Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84845 

1See e.g., Autonomous Track Geometry 

Measurement Technology Design, Development, 

and Testing (2018), available at https://downloads.

regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_

5.pdf; Evaluation of the Federal Railroad 

Administration’s Autonomous Track Geometry 

Measurement System Research and Development 

Program (2016), available at https://railroads.dot.

gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/17086/ATGMS%

20final%20report_final.pdf; FRA Autonomous 

Track Geometry Measurement System Technology 

Development—Past, Present, and Future (2014), 

available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/ 

FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_1.pdf; 

Development and Use of FRA Autonomous Track 

Geometry Measurement System Technology (2014), 

available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/ 

FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_3.pdf; 

Development of Autonomous Track Geometry 

Measurement Systems for Overall Track 

Assessment (2011), available at https://downloads.

regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/attachment_

4.pdf; Autonomous Track Inspection Systems— 

Today and Tomorrow (2009), available at https:// 

Continued 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines EJ as 

‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ The EPA further defines the 

term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no 

group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The Olympic Region Clean Air 

Agency did not evaluate environmental 

justice considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis 

and did not consider EJ in this action. 

Due to the nature of the action being 

taken here, this action is expected to 

have a neutral impact on the air quality 

of the affected area. Consideration of EJ 

is not required as part of this action, and 

there is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of 

Executive Order 12898 of achieving 

environmental justice for communities 

with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: October 18, 2024. 

Casey Sixkiller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24714 Filed 10–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 213 

[Docket No. FRA–2024–0032] 

RIN 2130–AC96 

Track Geometry Measurement System 

(TGMS) Inspections 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to revise its 

regulations governing the minimum 

safety requirements for railroad track. 

The proposed changes would require all 

Class I and II railroads, as well as 

intercity passenger railroads and 

commuter railroads, to operate a 

qualifying Track Geometry 

Measurement System (TGMS), a type of 

automated track inspection (ATI) 

technology, at specified frequencies on 

all Class 1 through 5 mainline and 

controlled siding track that transports: 

annual tonnage greater than 10 million 

gross tons (MGT); regularly scheduled 

passenger rail service; or trains 

containing hazardous materials. FRA 

also proposes increasing the required 

frequency of TGMS inspections on Class 

6 track. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by December 23, 2024. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional expense or 

delay. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments: Comments related to 

Docket No. FRA–2024–0032 may be 

submitted by going to https://www.

regulations.gov and following the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket 

number (FRA–2024–0032), and 

Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 

for this rulemaking (2130–AC96). All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://www.

regulations.gov; this includes any 

personal information. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: YuJiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track and 

Structures Division, Office of Railroad 

Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W33–302, 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202– 

493–6460; or Aaron Moore, Senior 

Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, W31–216, 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone: 202– 

853–4784. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Legal Authority 

III. Background 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by 

Executive Order 14094 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. International Trade Impact Assessment 

F. Environmental Impact 

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

I. Energy Impact 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4) 

I. Executive Summary 

Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

ATI technologies have been evolving 

since the 1970s and FRA has been 

researching ATI technology, including 

TGMS, for many years. This effort has 

included multiple FRA-authored or 

sponsored technical reports,1 as well as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

downloads.regulations.gov/FRA-2020-0013-0003/ 

attachment_2.pdf. 

2See Docket Numbers FRA–2018–0091 (BNSF); 

FRA–2019–0099 (NS); FRA–2020–0013 (CSX); 

FRA–2020–0014 (CN); FRA–2020–0031 (UP); FRA– 

2020–0056 (CP) (available on www.regulations.gov). 

3See 49 CFR 213.57(i), 213.333. These TGMS 

inspections are in addition to the visual inspections 

required by other sections of part 213. 

4See Railroad Equipment Accident Database 

(Form 54) at https://data.transportation.gov/ 

Railroads/Railroad-Equipment-Accident-IncidentSource-Data-F/aqxq-n5hy/about_data. 

FRA-approved Test Programs (49 CFR 

211.51) with nearly every Class I 

railroad,2 to evaluate the effectiveness of 

this technology. Based on its years of 

research into TGMS, as well as its own 

Automated Track Inspection Program 

(ATIP) and the Class I Test Programs, 

FRA acknowledges the safety benefits of 

this technology, specifically its ability to 

quickly and accurately detect small 

changes in track geometry. FRA notes 

that TGMS is not a substitute for visual 

track inspections, which inspect for 

numerous conditions aside from track 

geometry and remain essential to 

ensuring railroad safety. 

Today, every Class I and II railroad 

uses some form of TGMS to measure 

track geometry. FRA regulation already 

requires TGMS inspections for highspeed track (Class 6 and above) as well 

as lower-speed track with cant 

deficiency of higher than 5 inches.3

While these existing requirements are 

applicable to a relatively small subset of 

railroads in the United States, FRA’s 

research indicates that all railroads 

covered by this proposed rulemaking 

are already performing TGMS 

inspections on their networks at or 

above the frequencies FRA is proposing 

in this rule. Therefore, the purpose of 

this rulemaking is to codify this 

industry practice while also setting 

baseline requirements for areas such as 

TGMS calibration, recordkeeping, defect 

remediation timeframes, and training. 

Summary of Major Provisions 

FRA is proposing regulations to 

amend 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety 

Standards (TSS), which prescribe the 

minimum safety requirements for 

railroad track. The proposed changes 

would require all Class I and II 

railroads, as well as intercity passenger 

railroads and commuter railroads, to 

operate a qualifying TGMS, at specified 

frequencies on all Class 1 through 5 

mainline and controlled siding track 

that transports: (1) annual tonnage 

greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly 

scheduled passenger rail service; or (3) 

trains containing hazardous materials, 

as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. FRA also 

proposes increasing the required 

frequency of TGMS inspections on Class 

6 track. 

Currently, the TSS require TGMS 

inspections for high-speed track (Class 6 

through 9), and lower speed track (Class 

1 through 5) where the cant deficiency 

is more than 5 inches. As noted above, 

FRA’s research indicates that all the 

railroads that would be subject to this 

proposed rule are already performing all 

visual inspections required by the TSS 

in addition to voluntarily performing 

TGMS inspections at or above the 

frequency that would be required by 

this NPRM. Thus, this NPRM would 

codify this industry practice as well as 

set forth requirements that include 

remedial action of detected track 

geometry defects within a specified 

timeframe, training, and recordkeeping. 

The NPRM proposes adding 49 CFR 

213.236 to 49 CFR part 213, subpart F, 

and making conforming changes to 

§ 213.333 to require TGMS inspections 

at least three times within a 365-day 

period on Class 1 through 5 mainline 

and controlled siding tracks that meets 

one of three stated requirements, and all 

of Class 6 track. There would be no 

change to the current frequency 

requirement for Class 7 and above track. 

The TGMS must be capable of 

transmitting data in a manner that 

permits the track owner to take proper 

remedial action within one hour of 

detection of a defect. This one-hour 

timeframe would represent the 

maximum permitted time between 

when a TGMS detects a geometry defect 

and when a track owner must take 

remedial action. 

The NPRM also proposes certain 

recordkeeping and training 

requirements for TGMS inspections, as 

well as minimum requirements for what 

must be included in TGMS reports. 

The NPRM also proposes certain 

changes to § 213.241 and identical 

changes to § 213.339. FRA proposes 

updating the list of types of inspections 

that are required to produce reports that 

conform with the requirements of 

§§ 213.241(b) and 213.339(b), most 

significantly adding special inspections 

(§§ 213.239 and 213.367) to this list. 

These special visual inspections are 

required after a specific occurrence, 

such as a fire or flood or storm, that may 

have damaged the track structure. Under 

current FRA enforcement practices, 

these inspections have historically not 

been required to be documented. 

Documenting the data, as proposed will 

help railroads to reduce risk of track 

damage from these events by ensuring 

the inspections are performed, if 

possible, prior to train traffic. Also, 

these inspections improve FRA 

oversight since without them, it can be 

difficult to confirm that a required 

inspection was performed. Further, FRA 

proposes revising the requirement for 

electronic recordkeeping to add 

additional safeguards such as requiring 

training on the proper use of the system, 

access controls, and an information 

technology security program to ensure 

adequate integrity of the system. 

Benefits and Costs 

FRA analyzed the economic impact of 

this proposed rule over a 10-year period 

and estimated its benefits and costs. 

FRA expects the proposed rule to 

enhance safety and promote innovation. 

According to FRA’s Railroad Equipment 

Accident Incident Database,4 Class I and 

Class II railroads reported over $191.6 

million in total damages from track 

geometry caused accidents over the past 

10 years from 2014 to 2023. FRA 

expects the reduction in track-related 

accidents due to the proposed rule’s 

one-hour remediation requirement to 

partially offset the cost of the proposed 

rule. Section V.A of this document 

describes more fully the benefits and 

costs that would result from issuing this 

rule. 

The proposed rule would require 

track owners to take proper remedial 

action no later than one hour following 

the identification of any track geometry 

exception to the class of track identified 

by the TGMS system. FRA expects the 

affected track owners would be required 

to hire a total of 94 new maintenanceof-way (MOW) employees to accomplish 

this proposed requirement. 

The proposed rule would also require 

additional recordkeeping of all track 

geometry exceptions detected by the 

TGMS vehicle. The report and any 

revisions must be documented, signed, 

certified by a § 213.7(b) qualified 

employee, and made available to FRA 

upon request. The track owner would be 

responsible for training MOW 

employees, recordkeeping requirements, 

and record storage and maintenance. 

FRA estimates all affected track owners 

would be required to provide one hour 

of training to each of their 

approximately 10,000 MOW employees 

during the first year after the proposed 

rule goes into effect. FRA estimates 

additional training would be required 

starting in the second year after the 

proposed rule goes into effect as newly 

hired maintenance workers replace the 

anticipated 2 percent of maintenance 

workers expected to depart due to 

attrition. Overall, FRA estimates the 

proposed rule would cost the affected 

track owners $123.4 million discounted 

at a 2 percent rate over the 10-year 

period, as shown in Table ES–1. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84847 

5 49 CFR 1.89. 

6Track geometry generally refers to the 

parameters listed in 49 CFR part 213, subpart C, as 

well as 49 CFR 213.323 through 213.332. This 

includes gage (the distance between the two rails), 

alinement (how straight the rails are), crosslevel 

(the difference in the height of the two rails), and 

profile (how level the two rails are). 

TABLE ES–1—SUMMARY OF TOTAL NPRM COSTS OVER THE 10-YEAR PERIOD

Impact Undiscounted 

Present value 

7% 

($) 

Present value 

3% 

($) 

Present value 

2% 

($) 

Employment ..................................................................................................... $122,808,067 95,839,164 116,397,525 122,570,434 

Training ............................................................................................................ 837,480 750,278 796,637 809,594 

Total cost .................................................................................................. 123,645,547 96,589,442 117,194,162 123,380,028 

Impact Annualized 

7% 

($) 

Annualized 

3% 

($) 

Annualized 

2% 

($) 

Employment ... 13,645,341 13,645,341 13,645,341 

Training .......... 106,822 93,390 90,129 

Total cost 13,752,163 13,738,731 13,735,470 

II. Legal Authority 

Section 20103 of title 49 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) explicitly grants 

FRA comprehensive authority over all 

areas of railroad safety and provides 

that, ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Transportation, 

as necessary, shall prescribe regulations 

and issue orders for every area of 

railroad safety.’’ This statutory section 

codifies the authority granted to the 

Secretary of Transportation under the 

Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970. The 

Secretary delegated this authority to act 

under sec. 20103 to the Federal Railroad 

Administrator.5

Pursuant to this authority, FRA 

published the first TSS on October 20, 

1971. It was meant to be an evolving set 

of safety requirements subject to 

continuous revision, thus allowing the 

regulations to keep pace with industry 

innovations and agency research and 

development. The TSS covers numerous 

areas such as drainage, vegetation, track 

geometry, and track structure. 

