWED suggesting that there should be 

annual re-training of track inspectors on 

joint bar inspections. FRA interprets 

this comment as pertaining to CWR 

training in general. As FRA did not 

change the CWR training provision in 

the IFR, FRA has resolved to address 

training concerns in Phase II of the 

working group’s task of reviewing all of 

§ 213.119. 

E. Availability of CWR Plans 

FRA received comments that CWR 

written procedures (designated ‘‘CWR 

plans’’ under this final rule) were not 

made readily available for inspectors. 

FRA has resolved this issue by making 

all CWR plans it receives pursuant to 

Part 213 available to all FRA and State 

inspectors. However, FRA agrees that 

greater clarity is desirable. FRA will ask 

the working group to include a more 

suitable process for submission and 

dissemination of CWR plans in Phase II 

of its activities. 

F. Other Comments 

FRA accepted AAR’s suggestion to 

remove the reference to impact loads in 

the final rule. FRA also added an 

exception to the inspection frequency 

requirements to allow for irregularly 

scheduled passenger trains. See 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(ii). To further address 

this concern, FRA added a definition of 

‘‘unscheduled detour operation’’ to the 

list of definitions in § 213.119(j). In 

response to a comment regarding 

irregularly scheduled passenger trains, 

FRA created an exception for tourist and 

excursion operations in 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(iii). Accordingly, FRA 

added a definition for Tourist, Scenic, 

Historic, or Excursion Operations in 

§ 213.119(j). 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 213.119 

FRA is revising § 213.119 by requiring 

track owners to incorporate into their 

CWR plans written procedures on the 

inspection of joints in CWR. This will 

require most track owners to amend 

their existing CWR plans. Track owners 

must also create and maintain records of 

these inspections. FRA provides details 

of these new provisions below, which 

affect § 213.119(g)–(j). Paragraphs (a)–(f) 

of this section are not changed with this 

final rule. 

Paragraph (g) 

In the IFR, this paragraph required 

track owners to specifically address 

joints in CWR in their respective CWR 

plans. This final rule adopts a number 

of changes to the IFR’s provisions. 

Principal among those changes are the 

Fracture Report requirement and the 

increased minimum inspection 

frequencies. Both of these new 

requirements will be discussed in 

further detail below. 

This paragraph requires each track 

owner to include in its CWR plan 

provisions for the scheduling and 

conducting of joint inspections. A 

person who is qualified under § § 213.7 

to perform inspections of CWR track 

should perform the inspections required 

by this paragraph on foot at the joint. 

Paragraph (g)(1) 

This paragraph governs periodic 

inspections of CWR joints. Track owners 

are required to establish procedures for 

conducting these inspections. Upon 

identifying actual conditions of joint 

failures (i.e., broken or cracked joint 

bars) or potential conditions of joint 

failure, track owners must initiate the 

appropriate corrective action and keep 

the appropriate records. See 

§§ 213.119(g)(5) and 213.119(g)(7). In 

addition, when a track owner discovers 

CWR joints that are not in compliance 

with the requirements of Part 213, the 

track owner must take the appropriate 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59683 

remedial action required by Part 213. 

FRA notes that nothing in this 

paragraph interferes with the track 

owners’ continuing obligation to 

conduct track inspections under 

§ 213.233. 

Periodic inspections, as referenced 

herein, are on-foot inspections of CWR 

joints that track owners must conduct 

on a regular basis. Track owners are 

required to conduct periodic 

inspections at the minimum intervals 

specified in paragraph (g)(6). Track 

owners, of course, are free to conduct 

such inspections more frequently than 

required. 

The IFR had also included special 

inspections in this paragraph. As a 

result of working group discussions, 

FRA removed the discussion of special 

inspections from this paragraph. 

Although FRA has removed the 

discussion of special inspections from 

§ 213.119(g), FRA intends to place it 

elsewhere in § 213.119. FRA will 

include the discussion of special 

inspections (e.g., sun kinks, pull aparts, 

etc.) in the broader review of § 213.119, 

during Phase II of this project. 

Paragraph (g)(2) 

This paragraph requires track owners 

to identify joint bars with visible or 

otherwise detectable cracks and conduct 

remedial action pursuant to § 213.121. 

The IFR had included cracked joint bars 

under the list of actions items, which 

this final rule addresses in paragraph 

(g)(3). Although the working group 

placed the identification of cracked joint 

bars under the list of action items as 

well, FRA decided to address them 

separately in this final rule. As 

SAFETEA–LU mandates FRA to 

promulgate regulations to improve the 

identification of cracks in joint bars, 

FRA is distinguishing between joint bars 

that are already cracked and joint bars 

that have the potential of cracking in the 

future. When a track owner discovers a 

cracked joint bar, he must take the 

remedial action specified in § 213.121; 

however, if he discovers a joint bar with 

actual or potential joint failure, he must 

take the corrective action specified by 

his CWR plan. Corrective action will be 

further addressed in paragraph (g)(5). 

Paragraph (g)(3) 

This paragraph identifies those items 

relating to joint inspections that track 

owners must address in their CWR 

plans. FRA notes that these items are 

the minimum that track owners should 

address. Of course, track owners are free 

to include additional items in their 

respective CWR plans. Track inspectors 

should identify and record these listed 

items during their inspection of joints 

because these items are related to the 

integrity of the joint, and thus, to the 

safety of trains that operate over these 

joints. 

The IFR mentioned these items, but it 

did not specifically state that they were 

conditions of potential joint failure. 

FRA notes this list is not all-inclusive. 

There are other conditions that could 

indicate failure, and FRA urges track 

owners to consider all conditions, not 

just these listed examples. 

Loose, bent, or missing joint bolts. The 

bolts through the joint bars and rail ends 

are a vital component of the joint. Bolts 

are meant to keep joint bars firmly 

supported against the joint. If bolts are 

missing, loose, or bent, the bolts will fail 

to keep the joint bars firmly in contact 

with the rails. The rails are then liable 

to separate when there is cold weather 

which causes high-tension forces 

through the joint. Bolts in joints with 

bars that are separated from the web of 

the rail at the bolt holes tend to fail 

when the bolts bend. When the bolts 

bend beyond their elastic limit, they 

lose their design tension, and they are 

no longer capable of holding the joint 

bars firmly against the rail. The joint 

then permits the rails to move in 

relation to each other under passing 

wheels, causing increased impact loads 

on the joint and battering of the 

adjoining rail ends. This can potentially 

lead to cracks and eventually fracture of 

the joint bars or rail ends. 

Rail end batter or mismatch that 

contributes to instability of the joint. 

Rail end batter refers to the deformation 

of the running surface at the end of the 

rail. Rail end batter occurs when wheels 

pass over a joint and (1) the rails are 

pulled apart to the extent that the 

wheels can drop slightly into the gap, or 

(2) the rail ends are mismatched, or 

both. Rail ends can be mismatched 

because joint bolts are loose or because 

the rails do not match when installed. 

Excessive rail end batter causes high 

impact forces on all components of the 

joint; this can cause the joint bar or the 

rail to rupture. Also, vibrations at a 

battered joint can cause loss of 

consolidation of ballast at the joint, 

leaving the joint vulnerable to thermal 

buckling when high compressive forces 

are generated in the rails. 

