52490 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

assessment for such year;’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘(1) In a form and manner 

specified by the Secretary, that the EP 

more frequently than is required to 

qualify for or maintain board 

certification status, participates in the 

MOCP for a year and successfully 

completes a qualified MOCP practice 

assessment for such year;’’. 

c. Third column, first bulleted 

paragraph, line 20, the phrase ‘‘her or 

participate’’ is corrected to read ‘‘EHR or 

participate’’. 

30. On page 40200, third column, fifth 

bulleted paragraph that begins with the 

phrase ‘‘The board has signed’’ is 

corrected to read as follows: 

‘‘• The board has signed 

documentation from the EP that the EP 

wishes to have their information 

released to CMS; 

• Information from the experience of 

care survey;’’. 

31. On page 40207, third column, 

before the third full paragraph, in the 

section heading, line 1, the section 

number ‘‘(2)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(ii)’’. 

32. On page 40217, first column, fifth 

full paragraph, lines 8 through 10, the 

phrase ‘‘independent determination 

from the CBIC’s recommendation to 

terminate’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘independent recommendation whether 

to terminate’’. 

33. On page 40225, lower third of the 

page, third column, before the last 

paragraph, in the section heading, the 

section number ‘‘3.’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘2.’’. 

34. On page 40243— 

a. Second column— 

(1) Second full paragraph, lines 5 

through 7, the phrase ‘‘to physicians or 

other practitioners (as defined by the 

Secretary)’’ is corrected to read ‘‘to 

physicians, other practitioners (as 

defined by the Secretary), or hospitals’’. 

(2) Last paragraph— 

(a) Lines 2 and 3, the phrase 

‘‘physicians and other providers’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘physicians, other 

practitioners, and hospitals’’. 

(b) Lines 3 and 4, the phrase, ‘‘allow 

physicians to continue’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘allow physicians, other 

practitioners, and hospitals to 

continue’’. 

b. Third column, first partial 

paragraph, lines 4 through 6, the phrase, 

‘‘continued access to OTS items for 

beneficiaries while being seen in their 

physician’s office.’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘access to these items for beneficiaries 

when these items are furnished by 

physicians, other practitioners, and 

hospitals to their own patients.’’ 

35. On page 40244, second column, 

first full paragraph— 

a. Line 5, the phrase ‘‘switching 

beneficiaries’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘incentivizing beneficiaries to switch’’. 

b. Line 19, the phrase, ‘‘do require 

beneficiaries’’ is corrected to ‘‘do not 

require beneficiaries’’. 

B. Corrections to the Regulations Text 

1. On page 40259, second column, 

first partial paragraph 

§ 414.904(d)(3)(iii)(A)— 

a. Line 3, the phrase ‘‘quarters; 

immediately preceding’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘quarters, immediately preceding’’. 

b. Last line, the phrase ‘‘apply; and,’’ 

is corrected to read ‘‘apply; and’’. 

IV. Waiver of 60-Day Comment Period 

We ordinarily permit a 60-day 

comment period on a notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, as 

provided in section 1871(b)(1) of the 

Act. However, this period may be 

shortened, as provided under section 

1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when the 

Secretary finds good cause that a 60-day 

comment period would be 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest and incorporates a 

statement of the finding and its reasons 

in the rule issued. 

The changes made by this correction 

notice do not constitute agency 

rulemaking, and therefore the 60-day 

comment period does not apply. This 

correction notice merely corrects 

typographical and technical errors in 

the CY 2011 Physician Fee Schedule 

proposed rule and does not make 

substantive changes to the CY 2011 

Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule 

appearing in the July 13, 2010 Federal 

Register that would require additional 

time on which to comment. Instead, this 

correction notice is intended to ensure 

the accuracy of the CY 2011 Physician 

Fee Schedule proposed rule. To the 

extent that the 60-day comment period 

does apply, we find good cause to 

shorten the period for the reasons set 

forth above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital 

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, 

Medicare—Supplementary Medical 

Insurance Program) 

Dated: August 23, 2010. 

Dawn L. Smalls, 

Executive Secretary to the Department. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21255 Filed 8–23–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 213 

[Docket No. FRA–2009–0007, Notice No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AC01 

Track Safety Standards; Concrete 

Crossties 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend 

the Federal Track Safety Standards to 

promote the safety of railroad operations 

over track constructed with concrete 

crossties. In particular, FRA is 

proposing specific requirements for 

effective concrete crossties, for rail 

fastening systems connected to concrete 

crossties, and for automated inspections 

of track constructed with concrete 

crossties. In addition, FRA is proposing 

to remove the provision on preemptive 

effect. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by October 12, 2010. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional delay or 

expense. 

FRA anticipates being able to resolve 

this rulemaking without a public, oral 

hearing. However if FRA receives a 

specific request for a public, oral 

hearing prior to September 27, 2010, 

one will be scheduled and FRA will 

publish a supplemental notice in the 

Federal Register to inform interested 

parties of the date, time, and location of 

any such hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments 

related to this Docket No. FRA–2009– 

0007, Notice No. 1 may be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52491 

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

States,’’ International Journal Prestressed Concrete 

Vol. 14 No. 1, February 1969. 

2 ‘‘Prestressed concrete crosstie investigation,’’ 

AAR, Engineering research division, Report No. 

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

Ruble, ‘‘Service Test on Prestressed Concrete 

Crossties,’’ Railway Track and Structures, 

September 1960. 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 

Please note that all comments received 

will be posted without change to 

http://www.Regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the discussion under the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.Regulations.gov at any time or 

visit the Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building, Ground floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Office of 

Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

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

Grimmer Yurasko, Trial Attorney, Office 

of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: (202) 493–6390). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Concrete Crossties 

A. Derailment in 2005 Near Home Valley, 

Washington 

B. General Factual Background on Concrete 

Crossties 

C. Statutory Mandate To Conduct This 

Rulemaking 

II. Overview of FRA’s Railroad Safety 

Advisory Committee (RSAC) 

III. RSAC Track Safety Standards Working 

Group 

IV. FRA’s Approach to Concrete Crossties in 

This NPRM 

A. Rail Cant 

B. Automated Inspections 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Environmental Impact 

E. Federalism Implications 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Energy Impact 

H. Privacy Act Statement 

I. Concrete Crossties 

A. Derailment in 2005 Near Home 

Valley, Washington 

On April 3, 2005, a National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

passenger train traveling at 60 miles per 

hour on the BNSF Railway Company’s 

line through the Columbia River Gorge 

(near Home Valley, Washington) 

derailed on a 3-degree curve. According 

to the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB), 30 people sustained 

injuries. Property damage totaled about 

$854,000. See NTSB/RAB–06–03. 

According to the NTSB, the accident 

was caused in part by excessive 

concrete crosstie abrasion, which 

allowed the outer rail to rotate outward 

and create a wide gage track condition. 

This accident illustrated the potential 

for track failure with subsequent 

derailment under conditions that might 

not be readily evident in a normal visual 

track inspection. Conditions giving rise 

to this risk may include concrete tie rail 

seat abrasion, track curvature, and 

operation of trains through curves at 

speeds leading to unbalance (which is 

more typical of passenger operations). 

Subsequently, this accident also called 

attention to the need for clearer and 

more appropriate requirements for 

concrete ties, in general. This proposed 

rule addresses this complex of issues as 

further described below. 

B. General Factual Background on 

Concrete Crossties 

Traditionally, crossties have been 

made of wood, but due to improved 

continuous welded rail processes, 

elastic fastener technology, and concrete 

prestressing techniques, the use of 

concrete crossties is widespread and 

growing. On major railroads in the 

United States, concrete crossties make 

up an estimated 20 percent of all 

installed crossties. A major advantage of 

concrete crossties is that they transmit 

imposed wheel loads better than 

traditional wood crossties, although 

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

concrete crossties over wood ties is that 

temperature change has little effect on 

concrete’s durability, and concrete ties 

often provide better resistance from 

track buckling. 

There are, however, situations that 

can negatively impact a concrete 

crosstie’s effectiveness. For example, in 

wet climates, eccentric wheel loads and 

noncompliant track geometry can cause 

high-concentrated non-uniform 

dynamic loading, usually toward the 

field-side of the concrete rail base. This 

highly-concentrated non-uniform 

dynamic loading puts stress on the 

crosstie that can lead to the 

development of a fracture. Additionally, 

repeated wheel loading rapidly 

accelerates rail seat deterioration where 

the padding material fails and the rail 

steel is in direct contact with the 

concrete. The use of automated 

technology can help inspectors ensure 

rail safety on track constructed of 

concrete crossties. While wood and 

concrete crossties differ structurally, 

they both must still support the track in 

compliance with the Federal Track 

Safety Standards (49 CFR part 213). 

Although timber crossties are more 

prevalent throughout track in the United 

States, the use of concrete crossties in 

the railroad industry, either 

experimentally or under revenue 

service, dates back to 1893. The first 

railroad to use concrete crossties was 

the Philadelphia and Reading Company 

in Germantown, PA.1 In 1961, the 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) 2 carried out comprehensive 

laboratory and field tests on prestressed 

concrete crosstie performance. 