Additionally, the TSS includes specific 

requirements for different types of 

inspections, at specific frequencies, 

meant to ensure the defective conditions 

covered under other sections of the TSS 

are found and remediated prior to them 

posing a safety risk. These inspection 

requirements are vitally important to 

ensuring that the safety requirements in 

the TSS accomplish their purpose of 

ensuring railroad safety by requiring 

railroad to actually look for the 

defective conditions covered by the TSS 

and, if found, repair them. As explained in more detail below, 

many years of research, development, 

and real-world use has proven the 

effectiveness of TGMS inspections at 

detecting geometry conditions. These 

inspections, when used as a supplement 

to the currently required visual 

inspections, have been proven to 

increase railroad safety by detecting 

more geometry conditions and, in many 

instances, due to the sensitivity of the 

systems, detecting these conditions 

earlier in their degradation process. 

Thus, TGMS inspections fall squarely 

within FRA’s authority to regulate areas 

of railroad safety. 

III. Background 

ATI technologies have been evolving 

since the 1970s and, with advances in 

rail safety, the number of track-caused 

derailments in the United States has 

steadily decreased since that time. In 

recent years, however, the rate of the 

decrease has slowed. New and 

alternative track inspection 

methodologies and associated 

technologies are being developed to 

help continue to drive down the number 

of track-caused derailments. 

Technological advancements, including 

ATI and other emerging technologies, 

have become a key element of track 

asset management and safety assurance 

practices. TGMS, ground penetrating 

radar, track imaging systems, ultrasonic 

rail flaw detection systems, machine 

learning-based track component (visual) 

inspection systems, vertical track 

deflection systems, and Lidar 3–D 

scanning systems are all now used to 

measure various aspects of track health. 

Today, every Class I railroad uses 

some form of TGMS to measure track 

geometry. Track geometry 6 is a 

critically important parameter for 

assessing the condition of railroad track 

and maintaining safety. Class II 

railroads, and even some smaller 

railroads, also utilize this technology. 

FRA, itself, runs a fleet of track 

inspection cars under its ATIP, 

conducting compliance surveys on over 

150,000 miles of track annually. TGMS provides an objective method 

to evaluate track conditions and to 

identify defective conditions in the 

track or conditions that could lead to 

defects in the track. In addition to these 

safety benefits, TGMS technologies have 

operational benefits. As a supplement to 

visual inspections by track inspectors, 

automated inspections can take key 

measurements continuously and at track 

speed, allowing the inspection of more 

track in any given time period, as 

compared to track inspectors solely 

performing manual, visual inspections. 

Onboard computers process an 

enormous amount of raw data in real 

time and produce concise track 

condition reports, noting indications of 

track defects or deviations so that track 

owners can take remedial actions 

promptly. TGMS systems may also be 

autonomous, otherwise known as 

Autonomous Track Geometry 

Measurement Systems (ATGMS), 

meaning the highly specialized, 

automated inspection equipment is 

mounted to on-track equipment (in 

some cases revenue trains) and the 

inspections are conducted with minimal 

direct human involvement (e.g., 

uncrewed operations). Autonomous 

technologies have been developed 

utilizing revenue service trains 

equipped with data collection 

equipment that employ wireless 

communications to provide inspection 

data with increased frequency and 

reduced cost. By making inspection 

systems autonomous, the data can be 

collected more frequently without 

consuming track time. Autonomous 

inspection technologies provide earlier 

detection of track defects and changing 

maintenance practices from reactive to 

preventative, ultimately reducing the 

number of track-caused derailments 

throughout the railroad industry. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

7Railroad use of TGMS and ATGMS is generally 

not required for Class 1 through 5 track, and 

supplements FRA-required visual inspections and 

other automated inspections required under 49 CFR 

part 213. 8See FRA–2018–0091 (BNSF); FRA–2019–0099 

(NS); FRA–2020–0013 (CSX); FRA–2020–0014 (CN); 

FRA–2020–0031 (UP); FRA–2020–0056 (CP). 9Track Inspection Task 2019–05. 

10See https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FRA2020-0064. 

FRA has conducted extensive 

research on ATGMS and drafted 

technical documents and summaries on 

the subject. In 2008, FRA installed an 

ATGMS on Amtrak’s Auto Train route 

operating between Virginia and Florida. 

The system detects, locates, and reports 

potential track geometry defects in near 

real-time to a web-based inspection data 

management system for review and 

remedial action. Since that test, industry 

adoption of ATGMS has grown each 

year.7

Starting in 2018, FRA approved Test 

Programs under 49 CFR 211.51 for 

nearly every Class I railroad 8 to 

evaluate the effectiveness of ATGMS in 

combination with different frequencies 

of visual inspections. Additionally, in 

2019, FRA tasked the Railroad Safety 

Advisory Committee (RSAC) to enhance 

rail safety by improving track inspection 

methods, frequency, and 

documentation. The RSAC provides a 

forum for developing consensus 

recommendations and providing 

information to the Administrator of FRA 

on rulemakings and other safety 

program issues, and includes 

representatives from all the agency’s 

major stakeholders. The RSAC assigned 

the task 9 to the Track Safety Standards 

Working Group (Working Group), which 

met approximately 11 times over a span 

of five years. For this task, the Working 

Group’s main goal was to recommend 

how to incorporate ATI technology into 

FRA’s existing track inspection 

requirements by leveraging the results of 

each Test Program. 

In 2021, BNSF concluded its Test 

Program, and FRA approved a waiver 

allowing BNSF to continue utilizing the 

methodologies from the Test Program on 

a designated area of track, with 

additional metrics in place to ensure 

safety.10 The Working Group continued 

to meet regularly to discuss the task, 

and by November 2022, every Test 

Program had concluded. 

In October 2023, the Working Group 

determined it would not be able to reach 

a consensus or provide FRA with a 

recommendation. However, the Working 

Group agreed that railroad use of ATI 

technology, such as TGMS and ATGMS, 

benefits track safety. In March 2024, the 

task was officially closed without a 

recommendation. 

This NPRM is based, in part, on FRA’s 

research, ATIP operational experience, 

the results of the Test Programs and 

BNSF’s waiver, and Working Group 

member involvement through the RSAC 

process. As proposed in this NPRM and 

discussed in more detail below, this 

rulemaking would revise the TSS to 

require all Class I and II railroads, as 

well as intercity passenger railroads and 

commuter railroads, to operate a 

qualifying TGMS at specified 

frequencies on all Class 1 through 5 

mainline and controlled siding track 

that transports: (1) annual tonnage 

greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly 

scheduled passenger rail service; or (3) 

trains containing hazardous materials as 

defined in 49 CFR 171.8. FRA also 

proposes increasing the required 

frequency of TGMS inspections on Class 

6 track. FRA’s research indicates that all 

the track owners affected by this 

rulemaking are already performing 

TGMS inspections at or above the 

frequency that would be required by 

this NPRM. Thus, this NPRM would 

codify this industry practice as well as 

set forth requirements that include 

remedial action of detected defects 

within a specified timeframe, training, 

and recordkeeping. 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

FRA seeks comments on all proposals 

made in this NPRM. 

Section 213.236 Automated VehicleBased Inspection System 

FRA proposes to add this new section 

to require all Class I and II railroads, as 

well as intercity passenger and 

commuter railroads, to operate a 

qualifying TGMS on all class 1 through 

5 mainline and controlled siding track 

on which: (1) annual tonnage exceeds 

10 MGT; (2) there is regularly scheduled 

passenger service; or (3) there is the 

transportation of hazardous material as 

defined in 49 CFR 171.8. The terms 

‘‘exception’’ and ‘‘defect’’ are used 

interchangeably throughout this NPRM. 

While there are meaningful 

differences, FRA generally based this 

new section on existing § 213.333, 

which requires TGMS inspections on 

Class 6 through 9 track, as well as Class 

1 through 5 track where there are 

operations at a cant deficiency of greater 

than 5 inches. Similarities and 

differences from § 213.333 are discussed 

further below. 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

all Class I and II railroads, as well as 

intercity passenger railroads and 

commuter railroads, to operate a 

qualifying TGMS on all Class 1 through 

5 mainline and controlled siding track, 

where any of the following occur: 

annual tonnage of greater than 10 MGT; 

regularly scheduled passenger service; 

or transportation of hazardous materials 

as defined in 49 CFR 171.8. The 

qualifying TGMS inspection must be 

conducted at least three times within 

any 365-day period, with not less than 

90 days between inspections. FRA 

invites comment on ‘‘transportation of 

hazardous materials,’’ specifically the 

timeframe and frequency that should be 

required before this element is met. 

Proposed paragraph (b) mirrors, with 

one minor grammatical change that does 

not alter its requirements, the current 

requirements of § 213.333(b). It would 

require that a qualifying TGMS meet or 

exceed specific design requirements. 

First, proposed paragraph (b)(1) would 

require geometry measurements to be 

taken no more than 3 feet away from the 

contact of wheels carrying the vertical 

load of no less than 10 kips per wheel, 

unless otherwise approved by FRA. 

Second, proposed paragraph (b)(2) 

would require geometry measurements 

to be taken and recorded on a distancebased sampling interval not exceeding 2 

feet and preferably at 1 foot. Finally, 

proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require 

calibration procedures and parameters 

that ensure that values measured and 

recorded by the TGMS accurately 

represent the actual track conditions. 

Procedures and parameters that do not 

result in measured and recorded values 

that accurately represent the track 

conditions, or a TGMS system that does 

not accurately measure or record the 

values, would not comply with this 

proposed provision. Proposed paragraph 

(b)(3) would further require that 

measurements recorded by the system 

not differ more than 1⁄8 inch on repeated 

runs at the same site and same speed. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would, like 

existing § 213.333(c), require that the 

qualifying TGMS be capable of 

measuring and processing the geometry 

measurements to determine compliance 

with the applicable regulatory geometry 

limits. For purposes of proposed 

paragraph (c), those sections would be 

§ 213.53, track gage; § 213.55, track 

alinement; § 213.57, curves, elevation, 

and speed limitations; and § 213.63, 

track surface. Additionally, for 

operations at a qualified cant deficiency 

of more than 5 inches, the TGMS must 

be capable of measuring and processing 

the geometry measurements to 

determine compliance with § 213.65, 

combined track alinement and surface 

deviations. 

