66288 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

will send a copy of this Report and 

Order in a report to be sent to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

The Audio Division, at the request of 

Plan 9 Broadcasting, allots Channel 

229A at Port Angeles, Washington, as 

that community’s fifth local aural 

transmission service. The reference 

coordinates for Channel 229A at Port 

Angeles are 48–06–54 North Latitude 

and 123–26–36 West Longitude. This 

allotment is at city reference coordinates 

and requires no site restriction. Port 

Angeles is located within 320 

kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S.- 

Canadian border. Canadian concurrence 

has been requested for this allotment, as 

a specially negotiated short-spaced 

allotment because the proposed Port 

Angeles allotment is short-spaced to 

Canadian Station CJJR–FM, Channel 

229C, Vancouver, BC and vacant 

Channel 230A at Port Renfrew, BC. 

However, notification from Canada has 

not been received. Therefore, if a 

construction permit is granted prior to 

the receipt of formal concurrence in the 

allotment by the Canadian government, 

the construction permit will include the 

following condition: ‘‘Operation with 

the facilities specified for Port Angeles 

herein is subject to modification, 

suspension or, termination without right 

to hearing, if found by the Commission 

to be necessary in order to conform to 

the USA-Canadian FM Broadcast 

Agreement.’’

The Audio Division, at the request of 

Sutton Communications Company, 

allots Channel 249A at Ty Ty, Georgia, 

as that community’s first local aural 

transmission service. The reference 

coordinates for Channel 249A at Ty Ty 

are 31–34–01 North Latitude and 83–

40–07 West Longitude. This allotment 

requires a site restriction of 10.8 

kilometers (6.7 miles) north to avoid 

short-spacing to the application site of 

Station WDMG–FM, Channel 250A, 

Ambrose, Georgia and license site of 

Station WRAK–FM, Channel 247C, 

Bainbridge, Georgia. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

■ Accordingly, part 73 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Georgia, is amended 

by adding Ty Ty, Channel 249A. 

■ 3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Washington, is 

amended by adding Channel 240A at 

Goldendale; and by adding Port 

Angeles, Channel 229A. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 05–21548 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[FCC 05–175, MB Docket No. 04–312, RM–

11049] 

Television Broadcast Service; Phoenix 

and Holbrook, AZ 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the 

request of NBC Telemundo Phoenix, 

Inc. (Telemundo) and Community 

Television Educators, Inc. (CTE) has 

amended the Television Table of 

Allotments to remove the 

noncommercial reservation of analog 

Channel *39 at Phoenix, Arizona, and 

reserve analog Channel 11 for 

noncommercial educational use at 

Holbrook, Arizona. The Commission has 

also modified the license of 

Telemundo’s station KPHZ(TV) to 

specify Channel 39, Phoenix, and the 

license of CTE’s station KDTP(TV) to 

specify Channel *11, Holbrook. With 

this action, this proceeding is 

terminated. 

DATES: Effective November 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shaun Maher, Media Bureau, (202) 418–

1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, MB 

Docket No. 04–312, adopted October 5, 

2005, and released October 13, 2005. 

The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC. This 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 301–

816–2820, facsimile 301–816–0169, or 

via e-mail joshir@erols.com. 

This document does not contain new 

or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it 

does not contain any new or modified 

‘‘information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Memorandum Opinion and Order 

in a report to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television broadcasting, Television. 

■ Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 73—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.606 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.606(b), the Table of 

Television Allotments under Arizona, is 

amended by removing TV channel 11+ 

and adding TV channel *11+ at 

Holbrook. 

■ 3. Section 73.606(b), the Table of 

Television Allotments under Arizona, is 

amended by removing TV channel *39 

at Phoenix and adding TV channel 39, 

Phoenix. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–21869 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 213 

[Docket No. FRA 2005–22522] 

RIN 2130–AB71 

Track Safety Standards; Inspection of 

Joints in Continuous Welded Rail 

(CWR) 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66289 

1Rail joints commonly consist of two joint bars 

that are bolted to the sides of the rail and that 

contact the rail at the bottom surface of the rail head 

and the top surface of the rail base. 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: FRA is amending the Federal 

Track Safety Standards to improve the 

inspection of rail joints in continuous 

welded rail (CWR). This interim final 

rule (IFR) requires track owners to 

develop and implement a procedure for 

the detailed inspection of rail joints in 

CWR. This IFR also requires track 

owners to keep records of those 

inspections. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 2, 2005. 

(1) Written Comments: Written 

comments must be received on or before 

December 19, 2005. Comments received 

after that date will be considered to the 

extent possible without incurring 

additional expense or delay. 

(2) Public Hearing: Requests for a 

public hearing must be in writing and 

must be submitted to the Department of 

Transportation Docket Management 

System at the address below on or 

before December 19, 2005. If a public 

hearing is requested and scheduled, 

FRA will announce the date, location, 

and additional details concerning the 

hearing by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 

FRA 2005–22522 by any of the 

following methods: 

Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information provided. 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:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Chief 

Engineer—Structures, Office of Safety, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 25, 

Washington, DC 20590 

(Gordon.Davids@fra.dot.gov or 202–

493–6320); or Christina McDonald, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 10, 

Washington, DC 20590 

(Christina.McDonald@fra.dot.gov or 

202–493–6032). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) 

A. General 

CWR refers to the way in which rail 

is joined together to form track. In CWR, 

rails are welded together to form one 

continuous rail that may be several 

miles long. Although CWR is normally 

one continuous rail, there can be joints 1

in it for one or more reasons: The need 

for insulated joints that electrically 

separate track segments for signaling 

purposes, the need to terminate CWR 

installations at a segment of jointed rail, 

or the need to remove and replace a 

section of defective rail. 

B. Statutory and Regulatory History of 

CWR 

The Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) issued the first Federal Track 

Safety Standards in 1971. See 36 FR 

20336. FRA addressed CWR in a rather 

general manner, stating, in § 213.119, 

that railroads must install CWR at a rail 

temperature that prevents lateral 

displacement of track or pull-aparts of 

rail ends and that CWR should not be 

disturbed at rail temperatures higher 

than the installation or adjusted 

installation temperature. 

In 1982, FRA deleted § 213.119, 

because FRA believed it was so general 

in nature that it provided little guidance 

to railroads and it was difficult to 

enforce. See 47 FR 7275 and 47 FR 

39398. FRA stated that ‘‘While the 

importance of controlling thermal 

stresses within continuous welded rail 

has long been recognized, research has 

not advanced to the point where 

specific safety requirements can be 

established.’’ 47 FR 7279. FRA 

explained that continuing research 

might produce reliable data in this area 

in the future. 

In the Rail Safety Enforcement and 

Review Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–

365, September 3, 1992), Congress 

mandated that FRA evaluate procedures 

for installing and maintaining CWR. In 

1994, in the Federal Railroad Safety 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 103–272, 

July 5, 1994), Congress required DOT to 

evaluate cold weather installation 

procedures for CWR. In light of the 

evaluation of those procedures, as well 

as information resulting from FRA’s 

own research and development, FRA 

addressed CWR procedures by adding 

§ 213.119 during its 1998 revision of the 

Track Safety Standards. See 63 FR 

33992. 

Section 213.119, as added in 1998, 

requires railroads to develop procedures 

that, at a minimum, provide for the 

installation, adjustment, maintenance, 

and inspection of CWR, as well as a 

training program and minimal 

recordkeeping requirements. Section 

213.119 does not dictate which 

procedures a railroad must use in their 

CWR plans. It allows railroads to 

develop and implement their individual 

CWR plans based on procedures which 

have proven effective for them over the 

years. Accordingly, procedures can vary 

from railroad to railroad. 