Replacing timber crossties with concrete 

crossties on a one-to-one basis at 191⁄2

inch spacing proved acceptable based 

on engineering performance, but was 

uneconomical. 

Increasing crosstie spacing from the 

conventional 20 inches to 30 inches 

increased the rail bending stress and the 

load that each crosstie transmitted to the 

ballast; however, the increased rail 

bending stress was within design limits. 

Further, by increasing the crosstie base 

to 12 inches, the pressure transmitted 

from crosstie to ballast was the same as 

for timber crossties. Thus, by increasing 

the spacing of the crossties while 

maintaining rail, crosstie, and ballast 

stress at acceptable levels, the initial 

research showed that fewer concrete 

crossties than timber crossties could be 

used, making the application of concrete 

crossties an economical alternative to 

timber crossties. 

Early research efforts in the 1960s and 

1970s were focused on the strength 

characteristics of concrete crossties, i.e., 

bending at the top center and at the 

bottom of the crosstie under the rail seat 

or the rail-crosstie interface, and 

material optimization such as aggregate 

and prestressing tendons and concrete 

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

regarding the use of concrete crossties in 

the United States in the 1970s were led 

by a major research effort to optimize 

crosstie design at the Portland Cement 

Association Laboratories (PCA). 

The PCA’s research included the use 

of various shapes, sizes, and materials to 

develop the most economically 

desirable concrete crosstie possible. 

Extensive use of concrete crossties by 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52492 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

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

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

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

railroads all over the world since the 

1970s indicates that concrete crossties 

are an acceptable design alternative for 

use in modern track. Test sections on 

various railroads were set up in the 

1970s to evaluate the performance of 

concrete crossties. Such installations 

were on the Alaska Railroad, Chessie 

System, The Atchison, Topeka and 

Santa Fe Railway Company, the Norfolk 

and Western Railway Company, and the 

Facility for Accelerated Service Testing 

(FAST) in Pueblo, Colorado.3

During the 1970s, PCA addressed 

several of the initial concrete design 

problems, including quality control 

issues and abrasion. Abrasion, or failure 

of the concrete surface between the rail 

and crossties, became apparent when 

large sections of track were converted to 

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

This phenomenon, commonly termed 

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

form or another on four major railroads 

in North America (or their 

predecessors): Canadian Pacific Railway 

(CP); Canadian National Railway (CN); 

BNSF; and Union Pacific Railroad 

Company (UP).4 CN’s concrete crosstie 

program started in 1976, and researchers 

noted that rail seat abrasion was 

generally less than 0.2 inches by 1991. 

In a few cases, particularly on curved 

track, rail seat abrasion of as much as 

1 inch has been noted. In the majority 

of cases, especially on tangent or light 

curvature track, rail seat abrasion was 

uniform across the rail seat. BNSF 

started its program in 1986 and noted 

the same pattern of abrasion as CN with 

most of the abrasion occurring on 

curves. At CP, rail seat abrasion was 

present on 5-degree curves, and CP used 

a bonded pad to reduce rail seat 

abrasion. CP’s experience indicated that 

evidence of abrasion appeared shortly 

after failure of the bonded pad. At other 

locations where test sites were set up 

under less severe environments, 

concrete crossties were installed with 

no apparent sign of rail seat abrasion. 

Mechanisms that lead to rail seat 

abrasion include the development of 

abrasive slurry between the rail pad and 

the concrete crosstie. Slurry is made up 

of various materials including dust 

particles, fine material from the 

breakdown of the ballast particles, 

grinding debris from rail grinders, and 

sand from locomotive sanding or blown 

by the wind. This slurry, driven by the 

rail movement, abrades the concrete 

surface and leaves the concrete 

aggregate exposed, generating 

concentrated forces on the rail pads. 

This abrasion process is accelerated 

once the pad is substantially degraded 

and the rail base makes direct contact 

with the concrete crosstie. 

Recently, a new form of rail seat 

abrasion, which is believed to be 

attributable to excessive compression 

forces on the rail seat area, was noted on 

high-curvature territory. The wear 

patterns in these locations have a 

triangular shape when viewed from the 

side of the crosstie. These wear patterns 

are similar in shape to the rail seat 

pressure distribution calculated when a 

vertical load and overturning moment 

are applied. The high vertical and 

lateral forces applied to the high rail by 

a curving vehicle provide such a vertical 

load and an overturning moment that 

loads the rail base unevenly. 

Anecdotal evidence indicates that 

once this triangular shape wear pattern 

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

referenced from the field side, a high 

negative cant is created, leading to high 

compressive forces on the field side. 

These forces are high even in the 

absence of an overturning moment since 

the rail is now bearing on only a fraction 

of the original bearing area. Further, it 

is believed that once the rail seat wears 

to this triangular shape, the degradation 

rate is accelerated due to the high 

compressive forces. 

It is apparent that at this time, 

elimination of rail seat abrasion in 

existing concrete crossties would be 

difficult in areas with severe operating 

conditions. Mitigation of the problem on 

new or existing crossties is required. For 

new crosstie construction, it is possible 

to focus research efforts on 

strengthening the rail seat area with use 

of high-strength concrete or with 

embedding a steel plate at the time new 

crossties are cast. Both options have a 

high probability of success, but could 

render concrete crossties uneconomical. 

Modern concrete crossties are 

designed to accept the stresses imposed 

by irregular rail head geometry and loss, 

excessive wheel loading caused by 

wheel irregularities (out of round), 

excessive unbalance speed, and track 

geometry defects. In developing the 

proposed regulatory text, FRA 

considered the worst combinations of 

conditions, which can cause excessive 

impact and eccentric loading stresses 

that would increase failure rates. FRA 

also considered other measures in the 

proposed requirements concerning loss 

of toeload and longitudinal and lateral 

restraint, in addition to improper rail 

cant. 

C. Statutory Mandate To Conduct This 

Rulemaking 

On October 16, 2008, the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110– 

432, Division A) (‘‘RSIA’’) was enacted. 

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

later than 18 months after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

shall promulgate regulations for 

concrete cross ties. In developing the 

regulations for class 1 through 5 track, 

the Secretary may address, as 

appropriate—(1) limits for rail seat 

abrasion; (2) concrete cross tie pad wear 

limits; (3) missing or broken rail 

fasteners; (4) loss of appropriate toeload 

pressure; (5) improper fastener 

configurations; and (6) excessive lateral 

rail movement.’’ The Secretary delegated 

his responsibilities under RSIA to the 

Administrator of FRA. See 49 CFR 

1.49(oo). 

Regulations governing the use of 

concrete crossties currently address 

only high-speed rail operations (Class 6 

track and above).5 For track Classes 

1–5 (the lower speed classes of track), 

concrete crossties have been treated, 

from the regulatory aspect, as timber 

crossties. While this approach works 

well for the major concerns with 

concrete crossties, it does not address 

the critical issue of rail seat abrasion, 

which this NPRM proposes to address. 

Also not addressed in the current 

regulation is the longitudinal rail 

restraint provided by concrete crossties, 

which is totally different than the 

restraint provided by timber crossties. 

This NPRM addresses these 

shortcomings and proposes new 

methodologies for inspection. 

II. Overview of FRA’s Railroad Safety 

Advisory Committee (RSAC) 

In March 1996, FRA established 

RSAC, which provides a forum for 

developing consensus recommendations 

to the Administrator of FRA on 

rulemakings and other safety program 

issues. RSAC includes representation 

from all of the agency’s major 

stakeholders, including railroads, labor 

organizations, suppliers and 

manufacturers, and other interested 

parties. An alphabetical list of RSAC 

members follows: 

AAR; 

American Association of Private 

Railroad Car Owners; 

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials; 

American Chemistry Council; 

American Petrochemical Institute; 

American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA); 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52493 

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

classes of track[,] safety standards for concrete 

crossties that address at a minimum the following: 

limits for rail seat abrasion, concrete crosstie pad 

wear limits, missing or broken rail fasteners, loss of 

appropriate toeload pressure, improper fastener 

configurations, and excessive lateral rail 

movement.’’ NTSB Safety Recommendation R–06– 

19, dated October 25, 2006. 

American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA); 

American Train Dispatchers 

Association; 

Amtrak; 

Association of Railway Museums; 

Association of State Rail Safety 

Managers (ASRSM); 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen (BLET); 

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division (BMWED); 

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS); 

Chlorine Institute; 

Federal Transit Administration;* 

Fertilizer Institute; 

High Speed Ground Transportation 

Association; 

Institute of Makers of Explosives; 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers; 

International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers; 

Labor Council for Latin American 

Advancement;* 

League of Railway Industry Women;* 

National Association of Railroad 

Passengers; 

National Association of Railway 

Business Women;* 

National Conference of Firemen & 

Oilers; 

National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association; 

NTSB;* 

Railway Supply Institute; 

Safe Travel America; 

Secretaria de Comunicaciones y 

Transporte;* 

Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association; 

Tourist Railway Association Inc.; 

Transport Canada;* 

Transport Workers Union of America; 

Transportation Communications 

International Union/BRC; 

Transportation Security Administration; 

and 

United Transportation Union (UTU). 