Proposed paragraph (d) would impose 

certain requirements on the data from a 

TGMS. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would 

require that a TGMS transmit the data 

in a manner that enables the track 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84849 

11Training, Qualification, and Oversight for 

Safety-Related Railroad Employees. 

owner to take proper remedial action 

within one hour of identification of any 

exception to the class of track the TGMS 

inspects. This one-hour time period 

would commence at the time the TGMS 

passes over the section of track 

containing the geometry defect. This 

means that track owners will need to 

have the resources and the procedures 

to ensure that within one hour of the 

TGMS passing over that section of track, 

the measurements from the TGMS are 

processed and proper remedial action is 

put in place. 

FRA invites comment on this onehour remediation requirement, 

including potential issues involving 

areas of track where limitations, such as 

lack of cell coverage, may impair data 

transmission and possible solutions for 

these problems and estimated costs. If a 

commenter believes that a one-hour 

remediation requirement is not feasible, 

FRA requests that alternative 

timeframes be proposed and that the 

comment include a discussion about the 

potential risks of leaving a geometry 

defect in the track for a longer period of 

time and possible ways to mitigate such 

a risk. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would 

require, just as currently required by 

§ 213.333(d)(1), that the TGMS provide 

a continuous plot, on a constantdistance axis, of all measured track 

geometry parameters required in 

proposed paragraph (c). Proposed 

paragraph (d)(3) would require the 

TGMS to provide a report containing a 

comprehensive listing of all exceptions 

to track geometry requirements detected 

by the TGMS vehicle. Further, this 

proposed paragraph requires that any 

revisions to the information in the 

report, as well as any revisions to the 

raw data from the TGMS, be 

documented, signed, and certified by a 

§ 213.7(b) qualified employee in 

accordance with proposed paragraph (f), 

discussed below, and in a manner that 

correctly identifies the person who 

made the revision, the original 

information along with the revision(s), 

and the basis for the revision. This 

paragraph is meant to ensure accuracy 

of the data. It recognizes that the reports 

and/or the data may need to be modified 

as they are processed, but aims to 

ensure that any such modification is 

tracked so that both the source and the 

content of the modification is stored. 

This is important so that both the track 

owner and, if necessary, FRA can 

determine who made modification, 

what modifications were made, and the 

basis for such modification. This may 

also help track potential errors in the 

data from the TGMS. 

Proposed paragraph (e) would 

essentially mirror existing section 

§ 213.333(e) and would require that the 

reports required under proposed 

paragraph (d) contain sufficient location 

identification information to enable 

field forces to easily locate indicated 

exceptions. Whatever manner the track 

owner chooses to identify this 

information must allow both FRA and 

railroad employees to accurately locate 

the exception with repeatable accuracy. 

Proposed paragraph (f) would require 

track owners to initiate proper remedial 

action for defects detected by the TGMS 

immediately upon analysis by a 

§ 213.7(b) qualified person, or within 1 

hour of detection (i.e., the moment the 

TGMS passes over the defect), 

whichever is sooner. As discussed 

above for proposed paragraph (d), FRA 

invites comment on this requirement. 

This one-hour requirement would thus 

start at different times for each defect. 

If, before the expiration of that one-hour 

time period, a § 213.7(b) qualified 

person reviews the TGMS data, they 

must immediately initiate proper 

remedial action. There is an inherent 

danger whenever a train passes over a 

defective condition, and the 

remediation requirements proposed in 

this paragraph are intended to minimize 

that danger. FRA also notes that in the 

event a § 213.7 qualified person 

determines that a defect detected by the 

TGMS is a false positive, or not actually 

a defective condition in the field, 

further remedial action would not be 

required. However, that determination 

must be noted and explained on the 

report required under proposed 

paragraph (d)(3), and the revision must 

be documented as required by proposed 

paragraph (d)(3). 

Proposed paragraph (f) would further 

require that exceptions detected on a 

crewed TGMS vehicle be remediated 

immediately. This follows from the first 

part of the paragraph since on a crewed 

vehicle, the data is being reviewed and 

analyzed in real time by an individual 

on the vehicle. Thus, when a defect is 

detected by the system, the track owner 

must immediately initiate proper 

remedial action. 

Proposed paragraph (g) would require 

that the reports, required by proposed 

paragraph (d), be interpreted and 

electronically signed or otherwise 

certified by a § 213.7(b) qualified 

employee. This is meant to ensure that 

TGMS reports are reviewed by a 

properly trained individual who can 

interpret the reports, determine the 

required remedial action, and put such 

remedial action in place. By requiring 

that the report be electronically signed 

or otherwise certified, the person who 

reviews the report must attest that they 

properly interpreted the report. This can 

be accomplished through any means, 

such as an electronic signature, so long 

as it achieves the required purpose and 

properly identifies the person making 

the certification. 

Proposed paragraph (h) would cover 

situations where a track owner wants to 

conduct a TGMS inspection as well as 

a visual inspection from the same 

vehicle. A visual inspection meant to 

satisfy the frequency requirements of 

§ 213.233(c) may not be performed by 

any individual involved in the TGMS 

inspection. This includes any 

individual reviewing or interpreting any 

results from the TGMS vehicle as well 

as any operator of the TGMS vehicle. A 

visual inspection may be performed so 

long as it is by a dedicated track 

inspector whose sole responsibility is 

conducting a visual inspection and all 

requirements of § 213.233 are met. 

Proposed paragraph (i) would require 

specific training related to TGMS 

inspections. This would be in addition 

to any existing training requirements in 

49 CFR parts 213 and 243,11 and would 

require that all § 213.7 qualified persons 

who review or interpret TGMS reports 

be properly trained on, at minimum, 

interpreting TGMS data and reports, 

prioritizing and conducting site 

inspections to verify defects, and 

recordkeeping requirements. The 

training must be done in a manner and 

at a frequency to ensure the qualified 

individuals responsible for reviewing 

and/or interpreting TGMS reports have 

sufficient knowledge of at least the three 

listed subjects to accomplish their 

responsibilities. The track owners must 

make available to FRA sufficient records 

to show compliance with the 

requirements of proposed paragraph (i). 

Section 213.241 Inspection Records 

Currently, § 213.241 provides that 

track owners must keep a record of each 

inspection required to be performed 

under part 213, subpart F. Paragraph (b) 

of this section requires that each record 

of inspection, under certain sections, 

include specific information, be 

prepared on the day the inspection is 

made, and be signed by the person 

making the inspection. FRA proposes 

revising paragraph (b) by adding 

§§ 213.234 and 213.239 to the list of 

sections that require inspections for 

which records must comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (b). Section 

213.234 covers automated inspection of 

track constructed with concrete 

crossties. While § 213.234(f) already 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

lists recordkeeping requirements 

specific for these types of inspections, it 

is important that those records also 

comply with the requirements of 

§ 213.241(b). Among other things, this 

would require that the record be signed 

or otherwise certified by the person(s) 

making the inspection. Section 213.239 

covers special inspections. These 

special inspections are conducted after 

fire, flood, severe storms, or other events 

that might have damaged track, and a 

record of them is vitally important both 

to document findings following such 

events as well as to provide oversight to 

ensure track owners are completing 

such inspections when required. 

However, under current FRA 

enforcement practices, track owners 

have historically not been required to 

keep records of special inspections. FRA 

is not aware of any justification for this 

omission and proposes to require 

§ 213.239 records to comply with 

§ 213.241(b). 

FRA proposes redesignating current 

paragraphs (c) through (j) as paragraphs 

(d) through (k), respectively, and 

revising some of them. FRA further 

proposes adding a new paragraph (c). 

Proposed paragraph (c) would list 

recordkeeping requirements for TGMS 

inspections performed under proposed 

§ 213.236. It would require that track 

owners maintain a copy of the report, 

required by proposed § 213.236(d), for a 

period of two years following the TGMS 

inspection. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) 

would also require records specifying 

the date the inspection was made and 

the track segment involved. Proposed 

paragraph (c)(2) would require records 

to specify the date of any follow-up 

inspection, the type of inspection, 

location of any defects, the type and size 

of each defect, and the type and date of 

any remedial action taken. This is meant 

to cover any follow-up inspection done 

to field-verify the TGMS data. It is 

essential to keep this information in 

order to identify potential issues with a 

TGMS system that might be causing 

errors in the geometry measurements. 

FRA proposes redesignating existing 

paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), existing 

paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), existing 

paragraph (e) as paragraph (f), existing 

paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), and 

existing paragraph (g) as paragraph (h). 

FRA proposes redesignating existing 

paragraph (h) as paragraph (i) and 

revising it by adding a sentence at the 

end requiring the most recent TGMS 

inspection report to be provided to the 

persons performing subsequent 

inspections of the track segment. The 

existing paragraph requires that track 

inspection records be made available to 

persons performing subsequent 

inspections, and requiring that they also 

have a copy of the past TGMS 

inspection report will ensure they 

continue to have access to the most upto-date information on the condition of 

the track to better complete their 

inspections. 

FRA proposes redesignating existing 

paragraph (i) as paragraph (j), and 

existing paragraph (j) as paragraph (k). 

Redesignated paragraph (k) would 

address electronic recordkeeping 

systems and list requirements for such 

systems. FRA proposes adding a 

proposed paragraph (k)(3), which would 

require track owners to train their 

employees, who use the electronic 

recordkeeping system, on the proper use 

of the system. An employee who uses 

the system should know how to 

properly use the system to ensure they 

do not inadvertently compromise the 

system or the records it contains. FRA 

proposes redesignating existing 

paragraph (j)(3) as paragraph (k)(4), and 

adding proposed paragraph (k)(5), 

which would require the track owner to 

control accessibility to the electronic 

records and identify the individuals 

who have access. This is meant to 

ensure only the appropriate individuals 

have access to the system. FRA proposes 

redesignating existing paragraph (j)(4) as 

paragraph (k)(6), existing paragraph 

(j)(5) as paragraph (k)(7), and adding 

proposed paragraph (k)(8). This 

proposed paragraph would require track 

owners to maintain an information 

technology security program adequate to 

ensure the integrity of the electronic 

system. This would include preventing 

unauthorized access to the records. 

Finally, FRA proposes redesignating 

existing paragraph (k)(6) as paragraph 

(k)(9). 

Section 213.333 Automated VehicleBased Inspection Systems 

FRA proposes to revise existing 

§ 213.333 to make it consistent with the 

requirements of proposed § 213.236. 

Section 213.333 addresses the 

requirements for TGMS inspections, 

currently required for high-speed track 

Classes 6 through 9 (paragraphs (a)(2) 

though (a)(4)), and for track Classes 1 

through 5 where operations are at a 

qualified cant deficiency of more than 5 

inches (paragraph (a)(1)). FRA proposes 

removing existing paragraph (a)(1) since 

proposed § 213.236 will now cover 

required TGMS inspections on track 

Classes 1 through 5. FRA proposes 

redesignating existing paragraph (a)(2) 

as paragraph (a)(1) and revising it to 

increase the number of required TGMS 

inspections on track Class 6 from once 

per calendar year to three times within 

any 365-day period, with not less than 

90 days between inspections. This is the 

same inspection frequency in proposed 

section § 213.236 that would apply to 

track Classes 1 through 5. FRA further 

proposes redesignating existing 

paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(2), and 

existing paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph 

(a)(3). 