II. SAFETEA–LU 

On August 10, 2005, President Bush 

signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), (Pub. 

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

Section 9005(a) of SAFETEA–LU 

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

new subsection (e) as follows: 

(e) Track Standards.—

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

date of enactment of this subsection, the 

Federal Railroad Administration shall—

(A) Require each track owner using 

continuous welded rail track to include 

procedures (in its procedures filed with the 

Administration pursuant to section 213.119 

of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations) to 

improve the identification of cracks in rail 

joint bars; 

(B) Instruct Administration track 

inspectors to obtain copies of the most recent 

continuous welded rail programs of each 

railroad within the inspectors’ areas of 

responsibility and require that inspectors use 

those programs when conducting track 

inspections; and 

(C) Establish a program to review 

continuous welded rail joint bar inspection 

data from railroads and Administration track 

inspectors periodically. 

(2) Inspection.—Whenever the 

Administration determines that it is 

necessary or appropriate, the Administration 

66290 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2NTSB Railroad Accident Report: Derailment of 

Canadian Pacific Railway Freight Train 292–16 and 

Subsequent Release of Anhydrous Ammonia Near 

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

RAR–04–01) (March 9, 2004). 

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

inserted into a length of CWR to replace a similar 

piece that was removed because of defects or 

damage. 

4NTSB Railroad Accident Report: Derailment of 

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

Flora, Mississippi, April 6, 2004 (NTSB/RAR–05/ 

02) (July 26, 2005). 

5NTSB Railroad Accident Brief: Accident No. 

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

2004). 

may require railroads to increase the 

frequency of inspection, or improve the 

methods of inspection, of joint bars in 

continuous welded rail. 

Pursuant to that mandate, FRA is 

revising the Track Safety Standards 

located in 49 CFR part 213. 

III. Train Accidents Involving Joints in 

CWR 

Since FRA’s 1998 revision of the 

Track Safety Standards, there have been 

a number of train accidents in which the 

failure of a rail joint in CWR was a 

factor. The National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) investigated three 

recent accidents and made 

recommendations to FRA concerning 

joints in CWR. The NTSB 

recommendations closely parallel the 

statutory mandate requiring this IFR. 

The three accidents and subsequent 

NTSB recommendations are described 

below. 

A. Derailment of Canadian Pacific 

Railroad Train 292–16 Near Minot, ND 

On January 18, 2002, Canadian Pacific 

Railway (CPR) freight train 292–15 

derailed 31 of its 112 cars about 1⁄2 mile 

west of the city limits of Minot, North 

Dakota. Five tank cars carrying 

anhydrous ammonia, a liquefied 

compressed gas, catastrophically 

ruptured, and a vapor plume covered 

the derailment site and surrounding 

area. About 11,600 people occupied the 

area affected by the vapor plume. One 

resident was fatally injured, and 60 to 

65 residents of the neighborhood nearest 

the derailment site were rescued. As a 

result of the accident, 11 people 

sustained serious injuries, and 322 

people, including the 2 train 

crewmembers, sustained major injuries. 

Damages exceeded $2 million, and more 

than $8 million has been spent in 

environmental remediation. 

In its Railroad Accident Report,2 the 

NTSB determined that the probable 

cause of the derailment was ‘‘an 

ineffective Canadian Pacific Railway 

inspection and maintenance program 

that did not identify and replace 

cracked joint bars before they 

completely fractured and led to the 

breaking of the rail at the joint.’’ The 

NTSB found that the catastrophic failure 

of five tank cars and the instantaneous 

release of 146,700 gallons of anhydrous 

ammonia also contributed to the 

severity of the accident. 

The NTSB issued several findings in 

its report. The NTSB found that the 

train derailed because joint bars at the 

east end of the plug rail 3 fractured 

(either under the previous train or as the 

accident train passed over the joint), 

and then, after the joint bars fractured, 

the rail itself also fractured and broke 

away. The NTSB found that CPR’s 

inspection procedures regarding rail 

joint bars in CWR were inadequate to 

properly inspect and maintain joints 

within CWR, and those inadequate 

procedures allowed undetected cracking 

in the joint bars at the accident location 

to grow to a critical size. In a similar 

vein, the NTSB found that FRA’s 

requirements regarding rail joint bars in 

CWR were ineffective, because they did 

not require on-the-ground visual 

inspections or nondestructive testing 

adequate to identify cracks before they 

grow to critical size and result in joint 

bar failure. 

The NTSB also found that FRA’s 

oversight of CPR’s CWR program was 

ineffective, because FRA neither 

reviewed the CWR program nor ensured 

that its track inspectors had copies of 

the CWR programs to determine if the 

railroad was in compliance with it. 

As a result of these findings, the 

NTSB made seven safety 

recommendations, of which the most 

relevant are quoted below. 

Require all railroads with continuous 

welded rail track to include procedures (in 

the programs that are filed with the Federal 

Railroad Administration) that prescribe onthe-ground visual inspections and 

nondestructive testing techniques for 

identifying cracks in rail joint bars before 

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

Establish a program to periodically review 

continuous welded rail joint bar inspection 

data from railroads and Federal Railroad 

Administration track inspectors and, when 

determined necessary, require railroads to 

increase the frequency or improve the 

methods of inspection of joint bars in 

continuous welded rail. (R–04–2). 

Instruct Federal Railroad Administration 

track inspectors to obtain copies of the most 

recent continuous welded rail programs of 

the railroads that fall within the inspectors’

areas of responsibility and require that 

inspectors use those programs when 

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

B. Derailment of Amtrak Train No. 58 

Near Flora, MS 

On April 6, 2004, National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train 

No. 58 (City of New Orleans) derailed 

on Canadian National Railway Company 

track near Flora, Mississippi. The entire 

train derailed, including one 

locomotive, one baggage car, and eight 

passenger cars. The derailment resulted 

in one fatality, three serious injuries, 

and 43 minor injuries. The equipment 

costs associated with the accident 

totaled about $7 million. 

In its Railroad Accident Report,4 the 

NTSB determined that the probable 

cause of the accident was ‘‘the failure of 

the Canadian National Railway 

Company to properly maintain and 

inspect its track, resulting in rail shift 

and the subsequent derailment of the 

train, and the Federal Railroad 

Administration’s ineffective oversight to 

ensure proper maintenance of the track 

by the railroad.’’

The NTSB made two 

recommendations to FRA, one of which 

is relevant to the discussion here. 

Emphasize to your track inspectors the 

importance of enforcing a railroad’s 

continuous welded rail program as a part of 

the Federal Track Safety Standards, and 

verify that inspectors are documenting 

noncompliance with the railroad’s program. 

(R–05–05). 

C. Derailment of Union Pacific Train 

ZLAMN–16 Near Pico Rivera, CA 

On October 16, 2004, Union Pacific 

(UP) freight train ZLAMN–16 derailed 3 

locomotives and 11 cars near Pico 

Rivera, California. Small amounts of 

hazardous materials were released from 

the transported cargo. There were no 

injuries to area residents, the train crew, 

or the emergency response personnel. 

UP estimated the monetary damage at 

$2.7 million. 

In its Railroad Accident Brief,5 the 

NTSB determined ‘‘that the probable 

cause of the derailment was the failure 

of a pair of insulated joint bars due to 

fatigue cracking. Contributing to the 

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

identifying cracks in rail joint bars 

before they grow to critical size.’’