The IFR included the term ‘‘impact 

loads’’ as another defect to which rail 

end batter or mismatch could 

contribute. The RSAC working group 

determined that it was redundant to 

keep the term ‘‘impact loads’’ in the rule 

text, as it is understood that these 

conditions can cause extreme impact 

loads. Since other conditions, such as 

rail end gap, can have the same effect, 

FRA decided to remove the phrase 

‘‘impact loads’’ from the final rule. 

Evidence of excessive longitudinal rail 

movement in or near the joint, 

including, but not limited to, wide rail 

gap, defective joint bolts, disturbed 

ballast, surface deviations, gap between 

tie plates and rail, or displaced rail 

anchors. Longitudinal rail movement is 

evidence that the rails might not be 

securely anchored, that excessive 

tension forces are developing in the rail 

when it is cold, or that the joint bolts 

have lost their clamping properties after 

being stretched in bending. As wheels 

pass over and drop into the gap, there 

are high impact forces on the joint. This 

can have the same consequences as 

described above for rail end batter. 

When a joint is not properly supported, 

it will deflect vertically (or swing), 

creating substantially increased stress in 

the joint bars and rail. Irregular surface 

deviations develop from a vertically 

displaced joint, which leads to 

increased lateral loading and stress at 

the joint. These tension forces, 

combined with additional impact loads, 

have a tendency to cause cracks and to 

cause rupture of joint bars and rail. 

Paragraph (g)(4) 

This paragraph requires track owners 

to include procedures in their CWR 

plans for the inspection of CWR joints 

that are imbedded in highway-rail grade 

crossings or in other structures that 

prevent a complete inspection of the 

joint (e.g., pans in fueling facilities, 

scales, passenger walkways at stations 

that cover the track, etc.). The plans 

must also include procedures for the 

removal of loose material or other 

temporary material from the joint. FRA 

is adding this paragraph in response to 

comments by AAR and to subsequent 

discussions at RSAC working group 

meetings, as the IFR did not mention 

‘‘imbedded’’ joints. 

Some working group members were 

concerned that they would be unable to 

inspect these ‘‘imbedded’’ joints, which 

are sometimes not fully visible on the 

sides and bottoms of the joint bars. 

Railroads did not want to be penalized 

for their inability to see, and therefore 

inspect, these joints. FRA understands 

that a small percentage of the joints in 

CWR are ‘‘imbedded’’ joints. FRA 

acknowledges that railroad engineering 

personnel have made efforts to remove 

these imbedded joints where possible, 

and that, nonetheless, some of these 

joints remain. 

With respect to the procedures for 

‘‘imbedded’’ joints, FRA does not expect 

that railroads will need to disassemble 

or remove the track structure (e.g., 

remove pavement or crossing pads) to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
59684 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

conduct an inspection of CWR joints. 

However, FRA does expect that 

railroads will make every effort, to the 

extent practicable, to inspect the joints 

in these structures. 

FRA is aware that CWR joints may 

sometimes be temporarily buried during 

maintenance (e.g where ballast is 

distributed in the middle of the track 

and along the track) and therefore 

unavailable for inspection. FRA expects 

that railroads will take necessary 

measures to conduct inspections of 

these CWR joints. FRA expects that 

railroads will schedule their 

maintenance so as to allow for a 

complete inspection of these joints. 

Where CWR joints are buried (e.g., by 

ballast), FRA expects that railroad 

maintenance personnel will wait for the 

completion of the track surfacing and 

dressing of the ballast before conducting 

their joint bar inspections. 

Alternatively, railroads may use hand 

tools or mechanical means to remove 

ballast from the sides of track joints, so 

that they can conduct an inspection of 

those track joints. 

Finally, FRA notes that components 

of the track (such as crossties, fasteners, 

tie plates, etc.) are also not fully visible 

in highway-rail crossings and similar 

structures. FRA has never specifically 

exempted these items from the 

inspections required under Part 213. 

Instead, FRA expects that the railroads 

will inspect these areas to the maximum 

extent possible. 

Paragraph (g)(5) 

This paragraph requires track owners 

to specify in their CWR plans the 

appropriate corrective actions that must 

be taken when track inspectors find 

conditions of actual or potential joint 

failure. The IFR required track owners 

to specify in their plans the appropriate 

remedial actions. FRA notes the 

difference between the terms ‘‘remedial 

actions’’ and ‘‘corrective actions.’’

Remedial actions are those actions 

which track owners are required to take 

as a result of requirements of Part 213 

to address a non-compliant condition. 

For example, if a track owner discovers 

a cracked joint bar, he must replace it. 

See 49 CFR 213.121. Corrective actions, 

on the other hand, are those actions 

which track owners specify in their 

CWR plans to address conditions of 

potential joint failure, including, as 

applicable, repair, restrictions on 

operations, and additional on-foot 

repair. To ensure clarity, FRA has 

defined these terms in § 213.119(j). 

Follow-up inspections, as referenced 

herein, are joint-specific and conducted 

in response to conditions that a track 

owner discovers during periodic 

inspections. Track owners will identify 

in their CWR plans the conditions that 

trigger follow-up inspections. For 

example, where a track owner identifies 

‘‘replace bolt or inspect weekly’’ as a 

corrective action for a bent bolt, if a 

track inspector discovers a bent bolt 

during a periodic inspection and does 

not immediately replace it, then the 

track inspector will have to conduct 

follow-up inspections at that joint. 

Paragraph (g)(6) 

This paragraph requires railroad 

owners to specify the timing of periodic 

inspections. As previously mentioned, 

commenters criticized the IFR’s 

minimum joint inspection frequency. 

The IFR provided minimum inspection 

intervals of every 190 days for track 

classes 4 and higher and every 370 days 

for class 3 track and class 2 track on 

which passenger trains operate. To 

address both public comments and 

discussions during RSAC working group 

meetings, FRA increased the minimum 

number of required joint inspections. 

The minimum number of required joint 

inspections are addressed in the table in 

paragraph (g)(6)(i). As previously 

discussed, the timing periods in this 

paragraph represent the minimum of 

what is expected. Railroad owners are 

encouraged to implement additional 

inspection periods as they determine 

necessary. 

The IFR did not allow for any 

exceptions to the minimum joint 

inspection frequency. Pursuant to RSAC 

working group recommendations, in 

paragraphs (g)(6)(ii)–(iv), FRA is 

allowing exceptions to the minimum 

inspection frequencies for unscheduled 

detours, certain passenger trains, and 

items that are already inspected on a 

monthly basis pursuant to 49 CFR 

213.235. Each of these exceptions will 

be discussed in more detail below. 

Paragraph (g)(6)(i) 

The table contained in this paragraph 

provides guidance for the minimum 

required inspection frequency of CWR 

joints. The working group developed 

this table to specify inspection 

frequencies for each class of track. The 

table contains two footnotes clarifying 

the inspection frequencies in the table. 

The first footnote provides that where 

a track owner operates both freight and 

passenger trains over a given segment of 

track, and there are two different 

possible inspection interval 

requirements, the more frequent 

inspection interval applies. This 

footnote was developed by the working 

group to address concerns over track 

shared by freight and passenger trains. 

It was anticipated that there could be a 

potential conflict with the inspection 

frequency required for the track if the 

track owner were to follow the chart for 

both types of trains. By requiring the 

more frequent inspections in situations 

of conflict, this footnote ensures greater 

safety and protection to track used for 

mixed purposes. 

The second footnote is added in 

response to concerns over sensitivity of 

extreme regional weather conditions. 