FRA proposes to revise paragraph (c) 

to remove reference to track Classes 1 

through 5, since those types of TGMS 

inspections will be covered by proposed 

§ 213.236. FRA proposes removing 

paragraph (c)(1) and combining the 

content of paragraph (c)(2) with the 

content of paragraph (c) so that it is a 

single paragraph with no subparagraphs. 

FRA proposes to revise paragraph (d) 

to make it consistent with the 

requirements of proposed § 213.236(d) 

by removing reference to the current 

requirement that the TGMS produce an 

output report within 24 hours of the 

inspection. Further, FRA proposes to 

redesignate paragraph (d)(1) as 

paragraph (d)(2), and add proposed 

paragraph (d)(1), which would require 

that a TGMS transmit the data in a 

manner that enables the track owner to 

take proper remedial action within one 

hour of identification of any exception 

to the class of track the TGMS inspects. 

This one-hour time period would 

commence at the time the TGMS passes 

over the section of track containing the 

geometry defect. This means that track 

owners will need to have in place the 

resources and the procedures to ensure 

that, within one hour of the TGMS 

passing over that section of track, the 

measurements from the TGMS are 

processed and proper remedial action is 

put in place. 

As stated above for proposed 

§ 213.236(d), FRA invites comment on 

this one-hour remediation requirement, 

including potential issues involving 

areas of track where limitations, such as 

lack of cell coverage, may impair data 

transmission and possible solutions for 

these problems and estimated costs. If a 

commenter is of the opinion that a onehour remediation requirement is not 

feasible, FRA requests that alternative 

timeframes be proposed and that the 

comment include a discussion about the 

potential risks of leaving a geometry 

defect in the track for a longer period of 

time and possible ways to mitigate such 

a risk. 

FRA proposes removing existing 

paragraph (d)(2), which discusses the 

requirements for an exception report, 

and replacing it with proposed 

paragraph (d)(3), which would require 

the TGMS provide a report containing a 

comprehensive listing of all exceptions 

to track geometry requirements detected 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84851 

by the TGMS vehicle. Further, this 

proposed paragraph would require that 

any revisions to the information in the 

report, as well as any revisions to the 

raw data from the TGMS, be 

documented, signed and certified by a 

§ 213.305(b) qualified employee in 

accordance with proposed paragraph (f), 

discussed below, and in a manner that 

correctly identifies the person who 

made the revision, the original 

information along with the revision(s), 

and the basis for the revision. This 

paragraph is meant to ensure accuracy 

of the data. It recognizes that the reports 

and/or the data may need to be modified 

as they are processed, but aims to 

ensure that any such modification is 

tracked so that both the source and the 

content of the modification is stored. 

This is important so that the track 

owner and, if necessary, FRA can 

determine who made the modification, 

what modifications were made, and the 

basis for such modification. This may be 

especially useful for tracking potential 

errors in the data from the TGMS, as 

well as preventing malfeasance. 

FRA proposes slight revisions to 

existing paragraph (e), removing the 

word ‘‘output’’ from ‘‘output report,’’ so 

that it simply reads ‘‘report.’’ This is 

meant to make the paragraph consistent 

with the terminology used in proposed 

paragraph (d)(3). FRA also proposes to 

correct the erroneous citation to 

paragraph (c) and change it to a 

reference to paragraph (d) since that is 

the paragraph that discusses the report 

generated by the TGMS. 

FRA proposes replacing existing 

paragraph (f), which gives track owners 

two days following a TGMS inspection 

to field-verify and initiate remedial 

action. FRA proposes replacing existing 

paragraph (f) with a new paragraph (f), 

which would require track owners to 

initiate proper remedial action for 

defects detected by the TGMS 

immediately upon analysis by a 

§ 213.305(b) qualified person, or within 

1 hour of detection (i.e. the moment the 

TGMS passes over the defect), 

whichever is sooner. As discussed 

above for proposed paragraph (d), FRA 

invites comment on this requirement. 

This one-hour requirement would thus 

start at different times for each defect. 

If, before the expiration of that one-hour 

time period, a § 213.305(b) qualified 

person reviews the TGMS data, they 

must immediately initiate proper 

remedial action. There is an inherent 

danger whenever a train passes over a 

defective condition, and the 

remediation requirements proposed in 

this paragraph are intended to minimize 

that danger. FRA also notes that, in the 

event a § 213.305 qualified person 

determines that a defect detected by the 

TGMS is a false positive, or not actually 

a defective condition in the field, 

further remedial action would not be 

required, but that determination must be 

noted and explained on the report 

required under proposed paragraph 

(d)(3), and the revision must be 

documented as required by proposed 

paragraph (d)(3). 

Proposed paragraph (f) would further 

require that exceptions detected on a 

crewed TGMS vehicle be remediated 

immediately. This follows from the first 

part of the paragraph since, on a crewed 

vehicle, the data is being reviewed and 

analyzed in real time by an individual 

on the vehicle. Thus, when a defect is 

detected by the system, the track owner 

must immediately initiate proper 

remedial action. 

FRA proposes removing existing 

paragraph (g), which, among other 

things, requires that track owners 

maintain inspection records for one 

year. Since this paragraph deals 

specifically with inspection records, it 

is better suited to be included in 

existing § 213.369. Thus, FRA proposes 

moving its requirements, with some 

revisions, to proposed § 213.369(c), 

discussed below. 

FRA proposes replacing existing 

paragraph (g) with a new paragraph (g), 

which would require that the reports 

required by paragraph (d) be interpreted 

and electronically signed or otherwise 

certified by a § 213.305(b) qualified 

employee. This is meant to ensure that 

TGMS reports are reviewed by a 

properly trained individual who can 

interpret the reports, determine the 

required remedial action, and put such 

remedial action in place. By requiring 

that the report be electronically signed 

or otherwise certified, the person who 

reviews the report must attest that they 

properly interpreted the report. This can 

be accomplished through an electronic 

signature or another alternative means 

so long as it accomplishes the required 

purpose and properly identifies the 

person making the certification. 

FRA proposes adding paragraph (h), 

which would cover situations where a 

track owner wants to conduct a TGMS 

inspection as well as a visual inspection 

from the same vehicle. A visual 

inspection meant to satisfy the 

frequency requirements of § 213.365(c) 

may not be performed by any individual 

involved in the TGMS inspection. This 

includes any individual reviewing or 

interpreting any results from the TGMS 

vehicle as well as any operator of the 

TGMS vehicle. A visual inspection may 

be performed so long as it is by a 

dedicated track inspector whose sole 

responsibility is conducting a visual 

inspection and all requirements of 

§ 213.365 are met. 

FRA proposes adding paragraph (i), 

which would require specific training 

related to TGMS inspections. This 

would be in addition to any existing 

part 213 and part 243 training 

requirements and would require that all 

§ 213.305 qualified persons who review 

or interpret TGMS reports be properly 

trained on, at a minimum, interpreting 

TGMS data and reports, prioritizing and 

conducting site inspections to verify 

defects, and recordkeeping 

requirements. The training must be 

done in such a way and at such a 

frequency that the qualified individuals 

responsible for reviewing and/or 

interpreting TGMS reports have 

sufficient knowledge of at least the three 

listed subjects to accomplish their 

responsibilities. Track owners must 

make available to FRA sufficient records 

to show compliance with the 

requirements of proposed paragraph (i). 

Section 213.369 Inspection Records 

Proposed revisions to this section are 

intended to mirror the relevant 

proposed revisions to § 213.241, 

discussed above. FRA proposes 

removing the part of paragraph (b), 

which states, ‘‘Except as provided in 

paragraph (e) of this section.’’ Since 

there is no exception stated in 

paragraph (e), or elsewhere in § 213.369, 

it is unclear what this statement 

originally referred to and the language 

appears to be unnecessary. FRA also 

proposes adding § 213.367 to the list of 

sections that require inspections for 

which records must comply with the 

requirements of paragraph (b). Section 

213.367 covers special inspections. 

These special inspections are conducted 

after fire, flood, severe storms, or other 

events that might have damaged track, 

and a record of them is vitally important 

both to document their findings as well 

as oversight to ensure track owners are 

completing such inspections when 

required. However, under current FRA 

enforcement practices, track owners 

have historically not been required to 

keep records of special inspections. FRA 

is not aware of any justification for this 

omission and proposes requiring 

§ 213.367 records comply with 

§ 213.369(b). Further, FRA proposes 

slight revisions to the second sentence 

of paragraph (b) to make it mirror 

§ 213.214. Aside from one purely 

grammatical change, the proposed 

revision would change ‘‘nature of any 

deviation’’ to ‘‘location and nature of 

any deviation.’’ FRA is confident 

inspection records already include this 

information and that this change will 

have no burden upon the industry. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

12 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 6, 2023). 

13Railroad use of TGMS and ATGMS is generally 

not required for Class 1 through 5 track, and 

supplements FRA-required visual inspections and 

other automated inspections required under 49 CFR 

part 213. 

14The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 

2023 Surface Transportation Board Full Year Wage 

FRA proposes redesignating current 

paragraphs (c) through (i) as paragraphs 

(d) through (j), respectively, revising 

some of them, and adding a new 

paragraph (c). Proposed paragraph (c), 

which mirrors, with some revisions, 

existing § 213.333(g), would list 

recordkeeping requirements for TGMS 

inspections performed under proposed 

§ 213.333. It would require track owners 

to maintain a copy of the report, 

required by proposed § 213.333(d), for a 

period of two years following the TGMS 

inspection. Currently, § 213.333(g) 

requires that these records be retained 

for one year. FRA is proposing to 

increase the retention period to two 

years. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would 

also require records to specify the date 

the inspection was made and the track 

segment involved. Proposed paragraph 

(c)(2) would require records specify the 

date of any follow-up inspection, the 

type of inspection, location of any 

defects, the type and size of each defect, 

and the type and date of any remedial 

action taken. This is meant to cover any 

follow-up inspection done to fieldverify the TGMS data. It is essential to 

keep this information in order to 

identify potential issues with a TGMS 

systems that might be causing errors in 

the geometry measurements. 

FRA proposes redesignating existing 

paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), existing 

paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), and 

existing paragraph (e) as paragraph (f). 

FRA also proposes redesignating 

existing paragraph (f) as paragraph (g) 

and revising it by adding a sentence at 

the end requiring that the most recent 

TGMS inspection report be provided to 

the persons performing subsequent 

inspections of the track segment. The 

existing paragraph requires that track 

inspection records be made available to 

persons performing subsequent 

inspections, and requiring that they also 

have a copy of the past TGMS 

inspection report will ensure they 

continue to have access to the most upto-date information on the condition of 

the track to better complete their 

inspections. 

FRA proposes redesignating existing 

paragraph (g) as paragraph (h), and 

existing paragraph (h) as paragraph (i). 

Redesignated paragraph (i) would 

address electronic recordkeeping 

systems and lists specific requirements 

for such systems. FRA proposes to add 

a paragraph (i)(3), which would require 

track owners to train their employees 

who use the electronic recordkeeping 

system on the proper use of the system. 

An employee who uses the system 

should know how to properly use it to 

ensure they do not inadvertently 

compromise the system or the records it 

contains. FRA proposes redesignating 

existing paragraph (h)(3) as paragraph 

(i)(4), and adding proposed paragraph 

(i)(5), which would require the track 

owner to control accessibility to the 

electronic records and identify the 

individuals who have access. This is 

meant to ensure only the proper 

individuals have access to the system. 