The NTSB reiterated two of the 

recommendations that it had made to 

FRA after the Minot, North Dakota 

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

nondestructive testing techniques and 

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

joint bar inspection data. The NTSB 

further stated in its brief: 

The CWR track involved in the Pico Rivera 

accident had all the inspections required by 

the UP and the FRA. In some instances, the 

inspections were done more frequently than 

required. Nevertheless, the inspections failed 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66291 

to detect the developing problems and 

prevent the ultimate failure. Additionally, 

during the 2 days after the last inspection, 

more than 100 trains passed over the 

insulated joint bars without either 

discovering or reporting a defect. Trains 

traversed the area after the insulated joint 

bars were completely broken, as evidenced 

by the rail batter in both directions. 

Several indications of an imminent or 

actual defect were present before this 

accident, which the inspection from a 

moving vehicle did not discover: 

• The epoxy bead was missing from the 

center section of the insulated joint bar, 

indicating vertical movement. 

• The joint bars cracked before they 

completely fractured. Part of each crack was 

visible on the lower outer portion of the bar 

for some time before its failure. 

• Rail end batter developed when the joint 

bars completely fractured and trains 

continued to pass over them in both 

directions. 

These indications developed over time, 

and a close visual inspection from the ground 

would have likely uncovered the emerging 

problem and allowed corrective action to be 

taken to avoid the accident. 

IV. FRA’s Approach to CWR in This 

IFR 

Earlier versions of § 213.119 did not 

require track owners to include any 

provisions in their CWR plan related to 

joints in CWR. Track owners were 

required simply to address joints in 

CWR in the same manner as they 

addressed joints in conventional jointed 

rail. See 49 CFR 213.121. This IFR now 

requires track owners to specifically 

address joints in CWR in their 

respective CWR plans. 

To meet the statutory requirement 

that FRA issue this regulation within 90 

days of the enactment of SAFETEA–LU, 

FRA is issuing this IFR. This IFR 

addresses 49 U.S.C. 20142(e)(1)(A) and 

(e)(1)(C) (hereinafter referred to as 

(e)(1)(A) and (e)(1)(C)). Because 49 

U.S.C. 20142(e)(1)(B) does not require 

regulatory action on the part of FRA, 

FRA is not addressing it in this 

rulemaking. 

Subparagraph (e)(1)(A) mandates that 

FRA require each track owner to 

‘‘include procedures * * * to improve 

the identification of cracks in rail joint 

bars.’’ Congress did not specify how 

FRA should effect that improvement. 

One way of improving the identification 

of such cracks is through on-foot 

inspection of joints in CWR. Because 

most cracks in joint bars can be detected 

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

identifying joint failure. Accordingly, 

FRA is requiring railroads to conduct 

periodic and special on-foot inspections 

of CWR joints. See 213.119(g)(1). 

Rather than limit these on-foot 

inspections to the identification of joint 

bar cracks, FRA is requiring track 

owners to also inspect for joint 

conditions that can lead to the 

development of joint bar cracks. Track 

owners should inspect all safety-critical 

aspects of joints, including any 

indications of potential failure of the 

joint itself; any indications of potential 

failure of any components of the joint 

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

and track fasteners); and the track itself 

in the vicinity of the joint (including the 

effectiveness of rail anchors or other 

devices for restraint of longitudinal 

movement of the rail). In the rule, FRA 

lists examples of conditions that may 

indicate potential failure. This list is not 

all-inclusive. There are several other 

conditions, and FRA urges track owners 

to consider all conditions, not just the 

listed examples. 

In doing this, railroads will address 

the root of the problem—i.e., preventing 

cracks from developing—rather than 

merely reacting to cracks after they have 

developed. It is understood that certain 

conditions involving rail joints and the 

surrounding CWR contribute to the 

development and propagation of cracks 

in rail joints. If track inspectors can 

inspect for these conditions, detect 

these conditions, and provide 

information so that railroads can correct 

these conditions, it will reduce the 

probability of joint failures and 

subsequent train accidents. 

Furthermore, this preventive 

approach is more appropriate given that 

the development of a crack in a rail joint 

bar can progress at an unpredictable 

rate. Some cracks might exist for years 

without causing a rupture of the joint, 

while other cracks can progress rapidly 

from an undetectable size to complete 

failure. For example, a joint can 

completely fail under a single impact 

load if the joint is subjected to low 

temperatures and very high-tension 

forces. 

FRA believes that the time and effort 

it takes a track inspector to perform a 

complete inspection will be minimal 

while the benefit of a complete 

inspection will be high. Once a track 

inspector has arrived at a location to 

inspect a joint and begun inspecting that 

joint, it takes little time and effort (over 

and above the effort to search for and 

identify cracks in joint bars) for him or 

her to note the condition of the entire 

joint and its surroundings. There are 

both safety and management benefits to 

a complete inspection. The safety 

benefit is obvious in that it prevents 

derailments. As for management 

benefits, track owners will save money 

and time, because it is easier and more 

cost effective to repair incipient joint 

conditions than actual joint cracks. For 

example, it is more economical to 

replace joint bolts or to reset rail 

anchors (i.e., incipient failure 

conditions) than it is to replace a joint 

bar after it has developed a crack. 

FRA realizes that inspections at a 

frequency that could detect incipient 

cracks prior to the possibility of failure 

in every case are not feasible given the 

current levels of railroad staffing and in 

light of the impediments to train 

operations that would result from 

restrictions required to provide for the 

safety and mobility of inspection 

personnel. However, proper preparation 

and maintenance of joints, together with 

appropriate instructions, can reduce the 

frequency of crack formation and also 

prevent rapid propagation in most 

cases—making a program of inspection 

both more feasible and more cost 

effective. 

Subparagraph (e)(1)(C) requires that 

FRA ‘‘establish a program to 

[periodically] review continuous 

welded rail joint bar inspection data’’

from railroads and FRA track inspectors. 

Clearly, FRA can gather and review the 

joint bar inspection data from its own 

inspectors’ inspections. However, in 

order for FRA to review railroad CWR 

joint bar inspection data, track owners 

must gather that data and make it 

available to FRA for review. 

Accordingly, this rule now requires 

track owners to keep this data and make 

it available to FRA. See § 213.119(i)(3). 

In order to effectively manage the 

joint inspection process, a track owner 

must be able to clearly locate and 

identify each joint to be inspected. 

Location means that the inspector 

knows the right place to go. 

Identification means that the inspector 

can find the proper joint. The location 

might be in miles to the nearest onehundredth or in Global Positioning 

System (GPS) coordinates to the nearest 

ten meters. Because there could be 

several joints (e.g., three or four) in that 

same location, the identification of the 

joint will resolve that ambiguity. The 

identification might be a unique mark 

on the joint or a description in the 

record (e.g., first joint in the south rail 

of Track 2, 37 feet west of the insulated 

joint at Signal 109.2). 

A track owner will need to pass on 

this information to maintenance groups 

responsible for remedying the 

deficiencies found during inspections. It 

is important that track owners provide 

accurate information on the location of 

the joint and a clear identification of the 

joint, to ensure that the maintenance 

groups are working in the right place. 

An adequate inspection process must 

also identify the joints that have 

received the required inspection and 

66292 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

6The Rail Integrity Task Force is a joint FRA/ 

industry working group. It was convened in April 

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

industry regarding the inspection, maintenance, 

and replacement of rail. The goal of the task force 

is to ‘‘reduce rail-related accidents and casualties 

resulting from derailments caused by broken rail.’’