*Indicates associate, non-voting 

membership. 

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task 

to RSAC, and after consideration and 

debate, RSAC may accept or reject the 

task. If the task is accepted, RSAC 

establishes a working group that 

possesses the appropriate expertise and 

representation of interests to develop 

recommendations to FRA for action on 

the task. These recommendations are 

developed by consensus. A working 

group may establish one or more task 

forces to develop facts and options on 

a particular aspect of a given task. The 

task force then provides that 

information to the working group for 

consideration. 

If a working group comes to a 

unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

package is presented to the full RSAC 

for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by 

a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal 

is formally recommended to FRA. FRA 

then determines what action to take on 

the recommendation. Because FRA staff 

members play an active role at the 

working group level in discussing the 

issues and options and in drafting the 

language of the consensus proposal, 

FRA is often favorably inclined toward 

the RSAC recommendation. 

However, FRA is in no way bound to 

follow the recommendation, and the 

agency exercises its independent 

judgment on whether the recommended 

rule achieves the agency’s regulatory 

goals, is soundly supported, and is in 

accordance with policy and legal 

requirements. Often, FRA varies in some 

respects from the RSAC 

recommendation in developing the 

actual regulatory proposal or final rule. 

Any such variations would be noted and 

explained in the rulemaking document 

issued by FRA. If the working group or 

RSAC is unable to reach consensus on 

recommendations for action, FRA 

moves ahead to resolve the issue 

through traditional rulemaking 

proceedings. 

III. RSAC Track Safety Standards 

Working Group 

The Track Safety Standards Working 

Group (‘‘Working Group’’) was formed 

on February 22, 2006. On October 27, 

2007, the Working Group formed two 

subcommittees: The Rail Integrity Task 

Force (‘‘RITF’’) and the Concrete Crosstie 

Task Force (‘‘CCTF’’). Principally in 

response to NTSB recommendation R– 

06–19,6 the task statement description 

for the CCTF was to consider 

improvements in the Track Safety 

Standards related to fastening of rail to 

concrete crossties. The newly formed 

CCTF was directed to do the following: 

(1) Provide background information 

regarding the amount and use of 

concrete crossties in the U.S. rail 

network; (2) review minimum safety 

requirements in the Federal Track 

Safety Standards for crossties at 49 CFR 

213.109 and 213.335, as well as relevant 

American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association 

(AREMA) concrete construction 

specifications; (3) understand the 

science (mechanical and compressive 

forces) of rail seat failure on concrete 

ties; (4) develop a performance 

specification for all types of crosstie 

material for FRA Class 2 through 5 main 

line track; (5) develop specifications for 

missing or broken concrete fastener and 

crosstie track structure components 

and/or establish wear limits for rail seat 

deterioration and rail fastener integrity; 

and (6) develop manual and automated 

methods to detect rail seat failure on 

concrete ties. 

The CCTF met on November 26–27, 

2007; February 13–14, 2008; April 

16–17, 2008; July 9–10, 2008; and 

November 19–20, 2008. The CCTF’s 

findings were reported to the Working 

Group on November 19, 2008. The 

Working Group reached a consensus on 

the majority of the CCTF’s work and 

forwarded a proposal to RSAC on 

December 10, 2008. RSAC voted to 

approve the Working Group’s 

recommended text, which is the basis of 

this NPRM. 

In addition to FRA staff, the members 

of the Working Group include the 

following: 

AAR, including members from BNSF, 

CN, CP, CSX Transportation, Inc., The 

Kansas City Southern Railway 

Company, Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company, and UP; 

Amtrak; 

APTA, including members from Port 

Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 

LTK Engineering Services, Northeast 

Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad 

Corporation (Metra), and Peninsula 

Corridor Joint Powers Board 

(Caltrain); 

ASLRRA (representing short line and 

regional railroads); 

BLET; 

BMWED; 

BRS; 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.; 

and 

UTU. 

Staff from the Department of 

Transportation’s John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center attended 

all of the meetings and contributed to 

the technical discussions. In addition, 

NTSB staff attended all of the meetings 

and contributed to the discussions as 

well. 

When appropriate, FRA assigns a task 

to RSAC, and after consideration and 

debate, RSAC may accept or reject the 

task. If the task is accepted, RSAC 

establishes a working group that 

possesses the appropriate expertise and 

representation of interests to develop 

recommendations to FRA for action on 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the task. These recommendations are 

developed by consensus. A working 

group may establish one or more task 

forces to develop facts and options on 

a particular aspect of a given task. The 

task force then provides that 

information to the working group for 

consideration. If a working group comes 

to unanimous consensus on 

recommendations for action, the 

package is presented to the full RSAC 

for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by 

a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal 

is formally recommended to FRA. FRA 

then determines what action to take on 

the recommendation. Because FRA staff 

plays an active role at the working 

group level in discussing the issues and 

options and in drafting the language of 

the consensus proposal, FRA is often 

favorably inclined toward the RSAC 

recommendation. 

However, FRA is in no way bound to 

follow the recommendation, and the 

agency exercises its independent 

judgment on whether the recommended 

rule achieves the agency’s regulatory 

goal, is soundly supported, and is in 

accordance with policy and legal 

requirements. Often, FRA varies in some 

respects from the RSAC 

recommendation in developing the 

actual regulatory proposal or final rule. 

Any such variations would be noted and 

explained in the rulemaking document 

issued by FRA. If the working group or 

RSAC is unable to reach consensus on 

recommendations for action, FRA 

moves ahead to resolve the issue 

through traditional rulemaking 

proceedings. 

FRA has worked closely with RSAC 

in developing its recommendations and 

believes that the RSAC has effectively 

addressed concerns with regard to the 

safety of concrete crossties. FRA has 

greatly benefited from the open, 

informed exchange of information 

during the meetings. There is a general 

consensus among railroads, rail labor 

organizations, State safety managers, 

and FRA concerning the primary 

principles that FRA sets forth in this 

NPRM. FRA believes that the expertise 

possessed by the RSAC representatives 

enhances the value of the 

recommendations, and FRA has made 

every effort to incorporate them in this 

proposed rule. 

The Working Group was unable to 

reach consensus on one item that FRA 

has elected to include in this NPRM. 

The Working Group could not reach 

consensus on a single technology or 

methodology to measure the rail seat 

deterioration on concrete ties. Also, the 

group debated over whether or not the 

revised standards should contain 

language to accommodate the present 

technology. Encouraging public 

comment on this particular issue, FRA 

is proposing at 49 CFR 213.234(e) that 

the automated inspection measurement 

system must be capable of measuring 

and processing rail cant requirements 

that specify the following: (1) An 

accuracy angle, in degrees, to within 1⁄2

of a degree; (2) a distance-based 

sampling interval not exceeding two 

feet; and (3) calibration procedures and 

parameters assigned to the system, 

which assure that measured and 

recorded values accurately represent rail 

cant. 

IV. FRA’s Approach to Concrete 

Crossties in This NPRM 

In this NPRM, FRA is proposing 

standards for the maintenance of 

concrete crossties in Classes 1 through 

5 track. Specifically, FRA is proposing 

requirements to establish limits for rail 

seat abrasion, concrete crosstie pad wear 

limits, missing or broken rail fasteners, 

loss of appropriate toeload pressure, 

improper faster configuration, and 

excessive lateral rail movement. FRA is 

also proposing to add a section 

requiring the automated inspection of 

track constructed with concrete 

crossties. 

In developing this NPRM, FRA relied 

heavily upon the work of the CCTF. The 

mission statement of the CCTF was to 

consider available scientific and 

empirical data or direct new studies to 

evaluate the concrete crosstie rail seat 

deterioration phenomenon and, through 

consensus, propose best practices, 

inspection criteria, or standards to 

assure concrete crosstie safety. The 

members of the CCTF worked together 

to develop definitions and terminology 

as required and to disseminate pertinent 

information and safety concerns. 

The Federal Track Safety Standards 

prescribe minimum track geometry and 

structure requirements for specific 

railroad track conditions existing in 

isolation. Railroads are expected to 

maintain higher safety standards, and 

are not precluded from prescribing 

additional or more stringent 

requirements. 

Currently, crossties are evaluated 

individually by the definitional and 

functional criteria set forth in the 

regulations. As promulgated in 49 CFR 

213.109, crosstie ‘‘effectiveness’’ is 

naturally subjective, short of failure of 

the ties, and requires good judgment in 

the application and interpretation of the 

standard. The soundness of a crosstie is 

demonstrated when a 39-foot track 

segment maintains safe track geometry 

and structurally supports the imposed 

wheel loads with minimal deviation. 