FRA proposes redesignating existing 

paragraph (h)(4) as paragraph (i)(6), and 

existing paragraph (h)(5) as paragraph 

(i)(7), and adding proposed paragraph 

(i)(8). This proposed paragraph would 

require track owners to maintain an 

information technology security 

program adequate to ensure the integrity 

of the electronic system. This would 

include preventing unauthorized access 

to the records. Finally, FRA proposes 

redesignating existing paragraph (h)(6) 

as paragraph (i)(9), and existing 

paragraph (i) as paragraph (j). 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended 

by Executive Order 14094 

The proposed rule is a nonsignificant 

regulatory action within the meaning of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, ‘‘Modernizing 

Regulatory Review,’’ 12 and DOT Order 

2100.6A (‘‘Rulemaking and Guidance 

Procedures’’). FRA made this 

determination by finding that the 

economic effects of the proposed 

rulemaking will not exceed the $200 

million annual threshold defined by 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. FRA expects 

this proposed rule will improve railroad 

safety by codifying existing industry 

practices and requiring track owners to 

take proper remedial action within one 

hour of the TGMS identifying an 

exception. FRA also expects the 

proposed rule will encourage future 

improvements to ATI technologies. 

FRA complied with OMB Circular A– 

4 when accounting for the NPRM costs 

relative to a baseline condition. 13

Typically, a baseline represents a best 

judgement about what the world would 

look like in the absence of the regulatory 

intervention. FRA accounts for the 

NPRM costs as any change from current 

industry practice. FRA’s research 

indicates that all 64 railroads covered by 

this proposed rulemaking are already 

voluntarily performing TGMS 

inspections at or above the frequency 

that would be required by the NPRM. 

Therefore, the affected railroads would 

not incur any additional costs related to 

conducting the inspections. 

However, proposed §§ 213.236(d)(1) 

and 213.333(d)(1) would require 

qualifying TGMS vehicles to transmit 

inspection data in a manner that allows 

the track owner to take proper remedial 

action no later than one hour following 

the identification of any exception 

identified by the TGMS system. The 

one-hour timeframe differs from current 

industry practice, where railroads 

remediate track defects based on their 

operating rules or practices and can vary 

from immediately—on crewed TGMS 

vehicles—to 24 hours or more on 

uncrewed ATGMS. Because this 

proposed rule would not change the 

inspection frequency from current 

industry practice, the only slow order 

cost relevant to this proposal is the time 

between the one-hour timeframe for 

remediation and the timeframe each 

railroad currently follows by practice. 

FRA requests comments regarding the 

potential increased number, duration, 

and cost of TGMS track exceptionrelated slow orders on freight and 

passenger rail service. 

To quantify the one-hour remediation 

cost, FRA estimates the 64 affected 

railroads would need to hire a total of 

94 new full-time MOW employees to 

ensure proper remediation within the 

required timeframe. For FRA’s estimate, 

remediation refers to a § 213.7(b) 

qualified employee reviewing the data, 

determining the exception is not a false 

positive, and contacting the dispatcher 

to place an appropriate speed 

restriction. FRA estimated that railroads 

would need to hire between one and six 

employees depending on the railroad’s 

operations and number of required 

inspections. The additional employee 

costs would be approximately $13.6 

million annually and $122.5 million 

over 10 years at the 2-percent discount 

rate as shown in Table 1. 

The proposed rule would also require 

additional reporting of all track 

geometry exceptions detected by the 

TGMS vehicle. The report, and any 

revisions, must be documented, signed, 

and certified by a § 213.7(b) qualified 

employee, and made available to FRA 

upon request. The track owner is also 

responsible for the cost of training 

maintenance employees, reporting 

requirements, and report storage and 

maintenance. 

FRA estimates the new training 

requirement in §§ 213.236(i) and 

213.333(i) affects 10,000 railroad MOW 

employees (Group No 300).14 Each 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84853 

A&B data series using the employee group 300 

hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent overhead 

charges. 

15 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

16 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002). 

17 ‘‘Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards,’’ 13 

CFR part 121, subpart A. NAIC Code 482111 and 

482112 indicate ‘‘Line Haul’’ and ‘‘Short Line’’ 

railroads respectively. Per SBA, any firm under 

NAICS code 48112 that employs more than 1,500 

employees cannot qualify as a small business. See 

U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small 

Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification Codes, effective 

March 3, 2024, available at https://www.ecfr.gov/ 

current/title-13/chapter-I/part-121#121.201. 

worker will require one hour of training 

in the first year after the rule is 

published. FRA also assumed a 2 

percent annual attrition rate among 

railroad employees. The estimated 

replacement employees will need to be 

trained. MOW workers’ hourly salary is 

$39.88, hours were considered at the 

burdened wage rate by multiplying the 

actual rate by 175 percent. This would 

result in a 10-year total training cost of 

approximately $837,000 or 

approximately $810,000 discounted at a 

present value of 2 percent. The total 

costs of the proposed rule would be 

approximately $124 million over 10 

years discounted at a present value of 2 

percent. These costs are shown in Table 

1. 

TABLE 1—TEN YEAR COSTS IN 2023 DOLLARS

Impact Undiscounted 

Present value 

7% 

($) 

Present value 

3% 

($) 

Present value 

2% 

($) 

Employment ..................................................................................................... $122,808,067 $95,839,164 $116,397,525 $122,570,434 

Training ............................................................................................................ 837,480 750,278 796,637 809,594 

Total cost .................................................................................................. 123,645,547 96,589,442 117,194,162 123,380,028 

Impact Annualized 

7% 

($) 

Annualized 

3% 

($) 

Annualized 

2% 

($) 

Employment ... 13,645,341 13,645,341 13,645,341 

Training .......... 106,822 93,390 90,129 

Total cost .................................................................................................. 13,752,163 ..... 13,738,731 13,735,470 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 15 and Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 16 require 

agency review of proposed and final 

rules to assess their impacts on small 

entities. An agency must prepare an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) unless it determines and certifies 

that a rule, if promulgated, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

FRA has not determined whether this 

proposed rule would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities and has 

therefore prepared this IRFA. FRA seeks 

public comment from small entities on 

the economic impacts of this proposed 

rule. 

1. Reasons for Considering Agency 

Action 

FRA seeks to revise its regulations 

governing the minimum safety 

requirements for railroad track. The 

proposed changes would require all 

Class I and Class II railroads, intercity 

passenger railroads, and commuter 

railroads to operate qualifying TGMS 

vehicles over mainline and controlled 

siding track at specific frequencies. 

2. A Succinct Statement of the 

Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

This rulemaking seeks to improve 

compliance with the TSS by requiring 

all Class I railroads, Class II railroads, 

intercity passenger railroads, and 

commuter railroads to operate a 

qualifying TGMS three times within a 

365-day period over all Class 1 through 

5 mainline and controlled siding track 

that transports: (1) annual tonnage 

greater than 10 MGT; (2) regularly 

scheduled passenger rail service; or (3) 

hazardous materials. Qualified TGMS 

inspections are already required for 

Class 6 through 9 track at varying 

frequencies, as well as Class 1 through 

5 track for operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency of more than 5 inches. The 

proposed rule would also increase the 

required frequency of TGMS inspections 

on Class 6 track from once per calendar 

year to three times within a 365-day 

period. 

FRA’s research indicates that all the 

railroads affected by this rulemaking are 

already performing TGMS inspections at 

or above the frequency that would be 

required by this NPRM. Thus, this 

proposed rulemaking would codify this 

industry practice as well as set forth 

requirements that include remedial 

action of detected defects within a 

specified time limit. FRA expects the 

NPRM to improve compliance with the 

TSS and potentially reduce derailments. 

3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, 

an Estimate of, the Number of Small 

Entities to Which the Proposed Rule 

Would Apply 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires a review of proposed and final 

rules to assess their impact on small 

entities, unless the Secretary certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C. 

601 as a small business that is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field of operation. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has authority to regulate issues 

related to small businesses and 

stipulates in its size standards that a 

‘‘small entity’’ in the railroad industry 

includes a for-profit ‘‘line-haul railroad’’ 

that has fewer than 1,500 employees 

and a ‘‘short line railroad’’ with fewer 

than 1,500 employees.17

Federal agencies may adopt their own 

size standards for small entities in 

consultation with SBA and in 

conjunction with public comment. 

Under that authority, FRA has 

published a final statement of agency 

policy that formally establishes ‘‘small 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18The Class III railroad revenue threshold is 

$46,352,455 or less, for 2022. (The Class II railroad 

threshold is between $46,352,455 and 

$1,032,002,719; and the Class I railroad threshold 

is $1,023,002,719 or more.) See Surface 

Transportation Board Regulatory Deflators at 

https://www.stb.gov/reports-data/economic-data/. 

19Codified at appendix C to 49 CFR part 209 as 

of 11/27/2023, available at https://www.ecfr.gov/ 

current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/. 

20See Surface Transportation Board Decision, 

Docket No. EP 748, Indexing the Annual Operating 

Revenues of Railroads, Decided June 4, 2020, 

available at https://prod.stb.gov/reports-data/ 

economic-data/railroad-revenue-deflator-factors/. 

21FRA will be using the OMB control number 

(OMB No. 2130–0010) for this information 

collection. 

22 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

entities’’ or ‘‘small businesses’’ as 

railroads, contractors, and hazardous 

materials shippers that meet the revenue 

requirements of a Class III railroad as set 

forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1, which is 

$46.4 18 million or less in inflationadjusted annual revenues; and 

commuter railroads or small 

governmental jurisdictions that serve 

populations of 50,000 or less.19 The 

$46.4 million limit is based on the 

Surface Transportation Board’s revenue 

threshold for a Class III railroad carrier. 

Railroad revenue is adjusted for 

inflation by applying a revenue deflator 

formula in accordance with 49 CFR 

1201.1–1.20

Therefore, FRA assumes that the 

proposed rule, if issued, would not 

negatively impact any small entities as 

set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1–1. FRA 

invites comment, particularly from 

members of the public who believe 

there will be a significant negative 

impact on a substantial number of small 

communities or Class III railroads. 

4. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Class of 

Small Entities That Will be Subject to 

the Requirements and the Type of 

Professional Skill Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

FRA does not expect projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

costs of compliance with this NPRM to 

affect small entities. 

Small entities that fall below the FRA 

size standards, including Class III 

railroads, commuter rail passenger rail 

services, and small government 

jurisdictions serving populations of 

50,000 or less, would not bear any shortor long-term costs. 

5. Identification, to the Extent 

Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 

Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With the Proposed Rule 

FRA is not aware of any relevant 

Federal rule that duplicates, overlaps 

with, or conflicts with the proposed 

rule. 

6. A Description of Significant 

Alternatives to the Rule 

FRA is proposing this rulemaking to 

codify industry best practice and ensure 

the TGMS inspections are conducted at 

least 3 times per year, detected defects 

are remediated within one hour of 

detection, railroad employees have 

sufficient training to implement these 

requirements, and that TGMS 

inspection data and records are 

maintained in a secure and accurate 

manner. 