The task force is comprised of subject-matter 

experts from the major heavy-haul railroads, the 

Association of American Railroads, FRA’s Office of 

Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA’s Office of 

Railroad Development, as well as technical support 

from the Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center. The task force has also requested and 

received input from all of the service providers in 

the field of nondestructive testing of rail. 

those that are due for inspection. This 

ensures that the track owner performs 

inspections at the required frequency. 

FRA notes that, in many cases, this 

same information is already required to 

carry out existing CWR plans since most 

joints in CWR territory are now socalled ‘‘temporary joints’’ that 

correspond with locations where 

adjustment of the track structure is 

needed to prevent track buckling that 

results from a combination of thermal 

inputs and disturbance at other-thanneutral temperature. These joints, in 

most cases, were created when a section 

of the rail was cut out to remove an 

internal flaw. 

There is not yet an established, 

efficient method for detecting cracks in 

joint bars by means of automated nondestructive testing (NDT). FRA believes 

that such a system might be developed, 

and that a requirement for effective joint 

bar inspection by either visual or other 

effective means can provide an 

incentive for the railroad industry to 

develop such a system. FRA is aware 

that some railroads do employ portable, 

hand-held equipment to conduct NDT 

of joint bars. 

Use of this NDT technology, in 

addition to careful visual inspection, is 

encouraged where judged effective. 

However, FRA notes that there is 

insufficient engineering data to establish 

the effectiveness of NDT techniques as 

applied to joint bars in the service 

environment. Further, as illustrated by 

the ongoing examination of NDT 

technology and services by the joint 

FRA/industry Rail Integrity Task Force,6

operator qualification and quality 

control remain areas of concern. 

Accordingly, FRA focuses the 

‘‘benchmark’’ inspection requirements 

of this IFR on visual inspection by a 

qualified track inspector. 

FRA requests comments on this IFR. 

FRA will consider any comments it 

receives and where appropriate, revise 

the final rule accordingly. In addition, 

FRA had provided the Railroad Safety 

Advisory Committee (RSAC) with an 

opportunity to review the prospective 

comments to this IFR. There was a 

meeting of the full RSAC on October 11, 

2005. At that time, FRA offered the 

RSAC the task of reviewing comments 

to the IFR and more generally 

examining the status of railroad CWR 

plans, including joint integrity. The 

RSAC would have been free to suggest 

improvements to this IFR, together with 

other proposals that will advance the 

safety of train operations over CWR 

track, however the RSAC was unable to 

agree upon a task statement (defining 

the scope of the activity) that would 

meet the needs of each of the major 

stakeholder organizations whose 

participation would have been required 

in a RSAC working group. Failing 

consensus among the major 

stakeholders, FRA indicated that a task 

may be offered at a subsequent meeting. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 213.119, in General 

FRA is revising § 213.119 by requiring 

track owners to incorporate into their 

CWR plans written procedures on the 

inspection of joints in CWR. This will 

require most track owners to amend 

their existing CWR plans. Track owners 

must also create and maintain records of 

these inspections. FRA provides details 

of these new provisions below. 

Section 213.119(g) 

Paragraph (g) requires each track 

owner to include in its CWR plan 

provisions for the scheduling and 

conducting of joint inspections. A 

person who is qualified under § 213.7 

should perform these inspections on 

foot at the joint. 

Section 213.119(g)(1) 

New subparagraph (g)(1) identifies 

those items relating to joint inspections 

which track owners must address in 

their CWR plans. FRA notes that these 

items are the minimum, which track 

owners should address. Track owners 

are, of course, free to include additional 

items in their respective CWR plans. 

This subparagraph refers to both 

periodic and special on-foot 

inspections. ‘‘Periodic inspections’’ are 

those inspections of joints in CWR that 

railroads will conduct on a regular 

basis. ‘‘Special inspections’’ are those 

inspections that track owners should 

initiate in response to (1) indications of 

damage to a joint, (2) environmental 

conditions, including severe cold 

weather, that can adversely effect the 

integrity of the joint, or (3) other 

unusual circumstances concerning a 

joint. 

Track inspectors should identify and 

record these listed items during their 

inspections of joints, because these 

items are related to the integrity of the 

joint and thus, to the safety of trains that 

operate over the joint. 

Joint bars with visible or otherwise 

detectable cracks. These cracks should 

be identified, because they can progress 

at an unpredictable rate, leading to the 

eventual rupture of the joint bar and 

then the misalignment of the rails and 

a derailment. 

Loose, bent, or missing joint bolt. The 

bolts through the joint bars and rail ends 

are a vital component of the joint. Bolts 

are supposed to keep joint bars firmly 

supported to the joint. Where bolts are 

missing, loose, or bent, the bolts will fail 

to keep the joint bars firmly in contact 

with the rails. The rails are then liable 

to separate when there is cold weather 

and the cold weather causes hightension forces through the joint. 

Bolts in joints with bars that are 

separated from the web of the rail at the 

bolt holes tend to fail when the bolts 

bend. When the bolts bend beyond their 

elastic limit, they lose their design 

tension, and they are no longer capable 

of holding the joint bars firmly against 

the rail. The joint then permits the rails 

to move in relation to each other under 

passing wheels, causing increased 

impact loads on the joint and battering 

of the adjoining rail ends. This can 

potentially lead to cracks and eventually 

fracture of the joint bars or rail ends. 

Rail end batter or mismatch that 

contributes to impact loads and 

instability of the joint. Rail end batter 

refers to the displacement of rail steel in 

the tread at the end of the rail. Rail end 

batter occurs when wheels pass over a 

joint and (1) the rails are pulled apart to 

the extent that the wheels can drop 

slightly into the gap, and/or (2) the rail 

ends are mismatched. Rail ends can be 

mismatched because joint bolts are 

loose or because the rails do not match 

when installed. 

Excessive rail end batter causes high 

impact forces on all components of the 

joint; this can cause the joint bar or the 

rail to rupture. Also, vibrations at a 

battered joint can cause loss of 

consolidation of ballast at the joint, 

leaving the joint vulnerable to thermal 

buckling when high compressive forces 

are generated in the rails. 

Evidence of excessive longitudinal rail 

movement in or near the joint, 

including, but not limited to, wide rail 

gap, defective joint bolts, disturbed 

ballast, surface deviations, gap between 

tie plates and rail, or displaced rail 

anchors. Longitudinal rail movement is 

evidence that the rails might not be 

securely anchored, that excessive 

tension forces are developing in the rail 

when it is cold, or that the joint bolts 

have lost their clamping properties after 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66293 

7See footnote 6 supra. 

being stretched in bending. As wheels 

pass over and drop into the gap, there 

are high impact forces on the joint. This 

can have the same consequences as 

described above for rail end batter. 

These tension forces, combined with 

additional impact loads, have a 

tendency to cause cracks and to cause 

rupture of joint bars and rail. 

Section 213.119(g)(2) 

This subsection requires track owners 

to do the following when formulating 

the procedures under § 213.119(g)(1): (1) 

Implement a system for identifying 

joints in CWR; (2) institute a procedure 

to inventory joints in CWR; (3) specify 

the conditions of potential joint failure 

for which personnel must inspect 

(including, at a minimum, the items 

listed in subparagraph (g)(1)); (4) specify 

the remedial action that personnel 

should take when they discover joints 

that are out of compliance with either 

part 213 or the track owner’s CWR plan; 

and (5) specify the timing of 

inspections. 