This concern was raised in the working 

group by industry representatives with 

regard to the difficulty of inspecting 

CWR joints in northern regions when 

there is a large amount of snow. The 

working group acknowledged that there 

could be times when it would be 

extremely difficult for a track owner to 

clear snow and ice from the joint in 

order for it to be seen for inspection. 

This footnote allows some flexibility for 

track owners in such a situation. 

Paragraph (g)(6)(ii) 

This paragraph allows track owners to 

operate passenger trains without 

lowering the track speed for a limited 

period of time without adhering to the 

required inspection frequencies for 

passenger trains pursuant to the table in 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(i). This provision 

accommodates for unplanned outages, 

derailments, accidents, and other 

emergency situations. Track owners are 

still required to adhere to the applicable 

freight inspection frequencies. This 

provision is intended to provide relief to 

railroads that operate passenger trains 

and that have a last minute emergency 

situation. However, if a track owner 

operates passenger trains at the normal 

track speed for more than fourteen days, 

the track must be inspected at the 

appropriate passenger train levels as 

detailed in the table at § 213.119(g)(6)(i). 

Paragraph (g)(6)(iii) 

As defined in § 213.119(j), tourist, 

scenic, historic, or excursion operations 

mean railroad operations that carry 

passengers with the conveyance of the 

passengers to a particular destination 

not being the principal purpose. These 

types of operations typically run less 

frequently than intercity or commuter 

passenger trains and occur most often 

on short-line railroads. If a track owner 

has an operation of this type on the 

track and does not want to take that 

operation into account in determining 

inspection frequency, the owner must 

drop the track speed one class with 

regard to that operation. This way, the 

track owner will still be in compliance 

with the inspection frequency mandated 

by the table in paragraph (g)(6)(i) 

regardless of the class of freight the 

owner runs on the track. As the first 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59685 

footnote to the table in paragraph 

(g)(6)(i) states, where there are two 

different possible inspection interval 

requirements, the more frequent 

inspection interval applies. 

Paragraph (g)(6)(iv) 

In this paragraph, FRA exempts the 

following items from the periodic 

inspection frequency intervals: 

switches, turnouts, track crossings, lift 

rail assemblies or other transition 

devices on moveable bridges. Track 

owners already inspect these items on a 

monthly basis pursuant to 49 CFR 

213.235. Rather than apply the 

additional periodic inspection 

requirements (i.e, apply the intervals in 

the table in § 213.119(g)(6)(i) to switches 

and turnouts, etc), FRA believes it is 

more appropriate to have track owners 

conduct their inspections of joints at 

these locations during their monthly 49 

CFR 213.235 inspections. 

With respect to turnouts, FRA has 

historically understood and operated 

under the assumption that a turnout 

extends from the point of the switch to 

the heel of the frog. FRA will continue 

to operate under that assumption, and 

accordingly, all joints in turnouts, 

switches, etc. must be inspected 

monthly pursuant to 49 CFR 213.235 

and records of these inspections must be 

kept in accordance with 49 CFR 

213.241. The final rule does not require 

that the data elements listed in 

§ 213.119(g)(7)(i) appear on the 49 CFR 

213.235 inspection record. The reason 

for this is that, with more frequent 

inspections, the track inspector should 

be better able to manage joint conditions 

without maintaining detailed records. 

All joints that extend beyond the 

point of a switch or beyond the point of 

the heel of the frog need not be 

inspected monthly and instead can be 

inspected at the frequency intervals 

identified in § 213.119(g)(6)(i). However, 

track owners are free to include, in their 

monthly 49 CFR 213.235 inspection, 

these joints that are located in track 

structure that is adjacent to turnouts and 

switches. If track owners choose to do 

this, they must clearly define the 

parameters of that arrangement in their 

CWR plan. In other words, the track 

owner should clearly identify the 

physical limits of the adjacent track 

structure (e.g., insulated joints up until 

the signal), and they must clearly 

identify the inspection interval for joints 

in that adjacent track (e.g., ‘‘inspect all 

insulated joints to the signal during the 

monthly 49 CFR 213.235 inspection.’’) 

In addition, as long as track owners 

clearly define the parameters in the 

CWR plans, the track owner need not 

keep two sets of records (i.e., a record 

from the 49 CFR 213.235 inspection and 

a record from the § 213.119(g)(6)(i) 

inspection) for inspections of these 

‘‘adjacent’’ joints. For example, if the 

track owner’s CWR plan indicates that 

joints in crossovers between turnouts 

must be inspected during the monthly 

49 CFR 213.235 inspection, and a 

railroad track inspector inspects the 

joints in the crossover during the 

monthly 49 CFR 213.235 inspection, 

then it is sufficient for the track owner 

to create and maintain only the 49 CFR 

213.235 record. 

FRA believes this option is useful, 

because it avoids the confusion and 

duplication that might otherwise result. 

Without this option, railroad track 

inspectors would be unsure what to 

note in their records and which track 

inspections require which records. In 

addition, FRA notes that it would be 

burdensome for track inspectors to 

inspect those ‘‘adjacent’’ joints monthly 

and make a note of the inspection in the 

monthly 49 CFR 213.235 record and 

also be required to make an additional 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(i) record every couple of 

months. 

Paragraph (g)(7) 

This paragraph requires track owners 

to keep records specific to CWR joint 

bars. As previously mentioned, the IFR 

required track owners to maintain and 

submit to FRA a joint inventory. In 

response to comments that this 

requirement was too burdensome, FRA 

has eliminated the joint inventory 

requirement and replaced it with the 

new recordkeeping requirements in this 

paragraph. FRA has distinguished 

between two major categories of records: 

(i) records pertaining to periodic followup inspections, and (ii) fracture reports. 

Paragraph (g)(7)(i) 

This paragraph addresses the 

inspection reports that have to be 

created after periodic inspections 

required by paragraph (g)(6)(i) and 

follow-up inspections as required by the 

track owner’s CWR plan. The inspection 

reports of the periodic inspections shall 

be prepared on the day the inspection 

is made and are to contain the required 

information. The periodic inspection 

record can be combined with other 

records required pursuant to 49 CFR 

213.241. 

Paragraph (g)(7)(ii) 

This paragraph requires railroads to 

submit Fracture Reports to the FRA. 

Railroads should complete Fracture 

Reports when they find cracks during 

routine inspections pursuant to 

§§ 213.119(g), 213.233, or 213.235 on 

track that is required under 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(i) to be inspected. FRA 

encourages track owners to complete 

Fracture Reports whenever cracks are 

discovered, in addition to the required 

inspections. Track owners, however, do 

not need to complete a Fracture Report 

for cracks found in excepted track, Class 

1 track, and Class 2 track without 

passenger service. 

The Fracture Reports will enable the 

FRA to conduct an analysis to further 

the understanding of the factors causing 

CWR joint failures. The Fracture Reports 

are for data collection to expand the 

agency’s expertise concerning joint 

failures; the FRA does not intend to use 

the Fracture Reports for enforcement 

purposes. Likewise, inadvertent errors 

on the Fracture Report will not be 

subject to civil penalties. Of course, 

should FRA encounter repeated failure 

to prepare and complete such reports, or 

come upon a persistent and recurring 

pattern of non-reporting, FRA will take 

appropriate enforcement action. Track 

owners are not required to keep the 

Fracture Reports pursuant to the 

requirements of 49 CFR 213.241. 

However, FRA intends for the Fracture 

Reports to be kept until the track owner 

has received confirmation that FRA has 

received the data. 