FRA considered several regulatory 

alternatives before deciding to impose 

the one-hour time limit to remediate 

TGMS-identified defects. FRA 

considered requiring track owners to 

immediately remediate a detected 

defect. FRA rejected this alternative as 

it would essentially prohibit the use of 

ATGMS. ATGMS is uncrewed and relies 

on the transmission of the data for 

analysis at a different location, meaning 

there is no practical way to immediately 

remediate identified defects. FRA also 

considered requiring remediation of a 

defect within 48 hours of detection as 

this is the current requirement for 

TGMS inspections for high-speed track. 

FRA’s research concluded that railroads 

are not utilizing the allowed 48 hours 

and are remediating defects as soon as 

possible. Further, FRA determined that 

48 hours was too long to allow a 

detected geometry defect to remain in 

the track and could increase the risk of 

a derailment. FRA instead chose to 

impose a one-hour time limit to 

remediate any TGMS identified defect. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

FRA is submitting the information 

collection requirements in this proposed 

rule to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) 21 for review and 

approval in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.22

Please note that any new or revised 

requirements, as proposed in this 

NPRM, are marked by asterisks (*) in 

the table below. The sections that 

contain the proposed and current 

information collection requirements 

under OMB Control No. 2130–0010 and 

the estimated time to fulfill each 

requirement are as follows: 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time 

per 

response 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Wage 

rate 

Total cost 

equivalent in 

U.S. dollar 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 23

213.4(f)—Excepted track ... 784 railroads ............................... 15 notices .......................... 10 minutes ......................... 2.50 89.13 $222.83 

—Notification to FRA about 

removal of excepted 

track 

213.5(c)—Responsibility for 

compliance.

784 railroads ............................... 15 notices .......................... 1 hour ................................ 15.00 89.13 1,336.95 

—Notification of assignment to FRA 

213.7(a)(b)—Designations: 

Names on list with written authorizations.

784 railroads ............................... 2,500 names ...................... 10 minutes ......................... 416.67 89.13 37,137.80 

213.17(a)—Waivers ........... 784 railroads ............................... 10 petitions ........................ 2 hours ............................... 20.00 89.13 1,782.60 

213.57(e)—Curves; elevation and speed limitations.784 railroads ............................... 4 requests .......................... 8 hours ............................... 32.00 89.13 2,852.16 

—Request to FRA for vehicle type approval 

—(f) Written notification to 

FRA prior to implementation of higher curving 

speeds.

784 railroads ............................... 4 notifications ..................... 2 hours ............................... 8.00 89.13 713.04 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84855 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time 

per 

response 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Wage 

rate 

Total cost 

equivalent in 

U.S. dollar 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 23

—(g) Written consent of 

track owners obtained by 

railroad providing service 

over that track.

784 railroads ............................... 4 written consents ............. 45 minutes ......................... 3.00 89.13 267.39

213.110(a)—Gage restraint 

measurement systems 

(GRMS).

784 railroad ................................ 1 notification ...................... 45 minutes ......................... 0.75 89.13 66.85 

—Implementing GRMS 

—Notices & reports 

—(g) GRMS vehicle output 

reports.

784 railroad ................................ 1 report .............................. 5 minutes ........................... 0.08 89.13 7.13 

—(h) GRMS vehicle exception reports.784 railroad ................................ 1 report .............................. 5 minutes ........................... 0.08 89.13 7.13 

—(j) GRMS/PTLF—procedures for data integrity.784 railroad ................................ 1 documented procedure .. 1 hour ................................ 1.00 89.13 89.13 

—(n) GRMS inspection 

records.

784 railroad ................................ 2 records ............................ 30 minutes ......................... 1.00 89.13 89.13 

213.118(a)–(c)—Continuous welded rail (CWR).438 railroads ............................... 10 plans ............................. 4 hours ............................... 40.00 89.13 3,565.20 

—Revised plans w/procedures for CWR 

—(d) Notification to FRA 

and RR employees of 

CWR plan effective date.

438 railroads ............................... 750 notices ........................ 15 seconds ........................ 3.13 89.13 278.98 

—(e) Written submissions 

after plan disapproval.

438 railroads ............................... 5 written submissions ........ 2 hours ............................... 10.00 89.13 891.30 

—(e) Final FRA disapproval and plan 

amendment.

438 railroads ............................... 5 amended plans ............... 1 hour ................................ 5.00 89.13 445.65 

213.234(e)—Automated inspection of track constructed with concrete 

crossties.

30 railroads ................................. 125 reports ........................ 15 minutes ......................... 31.25 69.60 2,175.00 

—Exception reports listing 

all exception to 

§ 213.109(d)(4) Added 

requirement and burden 

hours from 2130–0592 

—(f) Automated inspection 

of track constructed with 

concrete crossties.

30 railroads ................................. 2,000 records ..................... 30 minutes ......................... 1,000.00 89.13 89,130.00 

—Recordkeeping requirements 

—(g) Procedure for integrity of data —Track owners to institute procedures for maintaining the 

integrity of the data collected by the measurement system Added requirement and burden 

hours from 2130–0592.

30 railroads ................................. 30 revised procedures ....... 2 hours ............................... 60.00 118.46 7,107.60 

—(h)(3) Training Track 

owners to provide annual 

training in handling rail 

seat deterioration exceptions to all persons designated as fully qualified 

under § 213.7 and whose 

territories are subject to 

the requirements of 

§ 213.234—Recordkeeping. Added requirement and burden hours 

from 2130–0592.

30 railroads ................................. 2,250 records of trained 

employees.

5 minutes ........................... 187.50 $69.60 13,050.00 

* 213.236(d)(3)—Automated vehicle-based inspection systems. TGMS 

Track classes 1 through 

5 report records (New 

proposed requirement).

64 railroads ................................. 7,500 report records .......... 10 minutes ......................... 1,275 89.13 113,640.75 

*—(i) training records (New 

proposed requirement).

9,500 employees ........................ 3,167 training records ........ 5 minutes ........................... 250.96 89.13 22,368.06

213.237(b)(2)—Inspection 

of Rail.

65 railroads ................................. 4 requests .......................... 15 minutes ......................... 1.00 89.13 89.13 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84856 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time 

per 

response 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Wage 

rate 

Total cost 

equivalent in 

U.S. dollar 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 23

—Detailed request to FRA 

to change designation of 

a rail inspection segment 

or establish a new segment 

—(b)(3) Notification to FRA 

and all affected employees of designation’s effective date after FRA’s 

approval/conditional approval.

65 railroads ................................. 1 notice to FRA + 15 bulletins.15 minutes ......................... 4.00 89.13 356.52 

—(d) Notice to FRA that 

service failure rate target 

in paragraph (a) of this 

section is not achieved.

65 railroads ................................. 4 notices ............................ 15 minutes ......................... 1.00 89.13 89.13 

—(d)—Explanation to FRA 

as to why performance 

target was not achieved 

and provision to FRA of 

remedial action plan.

65 railroads ................................. 4 letters of explanation/ 

plans.

15 minutes ......................... 1.00 89.13 89.13 

213.238—Qualified operators.3 railroads + 5 testing entities .... 250 records ........................ 5 minutes ........................... 20.83 89.13 1,856.58

—Written or electronic of 

qualification 

213.240(b)—Continuous 

Rail Testing.

12 railroads ................................. 4 procedures ...................... 8 hours ............................... 32.00 89.13 2,852.16 

—Procedures for conducting continuous testing 

——(c) Type of rail test 

(continuous or stop-andverify).

12 railroads ................................. 25,000 documents/records 2 seconds .......................... 13.89 89.13 1,238.02 

—Record 

——(c)—Type of rail test 

(continuous or stop-andverify).

12 railroads ................................. 100 documents .................. 1 minute ............................. 1.67 89.13 148.85 

—Documented changes 

––(g) Annual reports to 

FRA.

12 railroads ................................. 12 reports .......................... 4 hours ............................... 48.00 89.13 4,278.24 

* 213.241—Inspection 

records Class I through 

5. (Revised requirement).

784 railroads ............................... 1,400,000 records .............. 10 minutes ......................... 238,000.00 89.13 21,212,940.00 

213.303(b)—Responsibility 

for compliance.

2 railroad .................................... 5 notices ............................ 30 minutes ......................... 2.50 89.13 222.83 

—Notification of assignment to FRA 

213.305(c)(4)—Designation 

of qualified individuals; 

general qualifications.

2 railroads ................................... 20 written documents ........ 30 minutes ......................... 10.00 89.13 891.30

—Written authorization for 

remedial actions 

—(e) Railroads produced 

designation record upon 

FRA request.

2 railroads ................................... 200 records ........................ 10 minutes ......................... 33.33 89.13 2,970.70 

213.317(a) through (b)— 

Waivers.

2 railroads ................................... 2 petitions .......................... 8 hours ............................... 16.00 89.13 1,426.08 

213.329(e)—Curves, elevation, and speed limitations—FRA approval of 

qualified vehicle types 

based on results of testing.

2 railroads ................................... 2.00 cover letters + 2.00 

technical reports + 2.00 

diagrams.

30.00 minutes + 16.00 

hours + 15.00 minutes.

33.50 89.13 2,985.86 

—(f) Written notification to 

FRA 30 days prior to implementation of higher 

curving speeds.

2 railroads ................................... 2 notices ............................ 2 hours ............................... 4.00 89.13 356.52 

—(g) Written consent of 

other affected track owners by railroad.

2 railroads ................................... 2 written consents ............. 45 minutes ......................... 1.50 89.13 133.70 

* 213.333(d)—Automated 

vehicle-based inspection 

systems. TGMS track 

classes 6–9 report 

records. (Revised requirement).

5 railroads ................................... 150 reports ........................ 10 minutes ......................... 25.50 89.13 2,272.82 

*—(i) training records (New 

proposed requirement).

500 employees ........................... 167 training records ........... 5 mins ................................ 13.36 89.13 1,190.78 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84857 

23The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 

2023 Surface Transportation Board Full Year Wage 

A&B data series using the appropriate employee 

group hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent 

overhead charges. 

24Totals may not add up due to rounding. 

25 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). 26 19 U.S.C. ch. 13. 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average 

time 

per 

response 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Wage 

rate 

Total cost 

equivalent in 

U.S. dollar 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 23

213.341(b)–(d)—Initial inspection of new rail & 

welds.

2 railroads ................................... 800 records ........................ 2 minutes ........................... 26.67 89.13 2,377.10 

—Inspection records 

213.343(a)–(e)—CWR ....... 2 railroads ................................... 2 plans ............................... 4 hours ............................... 8.00 89.13 713.04 

—Procedures for installations and adjustments of 

CWR. 

—(h) Recordkeeping requirements.2 railroads ................................... 8,000 records ..................... 2 minutes ........................... 266.67 89.13 23,768.30 

213.345(a)–(c)—Vehicle 

qualification testing.

2 railroads ................................... 2 program plans ................ 120 hours ........................... 240.00 89.13 21,391.20 

—Vehicle qualification program for all vehicle types 

operating at track Class 

6 speeds or above. 

—(d) Previously qualified 

vehicle types of qualification programs.

2 railroads ................................... 2 program plans ................ 8 hours ............................... 16.00 89.13 1,426.08 

—(h) Written consent of 

other affected track owners by railroad.