Subparagraph (g)(2)(v) requires track 

owners to specify the timing of 

inspections. It also establishes 

minimum inspection frequencies for 

certain joints. The differences are based 

on the class of track and the operation 

of passenger trains. The rule requires all 

joints in CWR in track classes 4 and 

higher to be inspected before October 

31, 2006 and within 190 days of the 

previous inspection thereafter. It 

requires all joints in class 3, and class 

2 track on which passenger trains 

operate, to be inspected before April 30, 

2007 and within 370 days of the 

previous inspection thereafter. FRA 

requires railroads to conduct 

inspections more frequently for the 

higher class tracks (classes 4, 5, and 6), 

because trains operate over these tracks 

at a faster speed and therefore the 

consequences of an accident are much 

more serious. 

The rule does not establish minimum 

inspection frequencies for joints in class 

1 track, or class 2 track over which 

passenger trains do not operate. FRA 

believes that the costs would outweigh 

the benefits if FRA set minimums for all 

the lower classes of tracks. In addition, 

trains that operate over the lower classes 

of track do so at slower speeds and so 

there is less risk of accident and less 

serious consequences of an accident. 

FRA emphasizes that the inspection 

frequency in subparagraph (g)(2)(v) is a 

minimum requirement. FRA notes that 

certain joints, due to their configuration, 

condition, or environmental 

circumstances, will probably require 

more frequent inspections. Examples 

would be joints with only four bolts, 

joints that give an indication of high rail 

tension loads, or joints in segments of 

track subject to wide variations of 

temperature. FRA also notes that joints 

in CWR often provide the first 

indication of thermal rail distress (either 

high compressive or tension forces) or 

incipient buckling. Therefore it would 

be prudent for a track owner to include 

provisions that pay special attention to 

joints where there are likely to be 

temperature extremes at either end of 

the spectrum. 

For a rail joint management program 

to be effective, the results of an 

inspection must be clearly associated 

with the joint that has been inspected. 

This is necessary so that a work group 

dispatched to repair a joint will be able 

to locate the joint and confirm that they 

are at the correct location. It is up to the 

track owner to determine the method of 

identification and correlation. Possible 

methods include marking the joint or 

the adjacent track with a unique number 

or using Global Positioning System 

receivers. 

FRA notes that part 213 has existing 

requirements addressing rail joints, 

including requirements for remediating 

cracked or broken joint bars. For 

instance, pursuant to § 213.121(b), ‘‘if a 

joint bar on Classes 3 through 5 track is 

cracked, broken, or because of wear 

allows excessive vertical movement of 

either rail when all bolts are tight, it 

shall be replaced.’’ Also, pursuant to 

§ 213.121(b), ‘‘if a joint bar is cracked or 

broken between the middle two bolt 

holes it shall be replaced.’’ Existing 

requirements for rail joints will 

continue to apply to all rail joints, 

regardless of whether the rail joints are 

in CWR or in conventional jointed rail. 

See § 213.121. 

Section 213.119(g)(3) 

This subsection permits a track owner 

to devise an alternate program for the 

inspection of joints in CWR. A track 

owner seeking to deviate from the 

minimum inspection frequencies 

specified in §§ 213.119(g)(1) and (2) 

should submit the alternate procedures 

and a supporting statement of 

justification to FRA’s Associate 

Administrator for Safety (Associate 

Administrator). In the supporting 

statement, the track owner must include 

data and analysis that establishes to the 

satisfaction of the Associate 

Administrator for Safety that the 

alternate procedures provide at least an 

equivalent level of safety across the 

railroad. 

If the Associate Administrator for 

Safety approves the alternate 

procedures, the Associate Administrator 

will notify the track owner of such 

approval in writing. In that written 

notification, the Associate 

Administrator will specify the date on 

which the alternate procedures will 

become effective. After that date, the 

track owner shall comply with the 

approved procedures. If the Associate 

Administrator determines that the 

alternate procedures do not provide an 

equivalent level of safety, the Associate 

Administrator will disapprove the 

alternate procedures in writing. While a 

determination is pending with the 

Associate Administrator, the track 

owner shall continue to comply with 

the requirements contained in 

§§ 213.119(g)(1) and (2). 

FRA expects that the track owner will 

include a risk analysis in its supporting 

statement of justification for alternate 

procedures. The risk analysis, whether 

qualitative or quantitative, should 

demonstrate that the track owner’s 

program is at least as good (as applied 

across the entire railroad) as the 

benchmark level of inspection that FRA 

mandates in this IFR. The risk analysis 

would likely address such issues as 

tonnage, grades, curvature, prior joint 

failure rates (with respect to frequency), 

type of traffic, average train speed, and 

proximity to populations. The track 

owner might use risk analysis 

techniques to focus more frequent 

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

approaches to bridges, close proximity 

to populated areas, heavy tonnage, 

significant hazardous materials traffic), 

while utilizing a lesser frequency at 

other locations and optimizing safety 

and efficiency. 

FRA will be most anxious to learn 

when an efficient, effective, and 

economical automated procedure for 

joint bar inspection is developed. To 

this end, FRA is making efforts to 

explore new technologies for inspecting 

joint bars. FRA’s Office of Research and 

Development is currently funding 

research to develop an automated, 

vehicle-mounted, visual imaging system 

that can survey joint bars across a 

territory by recording digital 

photographic images and generating the 

data to exception reports. 

The Rail Integrity Task Force,7 a joint 

FRA/industry working group, is also 

exploring the conditions under which 

railroads can more effectively detect 

joint bar cracks. One of the primary 

objectives of this Task Force is to review 

industry best practices for the 

inspection, maintenance, and 

replacement of rail. The Task Force is 

examining options for vehicle-mounted 

non-destructive testing that might, at a 

future date, provide the ability to detect 

66294 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

both internal defects as well as cracks in 

joint bars. 

Technology (including frequent 

automated track geometry surveys) and 

sound CWR management, including 

prompt removal of so-called 

‘‘temporary’’ joints, may provide the 

additional information required to 

verify the ongoing integrity of joints in 

CWR. The alternative procedures 

provision of this IFR will allow track 

owners to take advantage of these new 

approaches as they become available. 

Sections 213.119(h)–(j) 

With the addition of a new section 

213.119(g), FRA has renumbered the old 

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

requirements previously located in 

§ 213.119(g) are now located in 

§ 213.119(h). The recordkeeping 

requirements previously located in 

§ 213.119(h) are now located in 

§ 213.119(i). The definitions section 

formerly located in § 213.119(i) are now 

located in § 213.119(j). 

Section 213.119(i) 

Paragraph (i) contains the 

recordkeeping requirements for 

railroads that have track constructed of 

CWR. At a minimum, railroads must 

keep records of the items listed in 

§ 213.119(i)(1) through (i)(3). With this 

interim final rule, FRA has added the 

recordkeeping requirement listed in 

(i)(3). 

Subparagraph (i)(3)(A) provides that 

railroads must keep records of joint 

inspections. The record must include, at 

the most basic level, the fact that 

personnel performed an inspection of 

the joint. The record must include the 

location of each joint, and each joint 

must be identified with sufficient 

precision that personnel could 

subsequently locate and identify the 

joint without ambiguity. In addition, the 

record must clearly convey the results of 

the inspection of each joint, so that the 

personnel correcting the deficiencies 

will know what actions they must take. 

Finally, the record must include the 

remedial action required (if any) by the 

track owner’s CWR plan. Subparagraph 

(i)(3)(B) provides that track owners must 

maintain these joint inspection records 

in accordance with § 213.241. 

Section 213.241(b) 

FRA has added § 213.119 to the list of 

sections in § 213.241(b), thereby 

requiring that inspections of joints made 

pursuant to § 213.119 comply with the 

inspection record requirements found in 

§ 213.241(b). 