Key to the track segment lateral, 

longitudinal, and vertical support is a 

strong track modulus, which is a 

measure of the vertical stiffness of the 

rail foundation, sustained by a superior 

superstructure (including rails, 

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

transmit both dynamic and thermal 

loads to the subgrade. Proper drainage 

free from excess moisture presence is an 

apparent and crucial factor in providing 

structural support. 

A. Rail Cant 

The Working Group discussed the 

concept of rail cant, but determined not 

to regulate this track geometric 

condition. The rail cant angle is 

described by AREMA as a degree of 

slope (cant) designed toward the 

centerline of the crosstie. FRA does not 

specifically use the term ‘‘rail cant’’ in 

any of its track regulations, including 

the standards in subpart G of part 213, 

which apply to track used for the 

operation of trains at greater than 90 

miles per hour (mph) for passenger 

equipment and at greater than 80 mph 

for freight equipment (track Classes 6 

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

widely accepted and understood in the 

rail industry, and FRA has decided to 

use the term in the proposed rule. ‘‘Rail 

cant deviation’’ refers to the inward or 

outward angle made by the rail when 

the rail seat pad material deteriorates to 

a point that exposes the rail base to the 

concrete. 

Automated technology that measures 

rail cant deviations exceeding proper 

design criteria is extremely efficient in 

identifying problems with the rail/ 

crosstie interface such as rail seat 

abrasion (deterioration), ineffective 

fasteners, crosstie plate cutting (wood), 

missing or worn crosstie pads, and rail/ 

plate misalignment. The deterioration or 

abrasion is the result of a compressive 

load and/or mechanical effects of 

deterioration from repetitious 

concentrated wheel loading, which 

typically develops a triangular void on 

the field side of the rail and allows the 

rail to tilt or roll outward under load, 

increasing gage widening and possible 

rail rollover relationships. 

The CCTF could not reach consensus 

on a single technology or methodology 

to measure the rail cant angle when the 

concrete crosstie rail seat deteriorates. 

Also, the CCTF could not reach 

consensus on whether the revised 

standards should contain language to 

accommodate the present technology. 

The CCTF therefore recommended that 

FRA and the industry continue 

evaluating the possibility of developing 

rail seat deterioration standards for 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52495 

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

notes that track geometry can become irregular 

when multiple geometry measurements (gage, 

profile, or alinement) near the compliance limits. 

This combination of geometry conditions can cause 

irregular geometry that, when coupled with 

excessive wheel loading, can cause the rapid 

development of rail seat deterioration. 

concrete crossties for broader 

application within the industry. 

An improper rail cant angle may be an 

indication of rail seat deterioration, 

which can be detected by a variety of 

methods. One method currently used is 

a rail profile measurement system to 

measure rail cant angle. Other, perhaps 

less costly, methods have not been fully 

developed. CCTF members chose not to 

be confined to one measurement system 

technology when others were available 

to select from in the marketplace. FRA 

welcomes public comment regarding the 

feasibility of technology as an 

alternative inspection standard or as an 

additional inspection method for the 

discovery and remediation of rail cant. 

FRA proposes the text that it initially 

presented to the CCTF at 49 CFR 

213.234(e) and welcomes public 

comment regarding the issue of 

measuring rail cant. FRA proposes that 

the automated inspection measurement 

system must be capable of measuring 

and processing rail cant requirements 

that specify the following: (1) An 

accuracy angle, in degrees, to within 1⁄2

of a degree; (2) a distance-based 

sampling interval not exceeding two 

feet; and (3) calibration procedures and 

parameters assigned to the system, 

which assure that measured and 

recorded values accurately represent rail 

cant. FRA is not proposing to mandate 

the use of a particular technology, rather 

that the technology selected by the track 

owner be capable of measuring and 

processing the rail cant requirements 

specified in 49 CFR 213.234(e). 

B. Automated Inspections 

Current inspections of crossties and 

fasteners rely heavily on visual 

inspections by track inspectors, whose 

knowledge is based on varying degrees 

of experience and training. The 

subjective nature of those inspections 

can sometimes create inconsistent 

determinations regarding the ability of 

individual crossties and fasteners to 

support and restrain track geometry. 

Concrete crossties may not always 

exhibit strong indications of rail seat 

deterioration. Rail seat deterioration is 

often difficult to identify even while 

conducting a walking visual inspection. 

Combined with excessive wheel loading 

and combinations of compliant but 

irregular geometry,7 a group of concrete 

crossties remaining in track for an 

extended period of time may cause rail 

seat deterioration to develop rapidly. 

When a train applies an abnormally 

high lateral load to a section of track 

that exhibits rail seat deterioration, the 

result can be a wide gage or rail rollover 

derailment with the inherent risk of 

injury to railroad personnel and 

passengers, and damage to property. 

V. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 213.2 Preemptive Effect 

FRA proposes to remove this section 

from 49 CFR part 213. This section was 

prescribed in 1998 and has become 

outdated and, therefore, misleading 

because it does not reflect post-1998 

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

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

Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2319; 

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

453. Although FRA considered updating 

this regulatory section, FRA now 

believes that the section is unnecessary 

because 49 U.S.C. 20106 sufficiently 

addresses the preemptive effect of part 

213. In other words, providing a 

separate Federal regulatory provision 

concerning the proposed regulation’s 

preemptive effect is duplicative of 49 

U.S.C. 20106 and, therefore, 

unnecessary. 

Section 213.109 Crossties 

FRA proposes to amend this section 

to reflect recommendations made by the 

CCTF and adopted by RSAC. After 

discussion and review of concrete 

crosstie requirements in the higher 

speed subpart (subpart G of the Track 

Safety Standards), the CCTF concluded 

that performance specifications for 

concrete crossties are needed in the 

lower-speed standards. Specifically, 

requirements are needed to establish 

limits for rail seat abrasion, concrete 

crosstie pad wear limits, missing or 

broken rail fasteners, loss of appropriate 

toeload pressure, improper fastener 

configuration, and excessive lateral rail 

movement. The CCTF reviewed the 

method and manner of manual and 

automated inspection methods and 

technology to abate track-caused 

reportable derailments. FRA is 

proposing to revise this section to 

clarify the type of crosstie that will 

fulfill the requirements of paragraph (b) 

and to include requirements specific to 

concrete crossties. 

Paragraph (b). FRA is proposing to 

clarify that only nondefective crossties 

may be counted to fulfill the 

requirements of the paragraph. 

Nondefective crossties are defined in 

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

proposing to make other minor 

grammatical corrections to this 

paragraph, including moving the table 

of minimum number of crossties from 

paragraph (d) to proposed paragraph 

(b)(4). 

Paragraph (c). FRA is proposing to 

state that this paragraph is specific to 

crossties other than concrete crossties. 

Paragraph (d). FRA is proposing to 

move the existing table of minimum 

number of crossties from this paragraph, 

to proposed paragraph (b)(4). FRA is 

proposing to substitute language that 

delineates the requirements related to 

concrete crossties. 

Paragraph (d)(1). FRA is proposing 

that, as with non-concrete crossties, 

concrete crossties counted to fulfill the 

requirements of proposed paragraph 

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

deteriorated to the extent that 

prestressing material is visible. Crossties 

must not be so deteriorated that the 

prestressing material has visibly 

separated from, or visibly lost bond 

with, the concrete, resulting either in 

the crosstie’s partial break-up, or in 

cracks that expose prestressing material 

due to spalls or chips, or in broken-out 

areas exposing prestressed material. 

Currently, metal reinforcing bars are 

used as the prestressing material in 

concrete crossties. FRA is proposing to 

use the term ‘‘prestressing material’’ in 

lieu of ‘‘metal reinforcing bars’’ to allow 

for future technological advances. 

Crosstie failure is exhibited in three 

distinct ways: Stress induced (breaks, 

cracks); mechanical (abrasion); or 

chemical decomposition. Breaks, 

cracking, mechanical abrasion, or 

chemical reaction in small or large 

degrees compromise the crosstie’s 

ability to maintain the rails in proper 

gage, alignment, and track surface. 

There is distinction between ‘‘broken 

through’’ and ‘‘deteriorated to the extent 

that prestressing material is visible.’’ 

Concrete crossties are manufactured in 

two basic designs: Twin-block and 

mono-block. Twin-block crossties are 

designed with two sections of concrete 

connected by exposed metal rods. A 

mono-block crosstie is similar in 

dimension to a timber or wood crosstie 

and contains prestress metal strands 

embedded into the concrete. The metal 

reinforcing strands in the concrete are 

observed at the ends of the crosstie for 

proper tension position. Prestressed 

reinforced concrete, including 

prestressed concrete ties, is made by 

stressing the reinforcing bar in a mold, 

then pouring cement concrete over the 

reinforcing bar in the mold. After the 

concrete cures, the tension on the 

reinforcing bar is released, and the ends 

of the reinforcing bar are trimmed, if 

appropriate for the use. The reinforcing 

bar remains in tension against the 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52496 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

concrete, which is very strong in 

compression. This allows the 

prestressed concrete to withstand both 

compressive and tensile loads. If the 

concrete spalls, or if the reinforcing bar 

is otherwise allowed to come out of 

contact with the concrete, then the 

reinforcing bar is no longer in tension, 

and the once prestressed concrete can 

no longer withstand tensile loads, and it 

will fail very rapidly in service, such as 

in a concrete tie. 