2 railroads ................................... 4 written consents ............. 30 minutes ......................... 2.00 118.46 236.92 

213.369—Visual track inspection records (Revised requirement).5 railroads ................................... 15,273 records ................... 10 minutes ......................... 2,596.41 89.13 231,418.02 

Total 24 ........................ 784 railroads ............................... 1,468,401 responses ......... N/A ..................................... 244,781 ............ 21,814,944 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits 

comments concerning: whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. 

Organizations and individuals desiring 

to submit comments on the collection of 

information requirements or to request a 

copy of the paperwork package 

submitted to OMB should contact Ms. 

Arlette Mussington, Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, at email: 

arlette.mussington@dot.gov or 

telephone: (571) 609–1285 or Ms. 

Joanne Swafford, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, at email: 

joanne.swafford@dot.gov or telephone: 

(757) 897–9908. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

FRA is not authorized to impose a 

penalty on persons for violating 

information collection requirements that 

do not display a current OMB control 

number, if required. 

D. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism,25

requires FRA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

Executive Order 13132 to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, the agency consults with 

State and local governments, or the 

agency consults with State and local 

government officials early in the process 

of developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. FRA has determined that this 

proposed rule has no federalism 

implications, other than the possible 

preemption of State laws under 49 

U.S.C. 20106. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply, 

and preparation of a federalism 

summary impact statement for the 

proposed rule is not required. 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 26

prohibits Federal agencies from 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84858 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

27 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

28 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. 

29 23 CFR part 771. 

30 40 CFR 1508.4. 

31See 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15) (categorically 

excluding ‘‘[p]romulgation of rules, the issuance of 

policy statements, the waiver or modification of 

existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary 

approvals that do not result in significantly 

increased emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise’’). 

32 23 CFR 771.116(b). 

33 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 

34See 16 U.S.C. 470. 

35See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 

as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 

303. 

36Available at https://www.transportation.gov/ 

sites/dot.gov/files/Final-for-OST-C-210312-003- 

signed.pdf. 

37Public Law 104–4; 2 U.S.C. 1531. 

38 2 U.S.C. 1532. 

39 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This proposed rule is 

purely domestic in nature and is not 

expected to affect trade opportunities 

for U.S. firms doing business overseas or 

for foreign firms doing business in the 

United States. 

F. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act 27 (NEPA), the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

NEPA implementing regulations,28 and 

FRA’s NEPA implementing 

regulations 29 and determined that it is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review and therefore 

does not require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions 

identified in an agency’s NEPA 

implementing regulations that do not 

normally have a significant impact on 

the environment and therefore do not 

require either an EA or EIS.30

Specifically, FRA has determined that 

this proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from detailed environmental 

review.31

The main purpose of this rulemaking 

is to require the use of TGMS 

technology at specific frequencies. This 

rule would not directly or indirectly 

impact any environmental resources 

and would not result in significantly 

increased emissions of air or water 

pollutants or noise. In analyzing the 

applicability of a CE, FRA must also 

consider whether unusual 

circumstances are present that would 

warrant a more detailed environmental 

review.32 FRA has concluded that no 

such unusual circumstances exist with 

respect to this proposed rule, and it 

meets the requirements for categorical 

exclusion.33

Pursuant to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

its implementing regulations, FRA has 

determined this undertaking has no 

potential to affect historic properties.34

FRA has also determined that this 

rulemaking does not approve a project 

resulting in a use of a resource protected 

by Section 4(f).35 Further, FRA reviewed 

this proposed rulemaking and found it 

consistent with Executive Order 14008, 

‘‘Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home 

and Abroad.’’ 

G. Executive Order 12898 

(Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,’’ and DOT 

Order 5610.2C 36 require DOT agencies 

to achieve environmental justice as part 

of their mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects, 

including interrelated social and 

economic effects, of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations. The DOT Order instructs 

DOT agencies to address compliance 

with Executive Order 12898 and 

requirements within the DOT Order in 

rulemaking activities, as appropriate, 

and also requires consideration of the 

benefits of transportation programs, 

policies, and other activities where 

minority populations and low-income 

populations benefit, at a minimum, to 

the same level as the general population 

as a whole when determining impacts 

on minority and low-income 

populations. FRA has evaluated this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12898 and the DOT Order and has 

determined it would not cause 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority populations or low-income 

populations. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Under section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995,37 each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act 38 further 

requires that ‘‘before promulgating any 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

that is likely to result in promulgation 

of any rule that includes any Federal 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

1 year, and before promulgating any 

final rule for which a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking was published, 

the agency shall prepare a written 

statement’’ detailing the effect on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. This proposed rule 

would not result in the expenditure, in 

the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more 

(as adjusted annually for inflation) in 

any one year, and thus preparation of 

such a statement is not required. 

I. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 39 FRA evaluated this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

13211 and determined that this 

regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211. 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible 

through www.dot.gov/privacy. To 

facilitate comment tracking and 

response, we encourage commenters to 

provide their name, or the name of their 

organization; however, submission of 

names is completely optional. Whether 

or not commenters identify themselves, 

all timely comments will be fully 

considered. If you wish to provide 

comments containing proprietary or 

confidential information, please contact 

the agency for alternate submission 

instructions. 

K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84859 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, dated 

November 6, 2000. The proposed rule 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian Tribes, 

would not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments, and would not preempt 

Tribal laws. Therefore, the funding and 

consultation requirements of Executive 

Order 13175 do not apply, and a Tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4) 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rule can be found in 

the Abstract section of the Department’s 

Unified Agenda entry for this 

rulemaking at: https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=

202310&RIN=2130-AC96. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213 

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Proposed Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, FRA proposes to amend part 

213 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 213—TRACK SAFETY 

STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 213 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and 

20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.89. 

Subpart F—Inspection 

■ 2. Add § 213.236 to read as follows: 

§ 213.236 Automated vehicle-based 

inspection systems. 

(a) A qualifying Track Geometry 

Measurement System (TGMS) shall be 

operated by all Class I railroads, Class 

II railroads, intercity passenger 

railroads, and commuter railroads on all 

mainline and controlled sidings for 

track Classes 1 through 5 on which any 

of the following occur: annual tonnage 

of greater than 10 MGT, regularly 

scheduled passenger service, or 

transportation of hazardous materials as 

defined in 49 CFR 171.8. A TGMS 

inspection shall be conducted at least 

three times within any 365-day period 

with not less than 90 days between 

inspections. 

(b) A qualifying TGMS shall meet or 

exceed minimum design requirements 

which specify that— 

(1) Track geometry measurements 

shall be taken no more than 3 feet away 

from the contact point of wheels 

carrying a vertical load of no less than 

10 kips per wheel, unless otherwise 

approved by FRA; 

(2) Track geometry measurements 

shall be taken and recorded on a 

distance-based sampling interval 

preferably at 1 foot not exceeding 2 feet; 

and 

(3) Calibration procedures and 

parameters assigned to the system 

ensure that measured and recorded 

values accurately represent track 

conditions. Track geometry 

measurements recorded by the system 

shall not differ more than 1/8 inch on 

repeated runs at the same site at the 

same speed. 

(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be 

capable of measuring and processing the 

necessary track geometry parameters to 

determine compliance with: § 213.53, 

Track gage; § 213.55, Track alinement; 

§ 213.57, Curves; elevation and speed 

limitations; and § 213.63 Track surface; 

and, for operations at a qualified cant 

deficiency, Eu, of more than 5 inches, 

§ 213.65, Combined track alinement and 

surface deviations. 

(d) A qualifying TGMS shall— 

(1) Transmit data in a manner that 

enables the track owner to take proper 

remedial action not later than one hour 

following identification of any 

exception to the class of track by the 

TGMS system; 

(2) Provide a continuous plot, on a 

constant-distance axis, of all measured 

track geometry parameters required in 

paragraph (c) of this section; 

(3) Provide a report containing a 

comprehensive listing of all track 

geometry exceptions detected by the 

TGMS vehicle. Any revision to this 

information and/or the raw data from 

the vehicle must be documented, 

signed, and certified by a § 213.7(b) 

qualified employee in accordance with 

paragraph (f) of this section in a manner 

that correctly identifies the person who 

made the revision(s), and must show the 

original information along with the 

subsequent revision(s) and the basis or 

reason for the revision(s). 

(e) The reports required under 

paragraph (d) of this section shall 

contain sufficient location identification 

information to enable field forces to 

easily locate indicated exceptions. 

(f) Upon analysis of the TGMS data by 

a § 213.7(b) qualified person, or within 

one hour of detection (i.e., the moment 

the TGMS passes over the defect) of an 

exception to the class of track by the 

TGMS system, whichever is sooner, the 

track owner must initiate proper 

remedial action. Analysis of the TGMS 

data may occur concurrently with the 

TGMS inspection. For any exception to 

the class of track observed from a 

crewed TGMS vehicle, the track owner 

shall immediately initiate proper 

remedial action. 

(g) The reports required under 

paragraph (d) of this section shall be 

interpreted and electronically signed or 

otherwise certified by a § 213.7(b) 

qualified employee. 

(h) A visual inspection intended to 

satisfy the frequency requirement of 

§ 213.233(c) may not be conducted from 

a vehicle that is also conducting a 

TGMS inspection, unless there is a 

dedicated track inspector whose sole 

responsibility is conducting a visual 

inspection and all requirements of 

§ 213.233 are met. 

(i) In addition to any applicable 

training requirement of this part and 49 

CFR part 243, the track owner shall 

ensure § 213.7 qualified persons who 

review and/or interpret reports under 

this section are properly trained on, at 

a minimum, the following: 

(1) Interpreting TGMS data and 

reports; 

(2) Prioritizing and conducting site 

inspections to verify defects; and 

(3) Recordkeeping requirements. 

■ 3. Amend § 213.241 by revising 

paragraphs (b) through (j), and adding 

paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 213.241 Inspection records. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each record of an inspection under 

§§ 213.4, 213.119, 213.137, 213.233, 

213.234, 213.235, and 213.239 shall be 

prepared on the day the inspection is 

made and signed or otherwise certified 

by the person making the inspection. 

Records shall specify the author of the 

record, the type of track inspected, date 

and location of inspection, location and 

nature of any deviation from the 

requirements of this part, and the 

remedial action taken by the person 

making the inspection. The track owner 

shall designate the location(s) where 

each original record shall be maintained 

for at least one year after the inspection 

covered by the record. The track owner 

shall also designate one location, within 

100 miles of each State in which it 

conducts operations, where copies of 

records that apply to those operations 

are maintained or can be viewed 

following 10 days’ notice by the Federal 

Railroad Administration. 

(c) The track owner required to 

conduct inspections under § 213.236 

shall maintain for a period of two years 

following an inspection performed by a 

qualifying TGMS, a copy of the report 

required by § 213.236(d), and additional 

records which: 

(1) Specify the date the inspection 

was made and the track segment 

involved; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
84860 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Specify the date of any follow-up 

inspection, the type of inspection, the 

location of each defect, the type and size 

of each defect, and the remedial action 

taken and the date thereof. 