Section 213.343(j) 

Subpart G of Part 213 contains the 

track safety standards for train 

operations at track classes 6 and higher. 

Section 213.343 (which is found in 

subpart G) contains the CWR 

requirements for train operations at 

track classes 6 and higher. FRA is 

adding paragraph (j) to 213.343. It 

applies the joint bar inspection 

requirements in the revised 213.119 to 

train operations at track classes 6 and 

higher. Accordingly, § 213.343(j) states 

that track owners shall revise their CWR 

plans to include provisions for the 

inspection of joint bars in accordance 

with §§ 213.119(g) and (i)(3). 

Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

FRA made a minor change to the 

Schedule of Civil Penalties. Because 

FRA added a new paragraph to 

§ 213.119, FRA adjusted the civil 

penalty schedule accordingly. 

VI. Regulatory Impact 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rule has been evaluated in 

accordance with existing policies and 

procedures and determined to be nonsignificant under both Executive Order 

128566 and DOT policies and 

procedures. 44 FR 11034; February 26, 

1979. 

As part of the regulatory impact 

analysis, FRA has assessed a 

quantitative measurement of costs and 

benefits expected from the 

implementation of this interim final 

rule. The major costs anticipated from 

implementing this IFR include: the 

modification of existing CWR plans, the 

modification of existing software to take 

an inventory, and the deterioration of 

safety on track other than that with 

CWR joints. The major benefit 

anticipated from implementing this IFR 

will be a decrease in rule-affected 

accidents. 

The rule will result in an initial cost 

of $137,000. Depending upon the 

railroad’s implementation, it may also 

result in an increase of some accidents 

of $20,000 per year and a decrease in 

rule-affected accidents of $790,000 per 

year, for a net decrease in accident costs 

of $770,000. This yields a net benefit of 

$653,000 in the first year and $770,000 

per year in subsequent years. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

a review of proposed and final rules to 

assess their impact on small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) stipulates in its ‘‘Size Standards’’

that the largest a railroad business firm 

that is ‘‘for-profit’’ may be, and still be 

classified as a ‘‘small entity’’ is 1,500 

employees for ‘‘Line-Haul Operating 

Railroads,’’ and 500 employees for 

‘‘Switching and Terminal 

Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small entity’’ is 

defined in the Act as a small business 

concern that is not independently 

owned and operated, and is not 

dominant in its field of operation. SBA’s 

‘‘size standards’’ may be altered by 

federal agencies after consultation with 

SBA and in conjunction with public 

comment. Pursuant to that authority, 

FRA has published a final policy, which 

formally establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as 

railroads that meet the line haulage 

revenue requirements of a Class III 

railroad. The revenue requirements are 

currently $20 million or less in annual 

operating revenue. The $20 million 

limit (which is adjusted by applying the 

railroad revenue deflator adjustment) is 

based on the Surface Transportation 

Board’s (STB) threshold for a Class III 

railroad carrier. FRA uses the same 

revenue dollar limit to determine 

whether a railroad or shipper or 

contractor is a small entity. 

In this IFR, there are approximately 

200 small railroads that have CWR and 

are affected. FRA has adopted a phasein to minimize the significant economic 

impact on these small entities. As FRA 

is publishing this rule as an IFR in order 

to comply with statutory requirements, 

FRA has not received any comments 

yet. FRA requests comments on this 

economic analysis and encourages small 

entities to comment on the impact on 

small entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this IFR have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

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

contains the new information collection 

requirements is noted and the estimated 

time to fulfill each of the other 

requirements is as follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66295 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total amount 

burden hours 

Total annual 

burden cost 

213.4—Excepted Track 

—Designation of track as excepted .... 200 railroads .......... 20 orders ............... 15 minutes ............. 5 $190 

—Notification to FRA about removal of 

excepted track.

200 railroads .......... 15 notifications ....... 10 minutes ............. 3 114 

213.5—Responsibility of track owners ....... 685 railroads .......... 10 notifications ....... 8 hours ................... 80 3,040 

213.7—Designation of qualified persons to 

supervise certain renewals and inspect 

track 

—Designations .................................... 685 railroads .......... 1,500 names .......... 10 minutes ............. 250 9,500 

—Designations (partially qualified) 

under paragraph (c) of this section.

685 railroads .......... 250 names ............. 10 minutes ............. 42 1,596 

213.17—Waivers ........................................ 685 railroads .......... 6 petitions .............. 24 hours ................. 144 5,472 

213.57—Curves, elevation and speed limitations 

—Request to FRA for approval ........... 685 railroads .......... 2 requests .............. 40 hours ................. 80 3,040 

—Notification to FRA with written consent of other affected track owners.685 railroads .......... 2 notifications ......... 45 minutes ............. 2 76 

—Test Plans For Higher Curving 

Speeds.

1 railroad ................ 2 test plans ............ 16 hours ................. 32 1,216 

213.110—Gage Restraint Measurement 

Systems (GRMS)—Implementing 

GRMS—Notices & Reports.

685 railroads .......... 10 notifications + 2 

tech rpts.

45 min./4 hours ...... 16 608 

—GRMS Vehicle Output Reports ........ 685 railroads .......... 50 reports .............. 5 minutes ............... 4 152 

—GRMS Vehicle Exception Reports ... 685 railroads .......... 50 reports ............... 5 minutes ............... 4 152 

—GRMS/PTLF—Procedures For Data 

Integrity.

685 railroads .......... 4 proc. Docs. ......... 2 hours ................... 8 305 

—GRMS Training Programs/Sessions 685 railroads .......... 2 prog. + 5 sess. ... 16 hours ................. 112 4,256 

—GRMS Inspection Records .............. 685 railroads .......... 50 records .............. 2 hours ................... 100 3,800 

213.119—Continuous welded rail (CWR), 

general 

(g) Written procedures for CWR (New) ...... 239 railroads/ 

ASLRRA.

240 modif. proc. ..... 3 hrs./1 hr. ............. 320 0 (Included in 

IFA RIA) 

667,652 

—Alternate Procedures For Rail Joints 

(New).

239 railroads .......... 7 letters + 7 proc. .. 30 min. + 953 hrs. 6,675 667,652 

—Training Programs For CWR Procedures (New).239 railroads/ 

ASLRRA.

240 training Prog. .. 2 hea./12 hours ..... 490 18,620 

—Record Keeping ............................... 239 railroads .......... 2,000 records ......... 10 minutes ............. 233 12,654 

—Record Keeping For CWR Rail 

Joints (New).

239 railroads .......... 360,000 rcds. ......... 2 minutes ............... 12,000 456,000 

—Periodic Records For CWR Rail 

Joints (New).

239 railroads .......... 480,000 rcds. ......... 1 minute ................. 8,000 304,000 

213.233—Track inspections ....................... 685 railroads .......... 2,500 inspections ... 1 minute ................. 42 1,512 

213.241—Inspection records ...................... 685 railroads .......... 1,542,089 rcds ....... Varies ..................... 1,672,941 60,225,876 

213.303—Responsibility for Compliance .... 2 railroads .............. 1 petition ................ 8 hours ................... 8 304 

213.305—Designation of qualified individuals; general qualifications.2 railroads .............. 150 designations ... 10 minutes ............. 25 950 

—Designations (Partially qualified) ..... 2 railroads .............. 20 designations ...... 10 minutes ............. 3 114 

213.317—Waivers ...................................... 2 railroads .............. 1 petition ................ 24 hours ................. 24 912

213.329—Curves, elevation and speed 

limitations 

—FRA approval of qualified equipment and higher curving speeds.2 railroads .............. 3 notifications ......... 40 hours ................. 120 4,560 

—Written notification to FRA with written consent of other affected track 

owners.