FRA proposes to give the track owner 

a variety of means of submitting the 

Fracture Reports. The first option 

proposed is through an electronic data 

submission using eXtensible Markup 

Language (XML) format. FRA plans to 

have a transaction summary generated 

that will report the number of records 

submitted, the number of records 

accepted to the database, and the 

number of records rejected due to 

validation errors, which will be 

streamed back to the railroad. The 

second option involves FRA developing 

a special web page from which railroads 

can register and receive credentials to 

access a web data entry form (with 

validation capabilities) to input 

individual Fracture Reports. FRA is also 

considering making available a 

formatted Excel spreadsheet, into which 

railroads can input their Fracture 

Reports. This spreadsheet could be 

submitted via e-mail, electronic media, 

or uploaded to the FRA Office of Safety 

Analysis’ Web site. As a final option, 

FRA plans to make available a printable 

version of the OMB approved Fracture 

Report form for download. More 

specific instructions regarding 

submission of the Fracture Reports will 

be made available prior to January 2, 

2007, on the Office of Safety Analysis’

Web site, http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
59686 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Paragraph (g)(7)(ii)(A) 

This paragraph requires that the 

Fracture Report be prepared on the day 

the cracked or broken CWR joint bar is 

found. The CWR Joint Bar Fracture 

Report was developed by a Task Force 

comprised of members of the RSAC 

working group. The Fracture Report is 

to be completed whenever a cracked or 

broken joint bar is discovered during the 

period inspections required by 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(i), as well as those 

currently required by 49 CFR 213.233 

and 213.235. The fracture reporting 

requirement was implemented in order 

to comply, in part, with 49 U.S.C. 20142 

as amended by SAFETEA–LU (Pub. L. 

109–59, August 10, 2005). The Fracture 

Reports will address 29 U.S.C. 

20142(e)(1)(A)’s instruction to improve 

the identification of cracks in rail joint 

bars, § 20142(e)(1)(C)’s mandate to 

‘‘establish a program to review 

continuous welded rail joint bar 

inspection data from railroads and 

Administration track inspectors 

periodically,’’ and § 20142(e)(2)’s 

direction to adjust the frequency of 

inspection or improve the method of 

inspection of CWR joint bars as 

necessary. 

The Fracture Reports specifically 

address the statutory language in three 

specific ways. First, the report provides 

information on joint conditions as it 

addresses most joint attributes known to 

contribute to premature joint failure 

such as rail end batter and wide rail end 

gap. It is believed that the joint 

inspections and the reports generated 

when cracked or broken bars are 

discovered will provide useful data to 

the railroads regarding joint conditions 

which lead to bar failure and perhaps 

lead to early preventive measures when 

these conditions are discovered before a 

crack develops. Second, in addition to 

the joint bar inspection records retained 

by the railroads, the Fracture Reports 

provide FRA with additional insight 

into the effectiveness of the new 

inspection requirements. Finally, as the 

inspection frequency was developed 

based in part on modeling results, the 

Fracture Report data can be used to 

evaluate the reasonableness of the 

model predictions. Certain data 

elements in the report can be used to 

estimate joint bar crack growth rates, 

which is crucial to enabling 

establishment of proper inspection 

intervals. Based on the number of 

Fracture Reports submitted to the FRA 

and the data they provide, an 

assessment of the appropriateness of the 

inspection intervals can be made. 

The annual gross million ton 

information requested in the Fracture 

Report should be entered on the report 

by an appropriate employee of the 

railroad, since the railroad track 

inspector may not have ready access to 

this information (even though the 

inspector should impliedly be aware of 

the range within which the value falls 

as a result of instructions provided 

concerning the frequency of inspection 

required). 

Paragraph (g)(7)(ii)(B) 

This paragraph requires the track 

owner to submit the information 

contained in the Fracture Reports twice 

annually to the FRA. FRA is collecting 

the Fracture Report data and will 

analyze it because SAFETEA–LU 

mandates that FRA create and gather 

such data. This information will be 

periodically submitted so that FRA can 

analyze the conditions that exist where 

cracked or broken bars were discovered. 

FRA requested that railroads submit 

data more frequently than annually 

because the agency decided that this 

practice would foster better analysis. 

The RSAC working group proposed a 

semi-annual submission of data. The 

group determined that more frequent 

submissions would be burdensome on 

the railroads. After having collected and 

analyzed a few years of data, FRA will 

determine whether it is necessary to 

continue collecting the data and 

whether to propose that inspection 

methods and minimum inspection 

frequencies should be varied. 

Paragraph (g)(7)(ii)(C) 

This paragraph allows any track 

owner to petition FRA after February 1, 

2010, to conduct a technical conference 

to assess whether there is a continued 

need for the collection of Fracture 

Report data. During the technical 

conference, the FRA would review the 

data collected, the analysis done to date, 

and determine if sufficient data has 

been collected to enable FRA to make a 

technically competent determination of 

CWR joint bar failure causes and 

contributing conditions. 

Paragraph (g)(8) 

This paragraph, which maintains a 

provision from the IFR, permits a track 

owner to devise an alternate program for 

the inspection of joints in CWR. A track 

owner seeking to deviate from the 

minimum inspection frequencies 

specified in § 213.119(g)(6) should 

submit the alternate procedures and a 

supporting statement of justification to 

FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Safety (Associate Administrator). In the 

supporting statement, the track owner 

must include data and analysis that 

establishes to the satisfaction of the 

Associate Administrator that the 

alternate procedures provide at least an 

equivalent level of safety across the 

railroad. 

If the Associate Administrator 

approves the alternate procedures, the 

Associate Administrator will notify the 

track owner of such approval in writing. 

In that written notification, the 

Associate Administrator will specify the 

date on which the alternate procedures 

will become effective. After that date, 

the track owner shall comply with the 

approved procedures. If the Associate 

Administrator determines that the 

alternate procedures do not provide an 

equivalent level of safety, the Associate 

Administrator will disapprove the 

alternate procedures in writing. While a 

determination is pending with the 

Associate Administrator, the track 

owner shall continue to comply with 

the requirements contained in 

§ 213.119(g)(6). 

FRA expects that the track owner will 

include a risk analysis in its supporting 

statement of justification for alternate 

procedures. The risk analysis, whether 

qualitative or quantitative, should 

demonstrate that the track owner’s 

program is at least as good (as applied 

across the entire railroad) as the 

benchmark level of inspection that FRA 

mandates in this final rule. The risk 

analysis would likely address such 

issues as tonnage, grades, curvature, 

prior joint failure rates (with respect to 

frequency), type of traffic, average train 

speed, and proximity to populations. 

The track owner might use risk analysis 

techniques to focus more frequent 

inspections in areas of greater risk (e.g., 

approaches to bridges, close proximity 

to populated areas, heavy tonnage, 

significant hazardous materials traffic), 

while utilizing a lesser frequency at 

other locations and optimizing safety 

and efficiency. 

As mentioned earlier, FRA encourages 

the use of new technologies for 

inspecting joint bars and new means of 

determining information relevant to 

future joint integrity. FRA’s Office of 

Research and Development has funded 

research to develop an automated, 

vehicle-mounted, visual imaging system 

that can survey joint bars across a 

territory by recording digital 

photographic images and generating the 

data to exception reports. Use of such a 

system in combination with less 

frequent walking inspections that 

employ appropriate attention to joint 

condition action items might reduce the 

cost of joint bar inspections while 

enhancing prevention of joint failure. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59687 

7See footnote 6 supra. 