FRA notes that prestressing material 

can be exposed in a concrete crosstie in 

a crack, but it can also be exposed on 

the side of the tie. When prestressing 

material becomes exposed on the side of 

the tie, the reinforcing bar is no longer 

in tension, the prestressed concrete can 

no longer withstand the tensile loads, 

and therefore a concrete crosstie can 

structurally fail. 

The compressive strength of the 

concrete material and the amount of 

prestress applied in the manufacturing 

process provide the strength and 

stiffness necessary to adequately 

support and distribute wheel loads to 

the subgrade. The reinforcing metal 

strands/wires encased in concrete hold 

the crosstie together and provide tensile 

strength. However, significant cracking 

or discernible deterioration exposure of 

the reinforcing strands to water and 

oxygen produces loss of the prestress 

force through corrosion, concrete 

deterioration, and poor bonding. Loss of 

the prestress force renders the crosstie 

susceptible to structural failure and as a 

consequence, stability failure relating to 

track geometry noncompliance. 

During routine inspections, spalls, 

chips, cracks, and similar breaks are 

easily visible. However, the 

compression of prestressed concrete 

crossties may close cracks as they occur, 

making them difficult to observe. Even 

such closed cracks probably weaken the 

crossties. Breaks or cracks are divided 

into three general conditions: 

Longitudinal; center; and rail seat. 

Longitudinal cracks are horizontal 

through the crosstie and extend parallel 

to its length. They are initiated by high 

impacts on one or both sides of the rail 

bearing inserts. 

Crosstie center cracks are vertical 

cracks extending transversely or across 

the crosstie. These cracks are unusual 

and are the result of high negative 

bending movement (centerbound), 

originating at the crosstie top and 

extend to the bottom. Generally, the 

condition is progressive, and adjacent 

crossties may be affected. Rail seat 

cracks are vertical cracks that are not 

easily visible. They usually extend from 

the bottom of the crosstie on one or both 

sides of the crosstie and are often hard 

to detect. It is possible for a crosstie to 

be broken through, but, due to the 

location of the break, the prestressing 

material may not be visible. Crosstie 

strength, generally, does not fail unless 

the crack extends through the top layer 

of the prestress strands. Once the crack 

extends beyond the top layer, there is 

usually a loss of strand and concrete 

bond strength. 

Paragraph (d)(2). FRA is proposing 

that crossties counted to fulfill the 

requirements of proposed paragraph 

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

deteriorated or broken off in the vicinity 

of the shoulder or insert so that the 

fastener assembly can either pull out or 

move laterally more than 3⁄8 inch 

relative to the crosstie. These conditions 

weaken rail fastener integrity. 

Paragraph (d)(3). FRA proposes to 

prescribe that crossties counted to fulfill 

the requirements of proposed paragraph 

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

deteriorated such that the base of either 

rail can move laterally more than 3⁄8

inch relative to the crosstie on curves of 

2 degrees or greater; or can move 

laterally more than 1⁄2 inch relative to 

the crosstie on tangent track or curves 

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

allow for a combination rail movement 

up to the dimensions specified, but not 

separately. The rail and fastener 

assembly work as a system, capable of 

providing electrical insulation, and 

adequate resistance to lateral 

displacement, undesired gage widening, 

rail canting, rail rollover, and abrasive 

or excessive compressive stresses. This 

paragraph was specifically added to 

address Sec. 403(d)(6) of RSIA, which 

states that the Secretary may address 

excessive lateral rail movement in the 

concrete crosstie regulations. 

Paragraph (d)(4). FRA is proposing 

that crossties counted to fulfill the 

requirements of proposed paragraph 

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

deteriorated or abraded at any point 

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

or more. The measurement of 1⁄2 inch 

includes depth from the loss of rail pad 

material. The importance of having pad 

material in place with sufficient 

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

dampen high impact loading and 

recover) is paramount to control rail seat 

cracks caused by rail surface defects, 

wheel flats, or out of round wheels. 

Additionally, concrete crossties must be 

capable of providing adequate rail 

longitudinal restraint from excessive rail 

creepage or thermally induced forces or 

stress. ‘‘Rail creepage’’ is the tractive 

effort or pulling force exerted by a 

locomotive or car wheels, and 

‘‘thermally induced forces or stress’’ is 

the longitudinal expansion and 

contraction of the rail, creating either 

compressive or tensile forces as the rail 

temperature increases or decreases, 

respectively. The loss of pad material 

causes a loss of toeload force, which 

may decrease longitudinal restraint. 

This paragraph was specifically 

proposed to address Sec. 403(d)(1) of 

RSIA, which states that the Secretary 

may address limits for rail seat abrasion 

in the concrete crosstie regulations. 

Paragraph (d)(5). FRA is proposing 

that crossties counted to fulfill the 

requirements of proposed paragraph 

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

deteriorated such that the crosstie’s 

fastening or anchoring system is unable 

to maintain longitudinal rail restraint, 

maintain rail hold down, or maintain 

gage, due to insufficient fastener 

toeload. Inspectors evaluate crossties 

individually by ‘‘definitional and 

functional’’ criteria. A compliant 

crosstie is demonstrated when a 39-foot 

track segment maintains safe track 

geometry and structurally supports the 

imposed wheel loads. In addition to 

ballast, anchors bear against the sides of 

crossties to control longitudinal rail 

movement, and certain types of 

fasteners also act to control rail 

movement by exerting a downward 

clamping force (toeload) on the upper 

rail base. Part of the complexity of 

crosstie assessment is the fastener 

component. Both crossties and fasteners 

act as a system to deliver the expected 

performance effect. A noncompliant 

crosstie and defective fastener assembly 

improperly maintains the rail position 

and support on the crosstie and 

contributes to excessive lateral gage 

widening (rail cant-rail rollover), and 

longitudinal rail movement because of 

loss of toeload. 

Fastener assemblies or anchoring 

systems allow a certain amount of rail 

movement through the crosstie to 

effectively relieve thermal stress 

buildup. However, because of the 

unrestrained buildup of thermal 

stresses, the longitudinal expansion and 

contraction of the rail creates either 

compressive or tensile forces, 

respectively. When longitudinal rail 

movement is uncontrolled, it may 

disturb the track structure, causing 

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

failure. Specific longitudinal 

performance metrics would be 

undesirable and restrict certain fastener 

assembly designs and capabilities to 

control longitudinal rail movement. 

Therefore, track inspectors use good 

judgment in determining fastener 

assembly and crosstie effectiveness. 

This paragraph proposes to address Sec. 

403(d)(3) and (d)(4) of RSIA, which state 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52497 

that the Secretary may address, in the 

concrete crosstie regulations, missing or 

broken rail fasteners, and loss of 

appropriate toeload pressure. 

Paragraph (d)(6). FRA is proposing 

that crossties counted to fulfill the 

requirements of proposed paragraph 

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

configured with less than two fasteners 

on the same rail except as provided in 

proposed § 213.127(c). FRA is proposing 

to revise this section, discussed further 

below, to include requirements specific 

to fasteners utilized in conjunction with 

concrete crossties. 

Section 213.127 Rail Fastening 

Systems 

FRA is proposing to revise this 

section by designating its existing text 

as paragraph (a) and adding new 

paragraphs (b) and (c). 

Paragraph (b). FRA is proposing in 

this paragraph that, if rail anchors are 

applied to concrete crossties, the 

combination of the crossties, fasteners, 

and rail anchors must provide effective 

longitudinal restraint. FRA has elected 

not to define ‘‘effective longitudinal 

restraint,’’ choosing instead to make this 

provision a performance-based 

standard. 

Paragraph (c). FRA is proposing that, 

where fastener placement impedes 

insulated joints from performing as 

intended, the fastener may be modified 

or removed, provided that the crosstie 

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

means that the crosstie is in direct 

contact with the rail or leaves an 

incidental space between the tie and 

rail. Certain joint configurations do not 

permit conventional fasteners to fit 

properly. As a result, manufacturers 

offer a modified fastener to fit along the 

rail so that the fastener provides the 

longitudinal requirement, or it is 

removed completely, providing lateral 

restraint is accomplished by ensuring 

full contact with the rail. 

FRA is requesting comment to 

provide stronger guidance regarding 

how a concrete tie provides support to 

the rail at a joint without a fastener 

present. The agency knows that this 

type of configuration is successful in 

maintaining the structural integrity in 

the field, but is interested in learning 

the quantifiable parameters of such a 

practice. 