2 railroads .............. 3 notifications ......... 45 minutes ............. 2 76 

2213.333—Automated Vehicle Inspection System.

—Track Geometry Measurement System.3 railroads .............. 18 reports ............... 20 hours ................. 360 12,960 

—Track/Vehicle Performance Measurement System: 

—Copies of most recent exception 

printouts.

2 railroads .............. 13 printouts ............ 20 hours ................. 260 9,360 

213.341—Initial inspection of new rail and 

welds 

—Mill inspection .................................. 2 railroads .............. 2 reports ................ 8 hours ................... 16 608 

—Welding plan inspection ................... 2 railroads .............. 2 reports ................ 8 hours ................... 16 608 

—Inspection of field welds .................. 2 railroads .............. 125 records ............ 20 minutes ............. 42 1,596 

213.343—Continuous welded rail (CWR) 

—Recordkeeping ................................. 2 railroads .............. 150 records ............ 10 minutes ............. 25 950 

213.345—Vehicle qualification testing ........ 1 railroad ................ 2 reports ................ 16 hours ................. 32 1,216 

66296 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total amount 

burden hours 

Total annual 

burden cost 

213.347—Automotive or Railroad Crossings at grade—Protection Plans.1 railroad ................ 2 plans ................... 8 hours ................... 16 608 

213.369—Inspection Records 

—Record of inspection ........................ 2 railroads .............. 500 records ............ 1 minute ................. 8 288 

—Internal defect inspections and remedial action taken.2 railroads .............. 50 records .............. 5 minutes ............... 4 144 

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 function 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. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact 

Robert Brogan via e-mail at 

Robert.Brogan@fra.dot.gov. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the Federal Railroad 

Administration, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 

20503, and should also send a copy of 

their comments to Robert Brogan, 

Federal Railroad Administration, MS–

25, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, 20590; or to Victor Angelo, 

Federal Railroad Administration, MS–

35, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, 20590. Comments may also 

be sent electronically via e-mail to Mr. 

Brogan at Robert.Brogan@fra.dot.gov or 

to Mr. Angelo at 

Victor.Angelo@fra.dot.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this IFR 

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 IFR will respond to 

any OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this IFR. 

FRA cannot impose a penalty on 

persons for violating information 

collection requirements, which do not 

display a current OMB control number, 

if required. FRA intends to obtain 

current OMB control numbers for any 

new information collection 

requirements resulting from this 

rulemaking action prior to the effective 

date of a final rule. The OMB control 

number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

D. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated these revised track 

safety regulations in accordance with its 

procedures for ensuring full 

consideration of the potential 

environmental impacts of FRA actions, 

as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and DOT 

Order 5610.1c. This IFR meets the 

criteria that establish this as a non-major 

action for environmental purposes. 

E. Federalism Implications 

FRA has analyzed this IFR in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which 

directs Federal agencies to exercise great 

care in establishing policies that have 

federalism implications. See 64 FR 

42355. This IFR will not have a 

substantial effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. This IFR will not have 

federalism implications that impose any 

direct compliance costs on State and 

local governments. FRA believes that 

this IFR has no federalism implications, 

other than the preemption of state laws 

covering the subject matter of this IFR, 

which occurs by operation of law under 

49 U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a 

rule or order. 

F. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to Section 201 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each 

Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

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

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in the expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and 

before promulgating any final rule for 

which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, the agency 

shall prepare a written statement’’

detailing the effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. This IFR will not result in the 

expenditure, in the aggregate, of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year, 

and thus preparation of such a 

statement is not required. 

G. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001). Under the Executive Order a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

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

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. FRA has 

evaluated this IFR in accordance with 

Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this IFR is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Consequently, FRA has determined that 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66297 

this IFR is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ within the meaning of the 

Executive Order. 

H. Privacy Act Statement 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of DOT’s dockets by 

the name of the individual submitting 

the comment (or signing the comment, 

if submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement published in the Federal 

Register on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, 

Number 70, Pages 19477–78) or you 

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

List of Subjects 

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Interim Final Rule 

Issuance of Interim Final Rule; Request 

for Public Comment 

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq.) requires that, before 

issuing a rule, the agency provide notice 

and the opportunity for public comment 

(§ 553(b)(3)(B)), except ‘‘when the 

agency for good cause finds (and 

incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefore in the 

rules issued) that notice and public 

procedures thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to public 

interest.’’ FRA finds that the delay 

inherent to normal notice and comment 

rulemaking would be impractical if FRA 

intends to fulfill the SAFETEA–LU 

statutory mandate that requirements be 

implemented within 90 days. FRA has 

acted both immediately to implement 

this mandate and has deferred other, 

conflicting work. FRA would be unable 

to meet the statutory requirement for 

prompt action if FRA were to issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking, receive 

public comment, consider comments 

received, and prepare and issue a final 

rule. FRA also finds that further delay 

would be contrary to the public interest, 

given the strong safety concerns 

expressed by the underlying statute. 

FRA believes that Congress clearly 

intended that FRA issue this rule in so 

short a time period in order to help 

prevent additional train accidents 

caused by the failure of joints in CWR 

in the very near term. Allowing time for 

full notice and comment procedure 

would frustrate this intent and could 

potentially result in train accidents that 

would otherwise be avoided by 

adherence to the new requirements in 

this rule. The public interest clearly 

supports issuance of this IFR in order to 

avoid such consequences. 

FRA requests comment on this IFR, 

and as required by § 20103(e) of the 

Federal Railroad Safety Act, as codified 

(49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.), will provide 

an opportunity for oral comment if it is 

requested prior to the expiration of the 

comment period. 

FRA has made this rule effective 30 

days after the date of publication. 

Although FRA has considered making 

this rule effective immediately, FRA 

believes that railroads need time to 

prepare amendments to their CWR 

plans, to put administrative systems in 

order supporting this IFR, and to 

disseminate necessary information to 

their personnel effected by this rule. 

Making the rule effective within 30 days 

will expedite resolution of any petitions 

for reconsideration and hasten 

implementation of the rule. See 49 CFR 

211.29. Note that the compliance date 

for placing the revised CWR plan in 

place is 60 days following the 

publication of this rule, allowing time 

for resolution of any petitions for 

reconsideration, including any 

necessary technical corrections pointed 

out by any such petition, while ensuring 

prompt implementation. The interval 

between the effective date and the 

compliance date also provides an 

opportunity for official review of any 

alternative implementations. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Railroad 

Administration amends part 213 of 

chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, Code 

of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 213—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 213 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and 

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

1.49(m). 

■ 2. Section 213.119 is amended by 

revising the introductory language and 

paragraph (g) through (i) and by adding 

a new paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 213.119 Continuous welded rail (CWR); 

general 

Each track owner with track 

constructed of CWR shall have in effect 

and comply with a plan that contains 

written procedures which address: the 

installation, adjustment, maintenance 

and inspection of CWR; inspection of 

joints in CWR; and a training program 

for the application of those procedures. 

The plan shall be submitted to the 

Federal Railroad Administration by 

March 22, 1999. FRA reviews each plan 

for compliance with the following—

* * * * * 

(g) Procedures which prescribe the 

scheduling and conduct of physical 

track inspections to detect cracks and 

other indications of incipient failures in 

joints in CWR. This paragraph is 

effective January 3, 2006. 