The Rail Integrity Task Force 7 has 

also considered the conditions under 

which railroads can more effectively 

detect joint bar cracks. One of the 

primary objectives of this Task Force is 

to review industry best practices for the 

inspection, maintenance, and 

replacement of rail. The Task Force 

discussed options for vehicle-mounted 

non-destructive testing that might, at a 

future date, provide the ability to detect 

both internal defects as well as cracks in 

joint bars. Both FRA and the AAR, 

through the Transportation Technology 

Center, Inc., are working on nondestructive testing techniques that may 

be useful in the future for this purpose. 

Such systems may have the potential to 

identify cracks before they become 

visible to the eye or through visual 

imaging. 

Technology (including frequent 

automated track geometry surveys) and 

sound CWR management, including 

prompt removal of so-called 

‘‘temporary’’ joints, may provide the 

additional information required to 

verify the ongoing integrity of joints in 

CWR. The alternative procedures 

provision of this final rule will allow 

track owners to take advantage of these 

new approaches as they become 

available. 

Paragraphs (h)–(j) 

With the addition of a new paragraph 

213.119(g), FRA has renumbered the old 

paragraphs (g), (h), and (i). The training 

requirements previously located in 

paragraph (g) are now located in 

paragraph (h). The recordkeeping 

requirements previously located in 

paragraph (h) are now located in 

paragraph (i). The definitions section 

formerly located in paragraph (i) is now 

located in paragraph (j). 

Paragraph (i) 

Paragraph (i) contains the 

recordkeeping requirements for 

railroads that have track constructed of 

CWR. At a minimum, a track owner 

must keep records of the items listed in 

paragraph (i)(1) through (i)(3). Paragraph 

(i)(1) requires a track owner to keep a 

record of the rail temperature, location 

and date of CWR installations. 

Paragraph (i)(2) requires a track owner 

to keep a record of any CWR installation 

or maintenance work that does not 

conform with the written procedures. 

Paragraph (i)(3) requires a track owner 

to keep records of information on 

inspection of rail joints as specified in 

paragraph (g)(7). 

The IFR required the track owner to 

maintain a joint inventory in this 

paragraph. Pursuant to comments 

received and working group 

negotiations, FRA has eliminated the 

joint inventory requirement; 

alternatively, FRA now requires the 

track owner to keep records of each 

periodic and follow-up inspection, as 

specified in paragraph (g)(7). 

Paragraph (j) 

This paragraph defines that terms 

used throughout § 213.119. In this final 

rule, FRA is adding definitions for 

‘‘Action Item,’’ ‘‘Corrective Actions,’’

‘‘CWR Joint,’’ and ‘‘Remedial Actions’’

to clarify their usage. 

Action Items mean the rail joint 

conditions that track owners identify in 

their CWR plans pursuant to paragraph 

(g)(3) which require a corrective action. 

Section 213.119(g)(3) identifies the 

broad categories that track owners need 

to address (e.g., rail end batter or 

mismatch). Track owners will need to 

identify specific criteria/thresholds in 

their respective CWR plans (e.g., how 

many inches of rail end batter is 

permissible, at what amount of 

mismatch must railroads take corrective 

actions, and what corrective actions 

must they take). FRA would like to note 

that these broad categories are only the 

required minimums. Track owners are 

free to identify additional categories and 

set thresholds for these categories. 

Corrective Actions mean those actions 

which track owners specify in their 

CWR plans to address conditions of 

actual or potential joint failure, 

including, as applicable, repair, 

restrictions on operations, and 

additional on-foot inspections. This 

term is used in § 213.119(g)(5). 

CWR Joint means (a) any joint directly 

connected to CWR, and (b) any joint(s) 

in a segment of rail between CWR 

strings that are less than 195 feet apart, 

except joints located on jointed sections 

on bridges. CWR joint had not been 

defined in the past, and the RSAC 

working group defined ‘‘CWR joint’’ to 

clarify to which joints the new 

provisions would apply. The working 

group agreed that the force exerted by 

CWR extends beyond the joint at the 

end of the string. This definition is 

intended to include joints affected by 

CWR, and joints that are intended to be 

in CWR but by the addition of 

temporary joints may not be directly 

attached to a CWR string, such as an 

insulated joint plug rail. As many 

bridges have jointed rail by design, this 

definition would not include jointed rail 

joints on bridges. 

Remedial Actions are those items 

which track owners are required to take 

as a result of requirements in Part 213 

to address a non-compliant condition. 

VIII. Regulatory Impact 

A. Executive Order 12866 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 Order 

128566 and DOT policies and 

procedures. See 44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979. As part of the regulatory 

impact analysis, FRA has assessed a 

quantitative measurement of costs and 

benefits expected from the 

implementation of this final rule. The 

major costs anticipated from 

implementing this final rule include: 

the modification of existing CWR plans, 

conduct of some additional required onfoot inspections, and preparation and 

submission of Fracture Reports. The 

major benefit anticipated from 

implementing this final rule will be a 

decrease in rule-affected accidents. 

This final rule is not anticipated to 

have very much economic impact, as 

track owners are already inspecting 

many of the joints covered by the final 

rule. This final rule will create annual 

benefits of $790,000 for an initial cost of 

$58,000 and recurring annual costs of 

$85,000 to $120,000. This final rule is 

therefore expected to create net societal 

benefits in every year of its application, 

including the initial year. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

a review of proposed and final rules to 

assess their impact on 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.’’ ‘‘Small entity’’ is 

defined in the Act as a small business 

that is not independently owned and 

operated, and is not dominant in its 

field of operation. SBA’s ‘‘size 

standards’’ may be altered by federal 

agencies after consultation with SBA 

and in conjunction with public 

comment. Pursuant to that authority, 

FRA has published a final policy that 

formally establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as 

railroads which meet the line haulage 

revenue requirements of a Class III 

railroad. The revenue requirements are 

currently $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 (STB) threshold for a Class III 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
59688 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

railroad carrier. FRA uses the same 

revenue dollar limit to determine 

whether a railroad or shipper or 

contractor is a small entity. 

Approximately 200 small railroads 

have CWR and are affected by this final 

rule. Relatively few Class 3 railroads 

have CWR. For the minority of Class 3 

railroads that have CWR, the portion of 

their railroad which is CWR is more 

likely to be small. To the extent they 

have CWR, Class 3 railroads will be 

subject to most of the provisions of this 

rule. Small railroads were consulted 

frequently during the RSAC Working 

Group deliberations. Small railroads 

were most greatly concerned that the 

inventory requirements of the IFR was 

unduly burdensome. FRA has 

eliminated the requirement for an 

inventory in this final rule. Small 

railroads were also concerned about 

infrequent passenger service and its 

effect on inspection frequency. By 

allowing for such a scenario pursuant to 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(ii), FRA has resolved this 

issue in a manner which will minimize 

any impact on small railroads. 

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, and the 

estimated time and cost to fulfill each of 

the other requirements are as follows: 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

burden cost 

($) 

213.4 Excepted Track: 

Designation of track as excepted ..... 200 railroads .......... 20 orders .................. 15 minutes .............. 5 200 

Notification to FRA about removal of 

excepted track.

200 railroads .......... 15 notifications ......... 10 minutes .............. 3 120 

213.5 Responsibility of track owners .... 685 railroads .......... 10 notifications ......... 8 hours ................... 80 3,200 

213.7 Designation of qualified persons 

to supervise certain renewals and inspect track: 

Designations ..................................... 687 railroads .......... 1,500 names ............ 10 minutes .............. 250 10,000 

Designations (partially qualified) 

under paragraph (c) of this section.