Section 213.234 Automated Inspection 

of Track Constructed With Concrete 

Crossties 

FRA is proposing to add a new 

section requiring the automated 

inspection of track constructed with 

concrete crossties. Automated 

inspection technology is available to 

perform essential tasks necessary to 

supplement visual inspection, quantify 

performance-based specifications to 

guarantee safe car behavior, and provide 

objective confidence and ensure safe 

train operations. Automated inspections 

provide a level of safety superior to that 

of manual methods by better analyzing 

weak points in track geometry and 

structural components. The computer 

systems in automated inspection 

systems can accurately detect geometry 

deviations from the Track Safety 

Standards and can analyze areas that are 

often hard to examine with the human 

eye. Railroads benefit from automated 

inspection technology by having 

improved defect detection capabilities, 

suffering fewer track-related 

derailments, and improving overall 

track maintenance. 

Automated inspection technology is 

used in Track Geometry Measurement 

Systems (TGMS), Gage Restraint 

Measurement Systems (GRMS), and 

Vehicle/Track Interaction (VTI) 

performance measurement systems. 

TGMS identify single or multiple 

noncompliant track geometry 

conditions. GRMS aid in locating good 

or poor performing track strength 

locations. VTI performance 

measurement systems encompass both 

acceleration and wheel forces that, 

when exceeding established thresholds, 

often cause damage to track components 

and rail equipment. These automated 

technologies may be combined in the 

same or different geometry car platforms 

or vehicles and require vehicle/track 

measurements to be made by truck 

frame accelerometers, carbody 

accelerometers, or by instrumented 

wheelsets to measure wheel/rail forces, 

ensuring performance limits are not 

exceeded. 

Rail seat deterioration can be very 

difficult and time consuming for a track 

inspector to detect manually. Other than 

automated inspection, there are 

currently no other tools capable of 

aiding in the detection of rail seat 

deterioration. Automated inspection 

vehicles have proved effective in 

measuring rail seat deterioration, and 

the inspection vehicles can inspect 

much more rapidly and accurately than 

a visual track inspection. 

Paragraph (a). FRA proposes that 

automated inspection technology shall 

be used to supplement visual inspection 

by Class I railroads including Amtrak, 

Class II railroads, other intercity 

passenger railroads, and commuter 

railroads or small governmental 

jurisdictions that serve populations 

greater than 50,000, on track 

constructed of concrete crossties for 

Class 3 main track over which regularly 

scheduled passenger service trains 

operate, and for all Class 4 and 5 main 

track constructed with concrete 

crossties. FRA is also proposing that 

automated inspections identify and 

report concrete crosstie deterioration or 

abrasion prohibited by proposed 

§ 213.109(d)(4). The purpose of the 

automated inspection that would be 

required by this new paragraph is to 

measure for rail seat deterioration. As 

previously discussed, rail seat 

deterioration is the failure of the 

concrete surface between the rail and 

crossties. FRA is proposing in 

§ 213.109(d)(4) that the crosstie must 

not be ‘‘deteriorated or abraded at any 

point under the rail seat to a depth of 

1⁄2 inch or more.’’ The depth includes 

the loss of rail pad material. 

Paragraph (b). In this paragraph, FRA 

is proposing the frequencies at which 

track constructed of concrete crossties 

shall be inspected by automated means. 

FRA is proposing that an automated 

inspection be conducted twice each 

calendar year, with no less than 160 

days between inspections, if annual 

tonnage on Class 4 and 5 main track and 

Class 3 main track with regularly 

scheduled passenger service exceeds 40 

million gross tons (mgt). FRA is 

proposing that an automated inspection 

be conducted at least once each 

calendar year if annual tonnage on Class 

4 and 5 main track and Class 3 track 

with regularly scheduled passenger 

service equals or is less than 40 mgt 

annually. FRA is also proposing that 

either an automated or walking 

inspection be conducted once per 

calendar year on Class 3, 4 and 5 main 

track with exclusively passenger 

service. And finally, FRA proposes that 

track not inspected in accordance with 

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

because of train operation interruption 

be reinspected within 45 days of the 

resumption of train operations by a 

walking or automated inspection. If this 

inspection is conducted as a walking 

inspection, FRA proposes that the next 

scheduled inspection be an automated 

inspection as proposed in this 

paragraph. FRA also requests comment 

on whether additional inspections 

should be required in passenger 

territory with significant freight tonnage 

and high track curvature and if so, how 

such requirements might be structured 

to target areas of risk while holding 

down costs. 

Paragraph (c). In this paragraph, FRA 

proposes to exclude from the required 

automated inspections sections of 

tangent track of 600 feet or less 

constructed of concrete crossties, 

including, but not limited to, isolated 

track segments, experimental or test 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

track segments, highway/rail crossings, 

and wayside detectors. These exclusions 

are specified because FRA recognizes 

the economic burden caused by 

requiring automated inspections to be 

made on short isolated locations 

constructed of concrete crossties that 

may be difficult to measure without 

removal of additional material, such as 

grade crossing planking. 

Paragraph (d). The Working Group 

was unable to come to consensus on this 

item. However, FRA determined that it 

would propose elements of the text that 

it presented to the Working Group. FRA 

proposes that the automated inspection 

measurement system must be capable of 

measuring and processing rail cant 

requirements which specify the 

following: (1) An accuracy angle, in 

degrees, to within 1⁄2 of a degree; (2) a 

distance-based sampling interval not 

exceeding two feet; and (3) calibration 

procedures and parameters assigned to 

the system, which assure that measured 

and recorded values accurately 

represent rail cant. 

While other automated inspection 

technologies may exist in the field, FRA 

believes that the Rail Profile 

Measurement System (RPMS) is 

currently the best developed technology 

to measure rail seat deterioration. RPMS 

normally measures rail cant in tenths of 

a degree. It is often difficult to measure 

rail cant in the field with hand 

measurement tools because of the small 

dimension, e.g., one degree rail cant 

angle equates to 1⁄8 inch depth between 

the rail seat and the rail. Typically the 

RPMS instrumentation onboard the FRA 

geometry cars are set to notify an 

advisory exception when the angle 

exceeds four degrees of negative or 

outward rail cant. This paragraph was 

specifically added to address Sec. 

403(d)(1) of RSIA, which states that, in 

the concrete crosstie regulations, the 

Secretary may address limits for rail seat 

abrasion. FRA specifically requests 

public comment with regard to this 

item. 

Paragraph (e). FRA is proposing that 

the automated inspection measurement 

system shall produce an exception 

report containing a systematic listing of 

all exceptions to § 213.109(d)(4), 

identified so that appropriate persons 

designated as fully qualified under 

§ 213.7 can field-verify each exception. 

It would continue to state that each 

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

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

requirements of part 213. 

FRA expects that the track owner 

would want to ensure that any 

exception that the automated inspection 

detects would be field verified by a 

qualified person under § 213.7. This is 

not only to ensure that the exception 

report accurately reflects the conditions 

of the track, but also to ensure that a 

qualified person can take appropriate 

remedial action in a timely manner. 

Additionally, FRA reminds track 

owners that all field-verified exceptions 

are subject to all of the Track Safety 

Standards. 

Paragraph (f). FRA is proposing that 

the track owner maintain a record of the 

inspection data and the exception 

record for the track inspected in 

accordance with this paragraph for a 

minimum of two years. The record must 

include the date and location of limits 

of the inspection, type and location of 

each exception, and the results of field 

verification, and remedial action if 

required. The locations required must 

be provided either by milepost or by 

some other objective means, such as by 

the location description provided by the 

Global Positioning System. This 

proposal is intended to require the track 

owner to keep a good record of the 

conditions of track constructed of 

concrete crossties and, through such 

records, to help FRA track inspectors to 

gain access to and accurately assess the 

railroad’s compliance history. 

Paragraph (g). FRA is proposing that 

the track owner institute the necessary 

procedures for maintaining the integrity 

of the data collected by the 

measurement system. The track owner 

must maintain and make available to 

FRA documented calibration procedures 

of the measurement system that, at a 

minimum, specifies an instrument 

verification procedure that will ensure 

correlation between measurements 

made on the ground and those recorded 

by the instrumentation. Also, the track 

owner must maintain each instrument 

used for determining compliance with 

this section such that it is accurate to 

within 1⁄8 of an inch for rail seat 

deterioration. 

The purpose of this paragraph is to 

ensure that the equipment that the track 

owner is using to comply with the 

regulations accurately detects what it is 

designed to detect. 

Paragraph (h). FRA is proposing that 

the track owner provide training in 

handling rail seat deterioration 

exceptions to all persons designated as 

fully qualified under § 213.7 and whose 

territories are subject to the 

requirements of § 213.234. At a 

minimum, the training shall address 

interpretation and handling of the 

exception reports generated by the 

automated inspection measurement 

system, locating and verifying 

exceptions in the field and required 

remedial action, and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

FRA aims to ensure that all persons 

required to comply with the regulations 

are properly trained. Such persons 

should at least understand the basic 

principles of the required automated 

inspection process, including handling 

of the exception reports, field 

verification, and recordkeeping 

requirements. FRA requests public 

comment regarding the frequency at 

which such training should occur and 

the period for which training records 

should be retained. 

VI. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This proposed rule has been 

evaluated in accordance with existing 

policies and procedures and determined 

to be non-significant under both 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

policies and procedures. See 44 FR 

11034; February 26, 1979. FRA has 

conducted and placed in the docket a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis addressing 

the costs and benefits associated with 

this NPRM. Document inspection and 

copying facilities are available at the 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Docket material 

is also available for inspection on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Photocopies may also be obtained by 

submitting a written request to the FRA 

Docket Clerk at the Office of Chief 

Counsel, Mail Stop 10, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; 

please refer to Docket No. FRA–2009– 

0007. FRA welcomes comments on this 

document. 

The concrete tie standards are 

intended to avoid a relatively new type 

of derailment where a train traveling 

over concrete ties causes the rail to roll 

to the outside of a curve, because the 

rail seat has worn away (abraded). The 

proposed rule clarifies what constitutes 

an effective concrete tie and fastening 

system, and also requires railroads, 

other than small entities, to conduct 

automated inspections of the concrete 

ties. 

For those automated inspection cars 

with a sufficient number of sensors to 

measure rail cant, but that do not 

currently measure rail cant, the owner, 

either a railroad or contractor, would 

have to modify the software to calculate 

rail cant and provide alarms for rail cant 

in excess of limits. This is the basic cost 

burden associated with this NPRM. FRA 

believes that measuring the rail cant 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52499 

will avoid future accidents such as the 

accident near Home Valley, 

Washington, described above, in which 

30 people (22 passengers and 8 

employees) sustained minor injuries; 14 

of those people were taken to local 

hospitals. Two of the injured passengers 

were kept overnight for further 

observation; the rest were released. 

Track and equipment damages, in 

addition to clearing costs associated 

with the accident, totaled about 

$854,000. 

FRA is confident that implementation 

of the proposed rule would result in 

safety benefits of $124,800 annually 

after an initial cost of $1,400,000. Over 

20 years, the discounted total benefit 

would be $1,414,682 at a 7 percent 

annual discount rate and $1,912,410 at 

a 3 percent annual discount rate. The 

costs are not discounted because they 

are incurred in the initial year, so the 

discounted net benefit will be $14,682 

at a 7 percent annual discount rate and 

$512,410 at a 3 percent annual discount 

rate. Safety benefits would justify the 

initial investment. Based on a 7 percent 

discount rate, the benefits are slightly 

higher than the costs, and there is a 

meaningful reduction in safety risk, 

which is not fully quantified because 

some accident costs were not quantified. 

The net benefits are more significant at 

the 3 percent discount rate. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

Executive Order 13272 require a review 

of proposed and final rules to assess 

their impact on small entities. An 

agency must prepare an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis unless it 

determines and certifies that a rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) stipulates in its 

‘‘Size Standards’’ that the largest a 

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

may be, and still be classified as a 

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

‘‘Line-Haul Operating Railroads’’ and 

500 employees for ‘‘Switching and 

Terminal Establishments.’’ 13 CFR part 

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

as a small business that is 

independently owned and operated, and 

is not dominant in its field of operation. 

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

601(5) defines ‘‘small entities’’ as 

governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts with populations less 

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

may be altered by Federal agencies after 

consultation with SBA and in 

conjunction with public comment. 

Pursuant to that authority, FRA has 

published a final policy that formally 

establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as Class III 

railroads, contractors, and shippers 

meeting the economic criteria 

established for Class III railroads in 49 

CFR 1201.1–1, and commuter railroads 

or small governmental jurisdictions that 

serve populations of 50,000 or less. 49 

CFR part 209, app. C. FRA believes that 

no shippers, contractors, or small 

governmental jurisdictions would be 

affected by this proposal. At present 

there are no commuter railroads that 

would be considered small entities. The 

revenue requirement for Class III 

railroads is currently nominally $20 

million or less in annual operating 

revenue. The $20-million limit (which 

is adjusted by applying the railroad 

revenue deflator adjustment) is based on 

the Surface Transportation Board’s 

threshold for a Class III railroad carrier. 

FRA uses the same revenue dollar limit 

to determine whether a railroad or 

shipper or contractor is a small entity. 

Class I railroads have significant 

segments of concrete crossties, and own 

the overwhelming majority of all 

installed crossties. About a dozen Class 

II railroads that were formerly parts of 

Class I systems may have limited 

segments, and some Class III railroads 

may have remote locations with 

concrete crossties, typically in turnouts. 

Small railroads were consulted during 

the RSAC Working Group deliberations, 

and their interests have been taken into 

consideration in this NPRM. The 

provisions requiring automated 

inspections do not apply to Class III 

railroads or any commuter railroads that 

may be considered small entities. Such 

entities would only be subject to new 

requirements for tie and fastener 

conditions; however, small railroads 

typically do not have large numbers of 

concrete ties, and the cost associated 

with meeting such requirements is not 

significant. Therefore, FRA is certifying 

that it expects there will be no 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

FRA seeks comments on all aspects of 

this assessment and certification. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

section that contains the new 

information collection requirements is 

noted below, and the estimated burden 

time to fulfill each requirement is as 

follows: 

49 CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

213.234–Automated Inspection of Track Constructed with Concrete Crossties: 

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

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

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

—Procedures for Maintaining Data Integrity 

Collected by Measurement System.

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

—Training of Employees in Handling Seat 

Deterioration.

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

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

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

comments concerning the following: 

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, 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

may be minimized. For information or 

a copy of the paperwork package 

submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert 

Brogan, Office of Railroad Safety, 

Information Clearance Officer, at 202– 

493–6292, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, 

Office of Financial Management and 

Administration, Information Clearance 

Officer, at 202–493–6132. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to Mr. Robert Brogan 

or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., 3rd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20590. Comments may 

also be submitted via e-mail to Mr. 

Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following 

address: Robert.brogan@dot.gov; 

Kimberly.toone@dot.gov 

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 and 

associated information collection 

submission 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. FRA intends to 

obtain current OMB control numbers for 

any new information collection 

requirements resulting from this 

rulemaking action prior to the effective 

date of the eventual final rule. The OMB 

control number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

D. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this NPRM in 

accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts’’ 

(FRA’s Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 

26, 1999) as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), other environmental 

statutes, Executive Orders, and related 

regulatory requirements. FRA has 

determined that this action is not a 

major FRA action (requiring the 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement or environmental assessment) 

because it is categorically excluded from 

detailed environmental review pursuant 

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

64 FR 28547, May 26, 1999. In 

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

FRA’s Procedures, the agency has 

further concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

NPRM that might trigger the need for a 

more detailed environmental review. As 

a result, FRA finds that this NPRM is 

not a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 

E. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

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

FRA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, the agency may not issue 

a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. If adopted, this proposed rule 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. FRA has 

also determined that this proposed rule 

would not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

Moreover, FRA notes that RSAC, 

which endorsed and recommended the 

majority of this proposed rule, has as 

permanent members, two organizations 

representing State and local interests: 

AASHTO and ASRSM. Both of these 

State organizations concurred with the 

RSAC recommendation made in this 

rulemaking. RSAC regularly provides 

recommendations to the Administrator 

of FRA for solutions to regulatory issues 

that reflect significant input from its 

State members. To date, FRA has 

received no indication of concerns 

about the federalism implications of this 

rulemaking from these representatives 

or from any other representatives of 

State government. 

However, if adopted, this proposed 

rule could have preemptive effect by 

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

(Sec. 20106). Sec. 20106 provides that 

States may not adopt or continue in 

effect any law, regulation, or order 

related to railroad safety or security that 

covers the subject matter of a regulation 

prescribed or order issued by the 

Secretary of Transportation (with 

respect to railroad safety matters) or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (with 

respect to railroad security matters), 

except when the State law, regulation, 

or order qualifies under the ‘‘local safety 

or security hazard’’ exception to Sec. 

20106. 

In sum, FRA has analyzed this 

proposed rule in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132. As explained 

above, FRA has determined that this 

proposed rule has no federalism 

implications, other than the possible 

preemption of State laws under Sec. 

20106. Accordingly, FRA has 

determined that preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement 

for this proposed rule is not required. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to Sec. 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal 

agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

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

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in the promulgation of any rule 

that includes any Federal mandate that 

may result in the expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) [currently 

$140,800,000] in any 1 year, and before 

promulgating any final rule for which a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

was published, the agency shall prepare 

a written statement’’ detailing the effect 

on State, local, and tribal governments 

and the private sector. This NPRM will 

not result in the expenditure, in the 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52501 

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

any one year, and thus preparation of 

such a statement is not required. 

G. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

Federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001). Under the Executive Order a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

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

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. FRA has 

evaluated this NPRM in accordance 

with Executive Order 13211. FRA has 

determined that this NPRM is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Consequently, FRA has 

determined that this NPRM is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ within the 

meaning of the Executive Order. 