(1) At a minimum, these procedures 

shall address periodic and special onfoot inspection of joints and of the track 

adjacent to joints, in order to identify—

(i) Joint bars with visible or otherwise 

detectable cracks; 

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

(iii) Rail end batter or mismatch that 

contributes to impact loads and 

instability of the joint; and 

(iv) Evidence of excessive 

longitudinal rail movement in or near 

the joint, including, but not limited to, 

wide rail gap, defective joint bolts, 

disturbed ballast, surface deviations, 

gap between tie plates and rail, or 

displaced rail anchors. 

(2) In formulating the procedures 

under paragraph (g)(1) of this section, 

the track owner shall—

(i) Implement a system for identifying 

each joint by its location in track with 

sufficient precision that personnel can 

return to the joint and identify it 

without ambiguity; 

(ii) List each joint in an inventory that 

will enable personnel to identify joints 

due for periodic inspection; 

(iii) Specify the conditions of 

potential joint failure for which 

personnel must inspect, including, at a 

minimum, the items listed in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section; 

(iv) Specify the appropriate remedial 

actions, consistent with this part, that 

should be taken when personnel find 

conditions of potential joint failure; and 

(v) Specify the timing of the 

inspections, which should be based on 

the configuration and condition of the 

joint. At a minimum, track owners must 

specify that all joints in CWR in track 

classes 4 and higher must be inspected 

before October 31, 2006 and within 190 

days of the previous inspection 

hereafter; and all joints in CWR in track 

classes 3, and class 2 track on which 

passenger trains operate, must be 

inspected before April 30, 2007 and 

within 370 days of the previous 

inspection thereafter. 

(3) In lieu of the requirements for the 

inspection of rail joints contained in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section, 

a track owner may seek approval from 

FRA to use alternate procedures. 

(i) The track owner shall submit the 

alternate procedures and a supporting 

statement of justification to the 

Associate Administrator for Safety 

(Associate Administrator). 

(ii) If the Associate Administrator 

finds that the alternate procedures 

66298 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

provide an equivalent or higher level of 

safety than the requirements in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this 

section, the Associate Administrator 

will approve the alternate procedures by 

notifying the track owner in writing. 

The Associate Administrator will 

specify in the written notification the 

date on which the procedures will 

become effective, and after that date, the 

track owner shall comply with the 

procedures. If the Associate 

Administrator determines that the 

alternate procedures do not provide an 

equivalent level of safety, the Associate 

Administrator will disapprove the 

alternate procedures in writing, and the 

track owner shall continue to comply 

with the requirements in paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(iii) While a determination is pending 

with the Associate Administrator on a 

request submitted pursuant to paragraph 

(g)(3) of this section, the track owner 

shall continue to comply with the 

requirements contained in paragraphs 

(g)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(h) The track owner shall have in 

effect a comprehensive training program 

for the application of these written CWR 

procedures, with provisions for periodic 

re-training, for those individuals 

designated under § 213.7 as qualified to 

supervise the installation, adjustment, 

and maintenance of CWR track and to 

perform inspections of CWR track. 

(i) The track owner shall prescribe 

recordkeeping requirements necessary 

to provide an adequate history of track 

constructed with CWR. At a minimum, 

these records must include: 

(1) Rail temperature, location and date 

of CWR installations. This record shall 

be retained for at least one year; 

(2) A record of any CWR installation 

or maintenance work that does not 

conform with the written procedures. 

Such record shall include the location 

of the rail and be maintained until the 

CWR is brought into conformance with 

such procedures; 

(3) Information on inspection of rail 

joints. 

(i) After the initial inspection of each 

joint in accordance with paragraph (g) of 

this section, the track owner must 

include in the record: 

(A) The location of each joint in CWR 

with such precision that the joint can be 

located and identified in the field with 

no ambiguity; 

(B) The results of the inspection of 

each joint; and 

(C) Any remedial action required 

under the track owner’s CWR plan. 

(ii) Track owners shall maintain 

records required by paragraph (i)(3)(i) in 

accordance with § 213.241. 

(j) As used in this section—

(1) Adjusting/De-stressing means the 

procedure by which a rail’s temperature 

is re-adjusted to the desired value. It 

typically consists of cutting the rail and 

removing rail anchoring devices, which 

provides for the necessary expansion 

and contraction, and then re-assembling 

the track. 

(2) Buckling Incident means the 

formation of a lateral mis-alinement 

sufficient in magnitude to constitute a 

deviation from the Class 1 requirements 

specified in § 213.55. These normally 

occur when rail temperatures are 

relatively high and are caused by high 

longitudinal compressive forces. 

(3) Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) 

means rail that has been welded 

together into lengths exceeding 400 feet. 

(4) Desired Rail Installation 

Temperature Range means the rail 

temperature range, within a specific 

geographical area, at which forces in 

CWR should not cause a buckling 

incident in extreme heat, or a pull-apart 

during extreme cold weather. 

(5) Disturbed Track means the 

disturbance of the roadbed or ballast 

section, as a result of track maintenance 

or any other event, which reduces the 

lateral or longitudinal resistance of the 

track, or both. 

(6) Mechanical Stabilization means a 

type of procedure used to restore track 

resistance to disturbed track following 

certain maintenance operations. This 

procedure may incorporate dynamic 

track stabilizers or ballast consolidators, 

which are units of work equipment that 

are used as a substitute for the 

stabilization action provided by the 

passage of tonnage trains. 

(7) Rail Anchors means those devices 

which are attached to the rail and bear 

against the side of the crosstie to control 

longitudinal rail movement. Certain 

types of rail fasteners also act as rail 

anchors and control longitudinal rail 

movement by exerting a downward 

clamping force on the upper surface of 

the rail base. 

(8) Rail Temperature means the 

temperature of the rail, measured with 

a rail thermometer. 

(9) Tight/Kinky Rail means CWR 

which exhibits minute alinement 

irregularities which indicate that the rail 

is in a considerable amount of 

compression. 

(10) Train-induced Forces means the 

vertical, longitudinal, and lateral 

dynamic forces which are generated 

during train movement and which can 

contribute to the buckling potential. 

(11) Track Lateral Resistance means 

the resistance provided by the rail/ 

crosstie structure against lateral 

displacement. 

(12) Track Longitudinal Resistance 

means the resistance provided by the 

rail anchors/rail fasteners and the 

ballast section to the rail/crosstie 

structure against longitudinal 

displacement. 

■ 3. Section 213.241(b) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 213.241 Inspection records. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each record of an inspection under 

§§ 213.4, 213.119, 213.233, and 213.235 

shall be prepared on the day the 

inspection is made and signed by the 

person making the inspection. Records 

shall specify the track inspected, date 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 

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 

owner shall also designate one location, 

within 100 miles of each state in which 

they conduct operations, where copies 

of records which apply to those 

operations are either maintained or can 

be viewed following 10 days notice by 

the Federal Railroad Administration. 

■ 4. Section 213.343 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (j) to read as 

follows: 

§ 213.343 Continuous welded rail (CWR). 

* * * * * 

(j) Track owners shall revise their 

CWR plans to include provisions for the 

inspection of joint bars in accordance 

with §§ 213.119(g) and (i)(3). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66299 

■ 5. Appendix B to part 213 is amended 

by revising the entry for § 213.119 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of 

Civil Penalties 

Section Violation Willful violation 

* * * * * * * 

§ 213.119 Continuous welded rail 

(a) through (i) .................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500 

* * * * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 26, 

2006. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Federal Railroad Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–21845 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P