687 railroads .......... 250 names ............... 10 minutes .............. 42 1,680 

213.17 Waivers ..................................... 687 railroads .......... 6 petitions ................. 24 hours ................. 144 5,760 

213.4 Excepted Track: 

Designation of track as excepted ..... 200 railroads .......... 20 orders .................. 15 minutes .............. 5 200 

Notification to FRA about removal of 

excepted track.

200 railroads .......... 15 notifications ......... 10 minutes .............. 3 120 

213.5 Responsibility of track owners .... 685 railroads .......... 10 notifications ......... 8 hours ................... 80 3,200 

213.7 Designation of qualified persons 

to supervise certain renewals and inspect track: 

Designations ..................................... 687 railroads .......... 1,500 names ............ 10 minutes .............. 250 10,000 

Designations (partially qualified) 

under paragraph (c) of this section.

687 railroads .......... 250 names ............... 10 minutes .............. 42 1,680 

213.57 Curves, elevation and speed 

limitations: 

Request to FRA for approval ........... 687 railroads .......... 2 requests ................ 40 hours ................. 80 3,200 

Notification to FRA with written consent of other affected track owners.687 railroads .......... 2 notifications ........... 45 minutes .............. 2 80 

Test Plans for Higher Curving 

Speeds.

1 railroad ................ 2 test plans .............. 16 hours ................. 32 1,280 

213.110 Gage Restraint Measurement 

Systems (GRMS): 

Implementing—Notices & Reports ... 687 railroads .......... 10 notifications + 2 

tech rpts.

45 min./4 hours ...... 16 640 

GRMS Vehicle Output Reports ........ 687 railroads .......... 50 reports ................. 5 minutes ................ 4 160 

GRMS Vehicle Exception Reports ... 687 railroads .......... 50 reports ................. 5 minutes ................ 4 160 

GRMS/PTLF—Procedures for Data 

Integrity.

687 railroads .......... 4 proc. Docs ............. 2 hours ................... 8 320 

GRMS Training Program/Sessions .. 687 railroads .......... 2 prog. + 5 sess ....... 16 hours ................. 112 4,480 

GRMS Inspection Records ............... 687 railroads .......... 50 records ................ 2 hours ................... 100 4,000 

213.119 Continuous welded rail 

(CWR), general: 

(g) Written procedures for CWR 

(New).

239 railroads/ 

ASLRRA.

240 modif. proc ........ 3 hrs./1 hr ............... 320 (1) 

Fracture Report for Each Broken 

CWR Joint Bar (New).

239 railroads/ 

ASLRRA.

12,000 reports .......... 10 minutes .............. 2,000 74,000 

Alternate Procedures For Rail Joints 

(New).

239 railroads .......... 7 letters + 7 proc ...... 30 min. + 953 hrs ... 6,675 701,035 

Training Programs for CWR procedures (New).239 railroads/ 

ASLRRA.

240 training Prog ..... 2 hea/12 hrs ........... 490 19,600 

Recordkeeping (Previous) ................ 239 railroads .......... 2,000 records ........... 10 minutes .............. 333 13,320 

Recordkeeping for CWR Rail Joints 

(New).

239 railroads .......... 360,000 rcds ............ 2 minutes ................ 12,000 480,000 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59689 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

burden cost 

($) 

Periodic Records for CWR Rail 

Joints (New).

239 railroads .......... 480,000 rcds. ........... 1 minute ................. 8,000 320,000 

213.233 Track inspection ...................... 687 railroads .......... 2,500 inspections ..... 1 minute ................. 42 1,554 

213.241 Inspection records ................... 687 railroads .......... 1,542,089 rcds ......... Varies ..................... 1,672,941 61,898,817 

213.303 Responsibility for Compliance 2 railroads .............. 1 petition .................. 8 hours ................... 8 320 

213.305 Designation of qualified individuals; general qualifications.2 railroads .............. 150 designations ...... 10 minutes .............. 25 1,000 

Designations (Partially qualified) ...... 2 railroads .............. 20 designations ........ 10 minutes .............. 3 120 

213.317 Waivers ................................... 2 railroads .............. 1 petition .................. 24 hours ................. 24 960 

213.329 Curves, elevation and speed 

limitations: 

FRA approval of qualified equipment 

and higher curving speeds.

2 railroads .............. 3 notifications ........... 40 hours ................. 120 4,800 

Written notifications to FRA with 

written consent of other affected 

track owners.

2 railroads .............. 3 notifications ........... 45 minutes .............. 2 80 

213.4 Excepted Track: 

Designation of track as excepted ..... 200 railroads .......... 20 orders .................. 15 minutes .............. 5 200 

Notification to FRA about removal of 

excepted track.

200 railroads .......... 15 notifications ......... 10 minutes .............. 3 120 

213.5 Responsibility of track owners .... 685 railroads .......... 10 notifications ......... 8 hours ................... 80 3,200 

213.7 Designation of qualified persons 

to supervise certain renewals and inspect track: 

Designations ..................................... 687 railroads .......... 1,500 names ............ 10 minutes .............. 250 10,000 

Designation (partially qualified) 

under pargraph (c) of this section.

687 railroads .......... 250 names ............... 10 minutes .............. 42 1,680 

213.333 Automated Vehicle Inspection 

System: 

Track Geometry Measurement System.3 railroads .............. 18 reports ................. 20 hours ................. 360 14,400 

Track/Vehicle Performance Measurement System: 

Copies of most recent exception 

printouts.

2 railroads .............. 13 printouts .............. 20 hours ................. 260 10,400 

213.341 Initial inspection of new rail 

and welds: 

Mill inspection ................................... 2 railroads .............. 2 reports ................... 8 hours ................... 16 640 

Welding plan inspection ................... 2 railroads .............. 2 reports ................... 8 hours ................... 16 640

Inspection of field wells .................... 2 railroads .............. 125 records .............. 20 minutes .............. 42 1,680

213.343 Continuous welded rail (CWR) 

Recordkeeping ..................................... 2 railroads .............. 150 records .............. 10 minutes .............. 25 1,000 

213.345 Vehicle qualification testing .... 1 railroad ................ 2 reports ................... 16 hours ................. 32 1,280

213.347 Automotive or Railroad Crossings at grade 

Protection Plans ............................... 1 railroad ................ 2 plans ..................... 8 hours ................... 16 640 

213.369 Inspection Records: 

Record of inspection ........................ 2 railroads .............. 500 records .............. 1 minutes ................ 8 296 

Internal defect inspections and remedial action taken.2 railroads .............. 50 records ................ 5 minutes ................ 4 148 

1 $0 (Included in RIA). 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 

20503. 

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 the final rule. The OMB control 

number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

D. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated these revised track 

safety regulations in accordance with its 

procedures for ensuring full 

consideration of the potential 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
59690 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

environmental impacts of FRA actions, 

as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and DOT 

Order 5610.1c. This final rule meets the 

criteria that establish this as a non-major 

action for environmental purposes. 

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 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, the agency may not issue 

a regulation with Federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

government officials early in the process 

of developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has Federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

This final rule has preemptive effect. 