(d) Records of internal rail inspections 

required by § 213.237 shall specify the— 

(1) Date of inspection; 

(2) Track inspected, including 

beginning and end points; 

(3) Location and type of defects found 

under § 213.113; 

(4) Size of defects found under 

§ 213.113, if not removed prior to the 

next train movement; 

(5) Initial remedial action taken and 

the date thereof; and 

(6) Location of any track not tested 

pursuant to § 213.237(g). 

(e) The track owner shall retain a rail 

inspection record under paragraph (d) of 

this section for at least two years after 

the inspection and for one year after 

initial remedial action is taken. 

(f) The track owner shall maintain 

records sufficient to demonstrate the 

means by which it computes the service 

failure rate on all track segments subject 

to the requirements of § 213.237(a) for 

the purpose of determining compliance 

with the applicable service failure rate 

target. 

(g) Records of continuous rail testing 

under § 213.240 shall— 

(1) Include all information required 

under § 213.240(e); 

(2) State whether the test is being 

conducted to satisfy the requirements 

for an internal rail inspection under 

§ 213.237; 

(3) List the date(s) and time(s) of the 

continuous rail test data collection, 

including the date and time of the start 

and end of the test run, and the date and 

time each suspect location was 

identified and field-verified; 

(4) Include the determination made 

after field verification of each suspect 

location, including the: 

(i) Location and type of defect found; 

(ii) Size of defect; and 

(iii) Initial remedial action taken, if 

required, and the date thereof; and 

(5) Be retained for at least two years 

after the inspection and for at least one 

year after initial remedial action is 

taken, whichever is later. 

(h) Track owners that elect to utilize 

continuous rail testing under § 213.240 

shall maintain records of all continuous 

rail testing operations sufficient for 

monitoring and determining compliance 

with all applicable regulations and shall 

make those records available to FRA 

during regular business hours following 

reasonable notice. 

(i) Track inspection records shall be 

kept available to persons who 

performed the inspections and to 

persons performing subsequent 

inspections of the track segment. The 

most recent report from a TGMS 

inspection conducted under § 213.236 

shall be provided to persons performing 

subsequent inspections of the track 

segment. 

(j) Each track owner required to keep 

inspection records under this section 

shall make those records available for 

inspection and copying by FRA upon 

request during regular business hours 

following reasonable notice. 

(k) For purposes of complying with 

the requirements of this section, a track 

owner may create, retain, transmit, 

store, and retrieve records by electronic 

means provided that— 

(1) The system used to generate the 

electronic record meets all requirements 

and contains the information required 

under this subpart; 

(2) The track owner monitors its 

electronic records database to ensure 

record accuracy; 

(3) The track owner trains its 

employees who use the system on the 

proper use of the electronic 

recordkeeping management system; 

(4) The electronic system is designed 

to uniquely identify the author of the 

record. No two persons shall have the 

same electronic identity; 

(5) The track owner controls 

accessibility to such records and 

identifies individuals who have such 

access; 

(6) The electronic system ensures that 

each record cannot be modified in any 

way, or replaced, once the record is 

completed; 

(7) The electronic storage of each 

record shall be initiated by the person 

making the inspection within 72 hours 

following the completion of that 

inspection; 

(8) The track owner maintains an 

information technology security 

program adequate to ensure the integrity 

of the system, including the prevention 

of unauthorized access to the records; 

and 

(9) Any amendment to a record shall 

be electronically stored apart from the 

record which it amends. Each 

amendment to a record shall be 

uniquely identified as to the person 

making the amendment. 

Subpart G—Train Operations at Track 

Classes 6 and Higher 

■ 4. Amend § 213.333 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (a)(1); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) 

through (4) as paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3); 

■ c. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(1), and paragraphs (b)(3), 

and paragraphs (c) through (g); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (h) 

through (m) as paragraphs (j) through 

(o); and 

■ e. Adding new paragraphs (h) and (i). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 213.333 Automated vehicle-based 

inspection systems. 

(a) * * * 

(1) For track Class 6, at least three 

times within any 365-day period with 

not less than 90 days between 

inspections. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Calibration procedures and 

parameters are assigned to the system 

which assure that measured and 

recorded values accurately represent 

track conditions. Track geometry 

measurements recorded by the system 

shall not differ more than 1⁄8 inch on 

repeated runs at the same site at the 

same speed. 

(c) A qualifying TGMS shall be 

capable of measuring and processing the 

necessary track geometry parameters to 

determine compliance with: § 213.323, 

Track gage; § 213.327, Track alinement; 

§ 213.329, Curves; elevation and speed 

limitations; § 213.331, Track surface; 

and for operations at a cant deficiency 

of more than 5 inches § 213.332, 

Combined track alinement and surface 

deviations. 

(d) A qualifying TGMS shall— 

(1) Transmit data in a manner that 

enables the track owner to take proper 

remedial action not later than one hour 

following identification of any 

exception to the class of track by the 

TGMS system; 

(2) Provide a continuous plot, on a 

constant-distance axis, of all measured 

track geometry parameters required in 

paragraph (c) of this section; and 

(3) Provide a report containing a 

comprehensive listing of all track 

geometry exceptions detected by the 

TGMS vehicle. Any revision to this 

information and/or the raw data from 

the vehicle must be documented, 

signed, and certified by a § 213.305(b) 

qualified employee in accordance with 

paragraph (f) of this section in a manner 

that correctly identifies the person who 

made the revisions, and must show the 

original information along with the 

subsequent revision(s) and the basis or 

reason for the revision. 

(e) The reports required under 

paragraph (d) of this section shall 

contain sufficient location identification 

information which enable field forces to 

easily locate indicated exceptions. 

(f) Upon analysis of the TGMS data by 

a § 213.305(b) qualified person, or 

within one hour of detection (i.e., the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 206 / Thursday, October 24, 2024 / Proposed Rules 84861 

moment the TGMS passes over the 

defect) of an exception to the class of 

track by the TGMS system, whichever is 

sooner, the track owner must initiate 

proper remedial action. Analysis of the 

TGMS data may occur concurrently 

with the TGMS inspection. For any 

exception to the class of track observed 

from a crewed TGMS vehicle, the track 

owner shall immediately initiate proper 

remedial action. 

(g) The reports required under 

paragraph (d) of this section shall be 

interpreted and electronically signed or 

otherwise certified by a § 213.305(b) 

qualified employee. 

(h) A visual inspection intended to 

satisfy the frequency requirement of 

§ 213.365(c) may not be conducted from 

a vehicle that is also conducting a 

TGMS inspection, unless there is a 

dedicated track inspector whose sole 

responsibility is conducting a visual 

inspection and all requirements of 

§ 213.365 are met. 

(i) In addition to any applicable 

training requirement of this part and 

part 243 of this chapter, the track owner 

shall ensure § 213.305 qualified persons 

who review and/or interpret reports 

under this section are properly trained 

on, at minimum, the following: 

(1) Interpreting TGMS data and 

reports; 

(2) Prioritizing and conducting site 

inspections to verify defects; and 

(3) Recordkeeping requirements. 

■ 5. Amend § 213.369 by revising 

paragraphs (b) through (i), and adding 

paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 213.369 Inspection records. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each record of an inspection under 

§§ 213.365 and 213.367 shall be 

prepared on the day the inspection is 

made and signed or otherwise certified 

by the person making the inspection. 

Records shall specify the author of 

record, the type of track inspected, date 

and location of inspection, location and 

nature of any deviation from the 

requirements of this part, and the 

remedial action taken by the person 

making the inspection. The track owner 

shall designate the location(s) where 

each original record shall be maintained 

for at least one year after the inspection 

covered by the record. The track owner 

shall also designate one location, within 

100 miles of each State in which it 

conducts operations, where copies of 

records that apply to those operations 

are maintained or can be viewed 

following 10 days’ notice by the Federal 

Railroad Administration. 

(c) The track owner required to 

conduct inspections under § 213.333 

shall maintain for a period of two years 

following an inspection performed by a 

qualifying TGMS, a copy of the report 

required by § 213.333(d), and additional 

records which: 

(1) Specify the date the inspection 

was made and the track segment 

involved; and 

(2) Specify the date of any follow-up 

inspections, the type of inspection, the 

location of each defect, the type and size 

of each defect, and the remedial action 

taken and the date thereof. 

(d) Rail inspection records shall 

specify the date of inspection, the 

location and nature of any internal 

defects found, the remedial action taken 

and the date thereof, and the location of 

any intervals of track not tested per 

§ 213.339(d). The owner shall retain a 

rail inspection record for at least two 

years after the inspection and for one 

year after remedial action is taken. 

(e) Records of continuous rail testing 

under § 213.240 shall— 

(1) Include all information required 

under § 213.240(e); 

(2) State whether the test is being 

conducted to satisfy the requirements 

for an internal rail inspection under 

§ 213.339; 

(3) List the date(s) and time(s) of the 

continuous rail test data collection, 

including the date and time of the start 

and end of the test run, and the date and 

time each suspect location was 

identified and field-verified; 

(4) Include the determination made 

after field verification of each suspect 

location, including the: 

(i) Location and type of defect found; 

(ii) Size of defect; 

(iii) Initial remedial action taken, if 

required, and the date thereof; and 

(5) Be retained for at least two years 

after the inspection and for at least one 

year after initial remedial action is 

taken, whichever is later. 

(f) Track owners that elect to utilize 

continuous rail testing under § 213.240 

shall maintain records of all continuous 

rail testing operations sufficient for 

monitoring and determining compliance 

with all applicable regulations and shall 

make those records available to FRA 

during regular business hours following 

reasonable notice. 

(g) Track inspection records shall be 

kept available to persons who perform 

the inspections and to persons 

performing subsequent inspections. The 

most recent report from a TGMS 

inspection conducted under § 213.333 

shall be provided to persons performing 

subsequent inspections of the track 

segment. 

(h) Each track owner required to keep 

inspection records under this section 

shall make those records available for 

inspection and copying by the Federal 

Railroad Administration upon request 

during regular business hours following 

reasonable notice. 

(i) For purposes of compliance with 

the requirements of this section, a track 

owner may create, retain, transmit, 

store, and retrieve records by electronic 

means provided that— 

(1) The system used to generate the 

electronic record meets all requirements 

and contains the information required 

under this subpart; 

(2) The track owner monitors its 

electronic records database to ensure 

record accuracy; 

(3) The track owner trains its 

employees who use the system on the 

proper use of the electronic 

recordkeeping management system; 

(4) The electronic system is designed 

to uniquely identify the author of the 

record. No two persons shall have the 

same electronic identity; 

(5) The track owner controls 

accessibility to such records and 

identifies individuals who have such 

access; 

(6) The electronic system ensures that 

each record cannot be modified in any 

way, or replaced, once the record is 

completed; 

(7) The electronic storage of each 

record shall be initiated by the person 

making the inspection within 72 hours 

following the completion of that 

inspection; 

(8) The track owner maintains an 

information technology security 

program adequate to ensure the integrity 

of the system, including the prevention 

of unauthorized access to the records; 

and 

(9) Any amendment to a record shall 

be electronically stored apart from the 

record which it amends. Each 

amendment to a record shall be 

uniquely identified as to the person 

making the amendment. 

(j) Each vehicle/track interaction 

safety record required under 

§ 213.333(g) and (m) shall be made 

available for inspection and copying by 

the FRA at the locations specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Amitabha Bose, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24153 Filed 10–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1