H. Privacy Act Statement 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of DOT’s dockets by 

the name of the individual submitting 

the comment (or signing the comment, 

if submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement published in the Federal 

Register on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, 

Number 70, Pages 19477–78), or you 

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213 

Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The 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—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 213 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and 

20142; Sec. 403, Div. A, Public Law 110–432, 

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

CFR1.49. 

§ 213.2 [Removed] 

2. Section 213.2, Preemptive effect, is 

removed. 

3. Section 213.109 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.109 Crossties. 

(a) Crossties shall be made of a 

material to which rail can be securely 

fastened. 

(b) Each 39-foot segment of track shall 

have at a minimum— 

(1) A sufficient number of crossties 

that in combination provide effective 

support that will— 

(i) Hold gage within the limits 

prescribed in § 213.53(b); 

(ii) Maintain surface within the limits 

prescribed in § 213.63; and 

(iii) Maintain alinement within the 

limits prescribed in § 213.55; 

(2) The minimum number and type of 

crossties specified in paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section and described in paragraph 

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

effectively distributed to support the 

entire segment; 

(3) At least one nondefective crosstie 

of the type specified in paragraphs (c) 

and (d) of this section that is located at 

a joint location as specified in paragraph 

(e) of this section; and 

(4) The minimum number of crossties 

as indicated in the following table. 

FRA track class 

Tangent track, turnouts, and curves 

Tangent track and 

curved track less 

than or equal to 

2 degrees 

Turnouts and 

curved track 

greater than 

2 degrees 

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

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

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

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

(c) Crossties, other than concrete, 

counted to satisfy the requirements set 

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

shall not be— 

(1) Broken through; 

(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the 

extent the crosstie will allow the ballast 

to work through, or will not hold spikes 

or rail fasteners; 

(3) So deteriorated that the crosstie 

plate or base of rail can move laterally 

1⁄2; inch relative to the crosstie; or 

(4) Cut by the crosstie plate through 

more than 40 percent of a crosstie’s 

thickness. 

(d) Concrete crossties counted to 

satisfy the requirements set forth in 

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

be— 

(1) Broken through or deteriorated to 

the extent that prestressing material is 

visible; 

(2) Deteriorated or broken off in the 

vicinity of the shoulder or insert so that 

the fastener assembly can either pull out 

or move laterally more than 3⁄8 inch 

relative to the crosstie; 

(3) Deteriorated such that the base of 

either rail can move laterally more than 

3⁄8 inch relative to the crosstie on curves 

of 2 degrees or greater; or can move 

laterally more than 1⁄2 inch relative to 

the crosstie on tangent track or curves 

of less than 2 degrees; 

(4) Deteriorated or abraded at any 

point under the rail seat to a depth of 

c inch or more; 

(5) Deteriorated such that the 

crosstie’s fastening or anchoring system 

is unable to maintain longitudinal rail 

restraint, or maintain rail hold down, or 

maintain gage due to insufficient 

fastener toeload; or 

(6) Configured with less than two 

fasteners on the same rail except as 

provided in § 213.127(c). 

(e) Class 1 and 2 track shall have one 

crosstie whose centerline is within 24 

inches of each rail joint (end) location. 

Class 3, 4, and 5 track shall have either 

one crosstie whose centerline is within 

18 inches of each rail joint location or 

two crossties whose centerlines are 

within 24 inches either side of each rail 

joint location. The relative position of 

these crossties is described in the 

following three diagrams: 

Each rail joint in Class 1 and 2 track 

shall be supported by at least one 

crosstie specified in paragraphs (c) and 

(d) of this section whose centerline is 

within 48 inches as shown in Figure 1. 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Each rail joint in Class 3, 4, and 5 

track shall be supported by either at 

least one crosstie specified in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section 

whose centerline is within 36 inches as 

shown in Figure 2, or: 

Two crossties, one on each side of the 

rail joint, whose centerlines are within 

24 inches of the rail joint location as 

shown in Figure 3. 

(f) For track constructed without 

crossties, such as slab track, track 

connected directly to bridge structural 

components, track over servicing pits, 

etc., the track structure shall meet the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

4. Section 213.127 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 213.127 Rail fastening systems. 

(a) Track shall be fastened by a system 

of components that effectively 

maintains gage within the limits 

prescribed in § 213.53(b). Each 

component of each such system shall be 

evaluated to determine whether gage is 

effectively being maintained. 

(b) If rail anchors are applied to 

concrete crossties, the combination of 

the crossties, fasteners, and rail anchors 

must provide effective longitudinal 

restraint. 

(c) Where fastener placement impedes 

insulated joints from performing as 

intended, the fastener may be modified 

or removed, provided that the crosstie 

supports the rail. 

5. New § 213.234 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 213.234 Automated inspection of track 

constructed with concrete crossties. 

(a) General. Except for track described 

in paragraph (c) of this section, in 

addition to the track inspection required 

under § 213.233, for Class 3 main track 

constructed with concrete crossties over 

which regularly scheduled passenger 

service trains operate, and for Class 4 

and 5 main track constructed with 

concrete crossties, automated inspection 

technology shall be used as indicated in 

paragraph (b) of this section, as a 

supplement to visual inspection, by 

Class I railroads (including Amtrak), 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP26AU10.000</GPH> EP26AU10.001</GPH> EP26AU10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 52503 

Class II railroads, other intercity 

passenger railroads, and commuter 

railroads or small governmental 

jurisdictions that serve populations 

greater than 50,000. Automated 

inspection shall identify and report 

exceptions to conditions described in 

§ 213.109(d)(4). 

(b) Frequency of automated 

inspections. Automated inspections 

shall be conducted at the following 

frequencies: 

(1) If annual tonnage on Class 4 and 

5 main track and Class 3 main track 

with regularly scheduled passenger 

service, exceeds 40 million gross tons 

(mgt) annually, at least twice each 

calendar year, with no less than 160 

days between inspections. 

(2) If annual tonnage on Class 4 and 

5 main track and Class 3 main track 

with regularly scheduled passenger 

service is equal to or less than 40 mgt 

annually, at least once each calendar 

year. 

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

with exclusively passenger service, 

either an automated inspection or 

walking inspection must be conducted 

once per calendar year. 

(4) Track not inspected in accordance 

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

section because of train operation 

interruption shall be reinspected within 

45 days of the resumption of train 

operations by a walking or automated 

inspection. If this inspection is 

conducted as a walking inspection, the 

next inspection shall be an automated 

inspection as prescribed in this 

paragraph. 

(c) Nonapplication. Sections of 

tangent track 600 feet or less 

constructed of concrete crossties, 

including, but not limited to, isolated 

track segments, experimental or test 

track segments, highway-rail crossings, 

and wayside detectors, are excluded 

from the requirements of this section. 

(d) Performance standard for 

automated inspection measurement 

system. The automated inspection 

measurement system must be capable of 

measuring and processing rail cant 

requirements that specify the following: 

(1) An accuracy angle, in degrees, to 

within 1⁄2 of a degree; 

(2) A distance-based sampling 

interval, which shall not exceed two 

feet; and 

(3) Calibration procedures and 

parameters assigned to the system, 

which assure that measured and 

recorded values accurately represent rail 

cant. 

(e) Exception reports to be produced 

by system; duty to field-verify 

exceptions. The automated inspection 

measurement system shall produce an 

exception report containing a systematic 

listing of all exceptions to 

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

appropriate person(s) designated as 

fully qualified under § 213.7 can fieldverify each exception. 

(1) Each exception must be located 

and field verified no later than 48 hours 

after the automated inspection. 

(2) All field-verified exceptions are 

subject to all the requirements of this 

part. 

(f) Recordkeeping requirements. The 

track owner shall maintain a record of 

the inspection data and the exception 

record for the track inspected in 

accordance with this paragraph for a 

minimum of two years. The exception 

reports must include the following: 

(1) Date and location of limits of the 

inspection; 

(2) Type and location of each 

exception; and 

(3) Results of field verification, and 

remedial action if required. 

(g) Procedures for integrity of data. 

The track owner shall institute the 

necessary procedures for maintaining 

the integrity of the data collected by the 

measurement system. At a minimum, 

the track owner shall do the following: 

(1) Maintain and make available to 

FRA documented calibration procedures 

of the measurement system that, at a 

minimum, specify an instrument 

verification procedure that ensures 

correlation between measurements 

made on the ground and those recorded 

by the instrumentation; and 

(2) Maintain each instrument used for 

determining compliance with this 

section such that it is accurate to within 

1⁄8 of an inch for rail seat deterioration. 

(h) Training. The track owner shall 

provide training in handling rail seat 

deterioration exceptions to all persons 

designated as fully qualified under 

§ 213.7 and whose territories are subject 

to the requirements of § 213.234. At a 

minimum, the training shall address the 

following: 

(1) Interpretation and handling of the 

exception reports generated by the 

automated inspection measurement 

system; 

(2) Locating and verifying exceptions 

in the field and required remedial 

action; and 

(3) Recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 

2010. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21301 Filed 8–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1