Subject to a limited exception for 

essentially local safety hazards, its 

requirements will establish a uniform 

Federal safety standard that must be 

met, and state requirements covering the 

same subject are displaced, whether 

those standards are in the form of state 

statutes, regulations, local ordinances, 

or other forms of state law, including 

common law. Section 20106 of Title 49 

of the United States Code provides that 

all regulations prescribed by the 

Secretary related to railroad safety 

preempt any State law, regulation, or 

order covering the same subject matter, 

except a provision necessary to 

eliminate or reduce an essentially local 

safety hazard that is not incompatible 

with a Federal law, regulations, or order 

and that does not unreasonably burden 

interstate commerce. This is consistent 

with past practice at FRA, and within 

the Department of Transportation. 

FRA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. This final rule will not have a 

substantial effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. This final rule will not 

have federalism implications that 

impose any direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments. 

FRA notes that RSAC, which 

endorsed and recommended the 

majority of this 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 endorsing this rule. 

The RSAC regularly provides 

recommendations to the FRA 

Administrator 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 of any other 

representatives of State government. 

Consequently, FRA concludes that this 

final rule has no federalism 

implications, other than the preemption 

of state laws covering the subject matter 

of this final rule, which occurs by 

operation of law under 49 U.S.C. 20106 

whenever FRA issues a rule or order. 

F. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to Section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

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

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in the expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement’’

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. This final rule will not result in 

the expenditure, in the aggregate, of 

$128,100,000 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 see 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

IX. Effective Date 

This final rule is effective on October 

31, 2006 in order to supersede the IFR’s 

impracticable October 31, 2006 joint 

inventory compliance date. 

Accordingly, the good cause exception 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

applies. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213 

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Rule 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Railroad 

Administration amends part 213 of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59691 

chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, Code 

of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 213—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 213 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and 

20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 

1.49(m). 

■ 2. Section 213.119 is amended by 

revising the introductory language and 

paragraphs (g) through (j) to read as 

follows: 

§ 213.119 Continuous welded rail (CWR); 

general 

Each track owner with track 

constructed of CWR shall have in effect 

and comply with a plan that contains 

written procedures which address: the 

installation, adjustment, maintenance, 

and inspection of CWR; inspection of 

CWR joints; and a training program for 

the application of those procedures. The 

plan shall be submitted to the Federal 

Railroad Administration. FRA reviews 

each plan for compliance with the 

following—

* * * * * 

(g) Procedures which prescribe the 

scheduling and conduct of inspections 

to detect cracks and other indications of 

potential failures in CWR joints. On and 

after January 1, 2007, in formulating the 

procedures under this paragraph, the 

track owner shall—

(1) Address the inspection of joints 

and the track structure at joints, 

including, at a minimum, periodic onfoot inspections; 

(2) Identify joint bars with visible or 

otherwise detectable cracks and conduct 

remedial action pursuant to § 213.121; 

(3) Specify the conditions of actual or 

potential joint failure for which 

personnel must inspect, including, at a 

minimum, the following items: 

(i) Loose, bent, or missing joint bolts; 

(ii) Rail end batter or mismatch that 

contributes to instability of the joint; 

and 

(iii) Evidence of excessive 

longitudinal rail movement in or near 

the joint, including, but not limited to; 

wide rail gap, defective joint bolts, 

disturbed ballast, surface deviations, 

gap between tie plates and rail, or 

displaced rail anchors; 

(4) Specify the procedures for the 

inspection of CWR joints that are 

imbedded in highway-rail crossings or 

in other structures that prevent a 

complete inspection of the joint, 

including procedures for the removal 

from the joint of loose material or other 

temporary material; 

(5) Specify the appropriate corrective 

actions to be taken when personnel find 

conditions of actual or potential joint 

failure, including on-foot follow-up 

inspections to monitor conditions of 

potential joint failure in any period 

prior to completion of repairs. 

(6) Specify the timing of periodic 

inspections, which shall be based on the 

configuration and condition of the joint: 

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(g)(6)(ii) through (iv), track owners must 

specify that all CWR joints are 

inspected, at a minimum, in accordance 

with the intervals identified in the 

following table—

MINIMUM NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PER CALENDAR YEAR 1

Freight trains operating over track with an annual 

tonnage of: 

Passenger trains operating 

over track with an annual 

tonnage of: 

Less than 

40 mgt 40 to 60 mgt Greater than 60 mgt Less than 

20 mgt 

Greater than 

or equal to 

20 mgt 

Class 5 & above .................................................................. 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 

Class 4 ................................................................................. 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 3 

Class 3 ................................................................................. 1 2 2 2 2 

Class 2 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 1 1 

Class 1 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

Excepted Track .................................................................... 0 0 0 n/a n/a 

4 = Four times per calendar year, with one inspection in each of the following periods: January to March, April to June, July to September, 

and October to December; and with consecutive inspections separated by at least 60 calendar days. 

3 = Three times per calendar year, with one inspection in each of the following periods: January to April, May to August, and September to 

December; and with consecutive inspections separated by at least 90 calendar days 

2 = Twice per calendar year, with one inspection in each of the following periods: January to June and July to December; and with consecutive inspections separated by at least 120 calendar days. 

1 = Once per calendar year, with consecutive inspections separated by at least 180 calendar days. 

1Where a track owner operates both freight and passenger trains over a given segment of track, and there are two different possible inspection interval requirements, the more frequent inspection interval applies. 2When extreme weather conditions prevent a track owner from conducting an inspection of a particular territory within the required interval, the 

track owner may extend the interval by up to 30 calendar days from the last day that the extreme weather condition prevented the required 

inspection. 

(ii) Consistent with any limitations 

applied by the track owner, a passenger 

train conducting an unscheduled detour 

operation may proceed over track not 

normally used for passenger operations 

at a speed not to exceed the maximum 

authorized speed otherwise allowed, 

even though CWR joints have not been 

inspected in accordance with the 

frequency identified in paragraph 

(g)(6)(i), provided that: 

(A) All CWR joints have been 

inspected consistent with requirements 

for freight service; and 

(B) The unscheduled detour operation 

lasts no more than 14 consecutive 

calendar days. In order to continue 

operations beyond the 14-day period, 

the track owner must inspect the CWR 

joints in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (g)(6)(i). 

(iii) Tourist, scenic, historic, or 

excursion operations, if limited to the 

maximum authorized speed for 

passenger trains over the next lower 

class of track, need not be considered in 

determining the frequency of 

inspections under paragraph (g)(6)(i). 

(iv) All CWR joints that are located in 

switches, turnouts, track crossings, lift 

rail assemblies or other transition 

devices on moveable bridges must be 

inspected on foot at least monthly, 

consistent with the requirements in 

§ 213.235; and all records of those 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
59692 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

inspections must be kept in accordance 

with the requirements in § 213.241. A 

track owner may include in its § 213.235 

inspections, in lieu of the joint 

inspections required by paragraph 

(g)(6)(i), CWR joints that are located in 

track structure that is adjacent to 

switches and turnouts, provided that the 

track owner precisely defines the 

parameters of that arrangement in the 

CWR plans. 

(7) Specify the recordkeeping 

requirements related to joint bars in 

CWR, including the following: 

(i) The track owner shall keep a 

record of each periodic and follow-up 

inspection required to be performed by 

the track owner’s CWR plan, except for 

those inspections conducted pursuant to 

§ 213.235 for which track owners must 

maintain records pursuant to § 213.241. 

