Document ID: FRA-2009-0007-0001
Agency: fra
Document Type: Rule
Title: Track Safety Standards; Concrete Crossties
Posted Date: 2010-08-26T04:00Z

[Federal Register: August 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 165)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 52490-52503]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26au10-25]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 52491]]

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 high-impact 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 19\1/
2\ inch spacing proved acceptable based on engineering performance, but 
was uneconomical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
ballast-crosstie 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

[[Page 52492]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ T.Y. Lin, ``Design of Prestressed Concrete Structures,'' 
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 high-curvature 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Albert J. Reinschmidt, ``Rail-seat abrasion: Causes and the 
search for the cure,'' Railway Track and Structures, July 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 two-thirds 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 49 CFR 213.335(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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);

[[Page 52493]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NTSB 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 52494]]

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 high-
quality 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

[[Page 52495]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ By ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 52496]]

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 pull-apart (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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 52498]]

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 Sec.  213.109(d)(4), identified 
so that appropriate persons designated as fully qualified under Sec.  
213.7 can field-verify each exception. It would continue to state that 
each exception must be located and field-verified no later than 48 
hours after the automated inspection, and that all field-verified 
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  213.7 and whose territories 
are subject to the requirements of Sec.  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

[[Page 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total annual       Average time per    Total annual
          49 CFR section           Respondent universe       responses             response        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     18 Railroads.......  150 field            2 hours............             300
     Reports.                                            verifications.
    --Records of Inspection Data   18 Railroads.......  150 records........  30 minutes.........              75
     and Exception Records.
    --Procedures for Maintaining   18 Railroads.......  18 procedures......  4 hours............              72
     Data Integrity Collected by
     Measurement System.
    --Training of Employees in     18 Railroads.......  2,000 trained        8 hours............          16,000
     Handling Seat Deterioration.                        employees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 52500]]

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

[[Page 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.

Sec.  213.2  [Removed]

    2. Section 213.2, Preemptive effect, is removed.
    3. Section 213.109 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  213.53(b);
    (ii) Maintain surface within the limits prescribed in Sec.  213.63; 
and
    (iii) Maintain alinement within the limits prescribed in Sec.  
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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Tangent track, turnouts, and curves
                                   -------------------------------------
                                    Tangent track and     Turnouts and
          FRA track class           curved track less     curved track
                                     than or equal to   greater than  2
                                        2 degrees           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 [frac12] 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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 52502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU10.000

    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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU10.001

    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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AU10.002

    (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:

Sec.  213.127  Rail fastening systems.

    (a) Track shall be fastened by a system of components that 
effectively maintains gage within the limits prescribed in Sec.  
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 Sec.  213.234 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  
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),

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  213.109(d)(4), identified so that an appropriate 
person(s) designated as fully qualified under Sec.  213.7 can field-
verify 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 Sec.  213.7 and whose territories are subject to the 
requirements of Sec.  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