The record shall be prepared on the day 

the inspection is made and signed by 

the person making the inspection. The 

record shall include, at a minimum, the 

following items: the boundaries of the 

territory inspected; the nature and 

location of any deviations at the joint 

from the requirements of this Part or of 

the track owner’s CWR plan, with the 

location identified with sufficient 

precision that personnel could return to 

the joint and identify it without 

ambiguity; the date of the inspection; 

the remedial action, corrective action, or 

both, that has been taken or will be 

taken; and the name or identification 

number of the person who made the 

inspection. 

(ii) The track owner shall generate a 

Fracture Report for every cracked or 

broken CWR joint bar that the track 

owner discovers during the course of an 

inspection conducted pursuant to 

§§ 213.119(g), 213.233, or 213.235 on 

track that is required under 

§ 213.119(g)(6)(i) to be inspected. 

(A) The Fracture Report shall be 

prepared on the day the cracked or 

broken joint bar is discovered. The 

record shall include, at a minimum: the 

railroad name; the location of the joint 

bar as identified by milepost and 

subdivision; the class of track; annual 

million gross tons for the previous 

calendar year; the date of discovery of 

the crack or break; the rail section; the 

type of bar (standard, insulated, or 

compromise); the number of holes in the 

joint bar; a general description of the 

location of the crack or break in bar; the 

visible length of the crack in inches; the 

gap measurement between rail ends; the 

amount and length of rail end batter or 

ramp on each rail end; the amount of 

tread mismatch; the vertical movement 

of joint; and in curves or spirals, the 

amount of gage mismatch and the lateral 

movement of the joint. 

(B) The track owner shall submit the 

information contained in the Fracture 

Reports to the FRA Associate 

Administrator for Safety (Associate 

Administrator) twice annually, by July 

31 for the preceding six-month period 

from January 1 through June 30 and by 

January 31 for the preceding six-month 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(C) After February 1, 2010, any track 

owner may petition FRA to conduct a 

technical conference to review the 

Fracture Report data submitted through 

December of 2009 and assess whether 

there is a continued need for the 

collection of Fracture Report data. The 

track owner shall submit a written 

request to the Associate Administrator, 

requesting the technical conference and 

explaining the reasons for proposing to 

discontinue the collection of the data. 

(8) In lieu of the requirements for the 

inspection of rail joints contained in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of this 

section, a track owner may seek 

approval from FRA to use alternate 

procedures. 

(i) The track owner shall submit the 

proposed alternate procedures and a 

supporting statement of justification to 

the Associate Administrator for Safety 

(Associate Administrator). 

(ii) If the Associate Administrator 

finds that the proposed alternate 

procedures provide an equivalent or 

higher level of safety than the 

requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (g)(7) of this section, the 

Associate Administrator will approve 

the alternate procedures by notifying the 

track owner in writing. The Associate 

Administrator will specify in the 

written notification the date on which 

the procedures will become effective, 

and after that date, the track owner shall 

comply with the procedures. If the 

Associate Administrator determines that 

the alternate procedures do not provide 

an equivalent level of safety, the 

Associate Administrator will disapprove 

the alternate procedures in writing, and 

the track owner shall continue to 

comply with the requirements in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (7) of this 

section. 

(iii) While a determination is pending 

with the Associate Administrator on a 

request submitted pursuant to paragraph 

(g)(8) of this section, the track owner 

shall continue to comply with the 

requirements contained in paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(h) The track owner shall have in 

effect a comprehensive training program 

for the application of these written CWR 

procedures, with provisions for periodic 

re-training, for those individuals 

designated under § 213.7 as qualified to 

supervise the installation, adjustment, 

and maintenance of CWR track and to 

perform inspections of CWR track. 

(i) The track owner shall prescribe 

and comply with recordkeeping 

requirements necessary to provide an 

adequate history of track constructed 

with CWR. At a minimum, these records 

must include: 

(1) Rail temperature, location and date 

of CWR installations. This record shall 

be retained for at least one year; 

(2) A record of any CWR installation 

or maintenance work that does not 

conform with the written procedures. 

Such record shall include the location 

of the rail and be maintained until the 

CWR is brought into conformance with 

such procedures; 

(3) Information on inspection of rail 

joints as specified in paragraph (g)(7) of 

this part. 

(j) As used in this section—

Action Items mean the rail joint 

conditions that track owners identify in 

their CWR plans pursuant to paragraph 

(g)(3) which require the application of a 

corrective action. 

Adjusting/De-stressing means the 

procedure by which a rail’s temperature 

is re-adjusted to the desired value. It 

typically consists of cutting the rail and 

removing rail anchoring devices, which 

provides for the necessary expansion 

and contraction, and then re-assembling 

the track. 

Buckling Incident means the 

formation of a lateral misalignment 

sufficient in magnitude to constitute a 

deviation from the Class 1 requirements 

specified in § 213.55. These normally 

occur when rail temperatures are 

relatively high and are caused by high 

longitudinal compressive forces. 

Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) means 

rail that has been welded together into 

lengths exceeding 400 feet. 

Corrective Actions mean those actions 

which track owners specify in their 

CWR plans to address conditions of 

actual or potential joint failure, 

including, as applicable, repair, 

restrictions on operations, and 

additional on-foot inspections. 

CWR Joint means (a) any joint directly 

connected to CWR, and (b) any joint(s) 

in a segment of rail between CWR 

strings that are less than 195 feet apart, 

except joints located on jointed sections 

on bridges. 

Desired Rail Installation Temperature 

Range means the rail temperature range, 

within a specific geographical area, at 

which forces in CWR should not cause 

a buckling incident in extreme heat, or 

a pull-apart during extreme cold 

weather. 

Disturbed Track means the 

disturbance of the roadbed or ballast 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 59693 

section, as a result of track maintenance 

or any other event, which reduces the 

lateral or longitudinal resistance of the 

track, or both. 

Mechanical Stabilization means a 

type of procedure used to restore track 

resistance to disturbed track following 

certain maintenance operations. This 

procedure may incorporate dynamic 

track stabilizers or ballast consolidators, 

which are units of work equipment that 

are used as a substitute for the 

stabilization action provided by the 

passage of tonnage trains. 

Rail Anchors means those devices 

which are attached to the rail and bear 

against the side of the crosstie to control 

longitudinal rail movement. Certain 

types of rail fasteners also act as rail 

anchors and control longitudinal rail 

movement by exerting a downward 

clamping force on the upper surface of 

the rail base. 

Rail Temperature means the 

temperature of the rail, measured with 

a rail thermometer. 

Remedial Actions mean those actions 

which track owners are required to take 

as a result of requirements of this part 

to address a non-compliant condition. 

Tight/Kinky Rail means CWR which 

exhibits minute alignment irregularities 

which indicate that the rail is in a 

considerable amount of compression. 

Tourist, Scenic, Historic, or Excursion 

Operations mean railroad operations 

that carry passengers with the 

conveyance of the passengers to a 

particular destination not being the 

principal purpose. 

Train-induced Forces means the 

vertical, longitudinal, and lateral 

dynamic forces which are generated 

during train movement and which can 

contribute to the buckling potential of 

the rail. 

Track Lateral Resistance means the 

resistance provided by the rail/crosstie 

structure against lateral displacement. 

Track Longitudinal Resistance means 

the resistance provided by the rail 

anchors/rail fasteners and the ballast 

section to the rail/crosstie structure 

against longitudinal displacement. 

Unscheduled Detour Operation means 

a short-term, unscheduled operation 

where a track owner has no more than 

14 calendar days’ notice that the 

operation is going to occur. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

29, 2006. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Federal Railroad Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–8599 Filed 10–10–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES