Rule: Track Safety Standards: Continuous Welded Rail Joints Inspection

66288 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.
211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
will send a copy of this Report and § 73.202 [Amended] Washington, DC 20554, telephone 301–
Order in a report to be sent to Congress ■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 816–2820, facsimile 301–816–0169, or
and the Government Accountability Allotments under Georgia, is amended via e-mail joshir@erols.com.
Office pursuant to the Congressional by adding Ty Ty, Channel 249A. This document does not contain new
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). ■ 3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM or modified information collection
The Audio Division, at the request of Allotments under Washington, is requirements subject to the Paperwork
Plan 9 Broadcasting, allots Channel amended by adding Channel 240A at Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
229A at Port Angeles, Washington, as Goldendale; and by adding Port Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it
that community’s fifth local aural Angeles, Channel 229A. does not contain any new or modified
transmission service. The reference Federal Communications Commission.
‘‘information collection burden for
coordinates for Channel 229A at Port small business concerns with fewer than
John A. Karousos,
Angeles are 48–06–54 North Latitude 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
and 123–26–36 West Longitude. This Bureau.
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
allotment is at city reference coordinates [FR Doc. 05–21548 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am]
3506(c)(4).
and requires no site restriction. Port BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
The Commission will send a copy of
Angeles is located within 320
this Memorandum Opinion and Order
kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S.-
in a report to Congress and the
Canadian border. Canadian concurrence FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Government Accountability Office
has been requested for this allotment, as COMMISSION
pursuant to the Congressional Review
a specially negotiated short-spaced
47 CFR Part 73 Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
allotment because the proposed Port
Angeles allotment is short-spaced to [FCC 05–175, MB Docket No. 04–312, RM– List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Canadian Station CJJR–FM, Channel 11049] Television broadcasting, Television.
229C, Vancouver, BC and vacant
Television Broadcast Service; Phoenix ■ Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of
Channel 230A at Port Renfrew, BC.
and Holbrook, AZ Federal Regulations is amended as
However, notification from Canada has
follows:
not been received. Therefore, if a AGENCY: Federal Communications
construction permit is granted prior to Commission. PART 73—[AMENDED]
the receipt of formal concurrence in the ACTION: Final rule.
allotment by the Canadian government, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 73
the construction permit will include the SUMMARY: The Commission, at the continues to read as follows:
following condition: ‘‘Operation with request of NBC Telemundo Phoenix, Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
the facilities specified for Port Angeles Inc. (Telemundo) and Community
herein is subject to modification, Television Educators, Inc. (CTE) has § 73.606 [Amended]
suspension or, termination without right amended the Television Table of ■ 2. Section 73.606(b), the Table of
to hearing, if found by the Commission Allotments to remove the Television Allotments under Arizona, is
to be necessary in order to conform to noncommercial reservation of analog amended by removing TV channel 11+
the USA-Canadian FM Broadcast Channel *39 at Phoenix, Arizona, and and adding TV channel *11+ at
Agreement.’’ reserve analog Channel 11 for Holbrook.
The Audio Division, at the request of noncommercial educational use at ■ 3. Section 73.606(b), the Table of
Sutton Communications Company, Holbrook, Arizona. The Commission has Television Allotments under Arizona, is
allots Channel 249A at Ty Ty, Georgia, also modified the license of amended by removing TV channel *39
as that community’s first local aural Telemundo’s station KPHZ(TV) to at Phoenix and adding TV channel 39,
transmission service. The reference specify Channel 39, Phoenix, and the Phoenix.
coordinates for Channel 249A at Ty Ty license of CTE’s station KDTP(TV) to
specify Channel *11, Holbrook. With Federal Communications Commission.
are 31–34–01 North Latitude and 83– Marlene H. Dortch,
this action, this proceeding is
40–07 West Longitude. This allotment Secretary.
terminated.
requires a site restriction of 10.8
DATES: Effective November 28, 2005. [FR Doc. 05–21869 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am]
kilometers (6.7 miles) north to avoid
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
short-spacing to the application site of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Station WDMG–FM, Channel 250A, Shaun Maher, Media Bureau, (202) 418–
Ambrose, Georgia and license site of 1600.
Station WRAK–FM, Channel 247C, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bainbridge, Georgia. synopsis of the Commission’s
Federal Railroad Administration
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MB
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Docket No. 04–312, adopted October 5,
49 CFR Part 213
Radio, Radio broadcasting. 2005, and released October 13, 2005.
The full text of this document is [Docket No. FRA 2005–22522]
■ Accordingly, part 73 is amended as available for public inspection and
follows: copying during regular business hours RIN 2130–AB71
in the FCC Reference Information Track Safety Standards; Inspection of
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
SERVICES Joints in Continuous Welded Rail
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC. This (CWR)
document may also be purchased from
■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 the Commission’s duplicating AGENCY: Federal Railroad
continues to read as follows: contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Administration (FRA), Department of
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Transportation (DOT).
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:38 Nov 01, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02NOR1.SGM 02NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 66289
ACTION: Interim final rule. comments received, go to http:// established.’’ 47 FR 7279. FRA
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL– explained that continuing research
SUMMARY: FRA is amending the Federal 401 on the plaza level of the Nassif might produce reliable data in this area
Track Safety Standards to improve the Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., in the future.
inspection of rail joints in continuous Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 In the Rail Safety Enforcement and
welded rail (CWR). This interim final p.m., Monday through Friday, except Review Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–
rule (IFR) requires track owners to Federal holidays. 365, September 3, 1992), Congress
develop and implement a procedure for mandated that FRA evaluate procedures
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
the detailed inspection of rail joints in for installing and maintaining CWR. In
Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Chief
CWR. This IFR also requires track 1994, in the Federal Railroad Safety
Engineer—Structures, Office of Safety,
owners to keep records of those Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 103–272,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1120
inspections. July 5, 1994), Congress required DOT to
Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 25,
DATES: This final rule is effective Washington, DC 20590 evaluate cold weather installation
December 2, 2005. (Gordon.Davids@fra.dot.gov or 202– procedures for CWR. In light of the
(1) Written Comments: Written 493–6320); or Christina McDonald, Trial evaluation of those procedures, as well
comments must be received on or before Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, as information resulting from FRA’s
December 19, 2005. Comments received Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 own research and development, FRA
after that date will be considered to the Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 10, addressed CWR procedures by adding
extent possible without incurring Washington, DC 20590 § 213.119 during its 1998 revision of the
additional expense or delay. (Christina.McDonald@fra.dot.gov or Track Safety Standards. See 63 FR
(2) Public Hearing: Requests for a 202–493–6032). 33992.
public hearing must be in writing and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 213.119, as added in 1998,
must be submitted to the Department of requires railroads to develop procedures
Transportation Docket Management I. Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) that, at a minimum, provide for the
System at the address below on or A. General installation, adjustment, maintenance,
before December 19, 2005. If a public and inspection of CWR, as well as a
hearing is requested and scheduled, CWR refers to the way in which rail
training program and minimal
FRA will announce the date, location, is joined together to form track. In CWR,
recordkeeping requirements. Section
and additional details concerning the rails are welded together to form one
213.119 does not dictate which
hearing by separate notice in the continuous rail that may be several
procedures a railroad must use in their
Federal Register. miles long. Although CWR is normally
one continuous rail, there can be joints 1 CWR plans. It allows railroads to
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments develop and implement their individual
in it for one or more reasons: The need
identified by DOT DMS Docket Number CWR plans based on procedures which
for insulated joints that electrically
FRA 2005–22522 by any of the have proven effective for them over the
separate track segments for signaling
following methods: years. Accordingly, procedures can vary
Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow purposes, the need to terminate CWR
installations at a segment of jointed rail, from railroad to railroad.
the instructions for submitting
or the need to remove and replace a II. SAFETEA–LU
comments on the DOT electronic docket
section of defective rail. On August 10, 2005, President Bush
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. B. Statutory and Regulatory History of signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; CWR Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), (Pub.
The Federal Railroad Administration
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, L. 109–59, August 10, 2005) into law.
(FRA) issued the first Federal Track
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– Section 9005(a) of SAFETEA–LU
Safety Standards in 1971. See 36 FR
001. amended 49 U.S.C. 20142 by adding a
20336. FRA addressed CWR in a rather
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on new subsection (e) as follows:
general manner, stating, in § 213.119,
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
that railroads must install CWR at a rail (e) Track Standards.—
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, (1) In General.—Within 90 days after the
temperature that prevents lateral
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday date of enactment of this subsection, the
displacement of track or pull-aparts of
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Federal Railroad Administration shall—
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to rail ends and that CWR should not be
(A) Require each track owner using
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the disturbed at rail temperatures higher continuous welded rail track to include
online instructions for submitting than the installation or adjusted procedures (in its procedures filed with the
comments. installation temperature. Administration pursuant to section 213.119
Instructions: All submissions must In 1982, FRA deleted § 213.119, of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations) to
include the agency name and docket because FRA believed it was so general improve the identification of cracks in rail
in nature that it provided little guidance joint bars;
number or Regulatory Identification (B) Instruct Administration track
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note to railroads and it was difficult to
enforce. See 47 FR 7275 and 47 FR inspectors to obtain copies of the most recent
that all comments received will be continuous welded rail programs of each
posted without change to http:// 39398. FRA stated that ‘‘While the
railroad within the inspectors’ areas of
dms.dot.gov, including any personal importance of controlling thermal responsibility and require that inspectors use
information provided. Please see the stresses within continuous welded rail those programs when conducting track
Privacy Act heading in the has long been recognized, research has inspections; and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
not advanced to the point where (C) Establish a program to review
specific safety requirements can be continuous welded rail joint bar inspection
this document for Privacy Act data from railroads and Administration track
information related to any submitted 1 Rail joints commonly consist of two joint bars inspectors periodically.
comments or materials. that are bolted to the sides of the rail and that (2) Inspection.—Whenever the
Docket: For access to the docket to contact the rail at the bottom surface of the rail head Administration determines that it is
read background documents or and the top surface of the rail base. necessary or appropriate, the Administration
66290 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
may require railroads to increase the train derailed because joint bars at the passenger cars. The derailment resulted
frequency of inspection, or improve the east end of the plug rail 3 fractured in one fatality, three serious injuries,
methods of inspection, of joint bars in (either under the previous train or as the and 43 minor injuries. The equipment
continuous welded rail.
accident train passed over the joint), costs associated with the accident
Pursuant to that mandate, FRA is and then, after the joint bars fractured, totaled about $7 million.
revising the Track Safety Standards the rail itself also fractured and broke In its Railroad Accident Report,4 the
located in 49 CFR part 213. away. The NTSB found that CPR’s NTSB determined that the probable
III. Train Accidents Involving Joints in inspection procedures regarding rail cause of the accident was ‘‘the failure of
CWR joint bars in CWR were inadequate to the Canadian National Railway
properly inspect and maintain joints Company to properly maintain and
Since FRA’s 1998 revision of the within CWR, and those inadequate inspect its track, resulting in rail shift
Track Safety Standards, there have been procedures allowed undetected cracking and the subsequent derailment of the
a number of train accidents in which the in the joint bars at the accident location train, and the Federal Railroad
failure of a rail joint in CWR was a to grow to a critical size. In a similar Administration’s ineffective oversight to
factor. The National Transportation vein, the NTSB found that FRA’s ensure proper maintenance of the track
Safety Board (NTSB) investigated three requirements regarding rail joint bars in by the railroad.’’
recent accidents and made CWR were ineffective, because they did The NTSB made two
recommendations to FRA concerning not require on-the-ground visual recommendations to FRA, one of which
joints in CWR. The NTSB inspections or nondestructive testing is relevant to the discussion here.
recommendations closely parallel the
adequate to identify cracks before they Emphasize to your track inspectors the
statutory mandate requiring this IFR.
grow to critical size and result in joint importance of enforcing a railroad’s
The three accidents and subsequent continuous welded rail program as a part of
bar failure.
NTSB recommendations are described The NTSB also found that FRA’s the Federal Track Safety Standards, and
below. oversight of CPR’s CWR program was verify that inspectors are documenting
ineffective, because FRA neither noncompliance with the railroad’s program.
A. Derailment of Canadian Pacific
(R–05–05).
Railroad Train 292–16 Near Minot, ND reviewed the CWR program nor ensured
On January 18, 2002, Canadian Pacific that its track inspectors had copies of C. Derailment of Union Pacific Train
Railway (CPR) freight train 292–15 the CWR programs to determine if the ZLAMN–16 Near Pico Rivera, CA
derailed 31 of its 112 cars about 1⁄2 mile railroad was in compliance with it.
As a result of these findings, the On October 16, 2004, Union Pacific
west of the city limits of Minot, North (UP) freight train ZLAMN–16 derailed 3
Dakota. Five tank cars carrying NTSB made seven safety
recommendations, of which the most locomotives and 11 cars near Pico
anhydrous ammonia, a liquefied Rivera, California. Small amounts of
compressed gas, catastrophically relevant are quoted below.
hazardous materials were released from
ruptured, and a vapor plume covered Require all railroads with continuous
the transported cargo. There were no
the derailment site and surrounding welded rail track to include procedures (in
the programs that are filed with the Federal injuries to area residents, the train crew,
area. About 11,600 people occupied the or the emergency response personnel.
area affected by the vapor plume. One Railroad Administration) that prescribe on-
the-ground visual inspections and UP estimated the monetary damage at
resident was fatally injured, and 60 to $2.7 million.
nondestructive testing techniques for
65 residents of the neighborhood nearest identifying cracks in rail joint bars before In its Railroad Accident Brief,5 the
the derailment site were rescued. As a they grow to critical size. (R–04–1). NTSB determined ‘‘that the probable
result of the accident, 11 people Establish a program to periodically review cause of the derailment was the failure
sustained serious injuries, and 322 continuous welded rail joint bar inspection of a pair of insulated joint bars due to
people, including the 2 train data from railroads and Federal Railroad fatigue cracking. Contributing to the
crewmembers, sustained major injuries. Administration track inspectors and, when
determined necessary, require railroads to
accident was the lack of an adequate on-
Damages exceeded $2 million, and more the-ground inspection program for
than $8 million has been spent in increase the frequency or improve the
methods of inspection of joint bars in identifying cracks in rail joint bars
environmental remediation. before they grow to critical size.’’
continuous welded rail. (R–04–2).
In its Railroad Accident Report,2 the The NTSB reiterated two of the
Instruct Federal Railroad Administration
NTSB determined that the probable track inspectors to obtain copies of the most recommendations that it had made to
cause of the derailment was ‘‘an recent continuous welded rail programs of FRA after the Minot, North Dakota
ineffective Canadian Pacific Railway the railroads that fall within the inspectors’ accident: (1) R–04–01 about on-the-
inspection and maintenance program areas of responsibility and require that ground visual inspections and
that did not identify and replace inspectors use those programs when nondestructive testing techniques and
cracked joint bars before they conducting track inspections. (R–04–3).
(2) R–04–02 about a program to review
completely fractured and led to the B. Derailment of Amtrak Train No. 58 joint bar inspection data. The NTSB
breaking of the rail at the joint.’’ The Near Flora, MS further stated in its brief:
NTSB found that the catastrophic failure
of five tank cars and the instantaneous On April 6, 2004, National Railroad The CWR track involved in the Pico Rivera
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train accident had all the inspections required by
release of 146,700 gallons of anhydrous the UP and the FRA. In some instances, the
ammonia also contributed to the No. 58 (City of New Orleans) derailed
on Canadian National Railway Company inspections were done more frequently than
severity of the accident. required. Nevertheless, the inspections failed
The NTSB issued several findings in track near Flora, Mississippi. The entire
its report. The NTSB found that the train derailed, including one 4 NTSB Railroad Accident Report: Derailment of
locomotive, one baggage car, and eight Amtrak Train No. 58, City of New Orleans, Near
2 NTSB Railroad Accident Report: Derailment of Flora, Mississippi, April 6, 2004 (NTSB/RAR–05/
Canadian Pacific Railway Freight Train 292–16 and 3 A ‘‘plug rail’’ describes a short piece of rail 02) (July 26, 2005).
Subsequent Release of Anhydrous Ammonia Near inserted into a length of CWR to replace a similar 5 NTSB Railroad Accident Brief: Accident No.
Minot, North Dakota, January 18, 2002 (NTSB/ piece that was removed because of defects or DCA–05–FR–002 (NTSB/RAB–05/02) (March 9,
RAR–04–01) (March 9, 2004). damage. 2004).
to detect the developing problems and bar cracks, FRA is requiring track example, it is more economical to
prevent the ultimate failure. Additionally, owners to also inspect for joint replace joint bolts or to reset rail
during the 2 days after the last inspection, conditions that can lead to the anchors (i.e., incipient failure
more than 100 trains passed over the
development of joint bar cracks. Track conditions) than it is to replace a joint
insulated joint bars without either
discovering or reporting a defect. Trains owners should inspect all safety-critical bar after it has developed a crack.
traversed the area after the insulated joint aspects of joints, including any FRA realizes that inspections at a
bars were completely broken, as evidenced indications of potential failure of the frequency that could detect incipient
by the rail batter in both directions. joint itself; any indications of potential cracks prior to the possibility of failure
Several indications of an imminent or failure of any components of the joint in every case are not feasible given the
actual defect were present before this (e.g., rails, bolts, supporting crossties, current levels of railroad staffing and in
accident, which the inspection from a and track fasteners); and the track itself light of the impediments to train
moving vehicle did not discover: operations that would result from
in the vicinity of the joint (including the
• The epoxy bead was missing from the
center section of the insulated joint bar, effectiveness of rail anchors or other restrictions required to provide for the
indicating vertical movement. devices for restraint of longitudinal safety and mobility of inspection
• The joint bars cracked before they movement of the rail). In the rule, FRA personnel. However, proper preparation
completely fractured. Part of each crack was lists examples of conditions that may and maintenance of joints, together with
visible on the lower outer portion of the bar indicate potential failure. This list is not appropriate instructions, can reduce the
for some time before its failure. all-inclusive. There are several other frequency of crack formation and also
• Rail end batter developed when the joint conditions, and FRA urges track owners prevent rapid propagation in most
bars completely fractured and trains cases—making a program of inspection
to consider all conditions, not just the
continued to pass over them in both
listed examples. both more feasible and more cost
directions.
These indications developed over time, In doing this, railroads will address effective.
and a close visual inspection from the ground the root of the problem—i.e., preventing Subparagraph (e)(1)(C) requires that
would have likely uncovered the emerging cracks from developing—rather than FRA ‘‘establish a program to
problem and allowed corrective action to be merely reacting to cracks after they have [periodically] review continuous
taken to avoid the accident. developed. It is understood that certain welded rail joint bar inspection data’’
conditions involving rail joints and the from railroads and FRA track inspectors.
IV. FRA’s Approach to CWR in This
surrounding CWR contribute to the Clearly, FRA can gather and review the
IFR
development and propagation of cracks joint bar inspection data from its own
Earlier versions of § 213.119 did not in rail joints. If track inspectors can inspectors’ inspections. However, in
require track owners to include any inspect for these conditions, detect order for FRA to review railroad CWR
provisions in their CWR plan related to these conditions, and provide joint bar inspection data, track owners
joints in CWR. Track owners were information so that railroads can correct must gather that data and make it
required simply to address joints in these conditions, it will reduce the available to FRA for review.
CWR in the same manner as they probability of joint failures and Accordingly, this rule now requires
addressed joints in conventional jointed subsequent train accidents. track owners to keep this data and make
rail. See 49 CFR 213.121. This IFR now Furthermore, this preventive it available to FRA. See § 213.119(i)(3).
requires track owners to specifically approach is more appropriate given that In order to effectively manage the
address joints in CWR in their the development of a crack in a rail joint joint inspection process, a track owner
respective CWR plans. bar can progress at an unpredictable must be able to clearly locate and
To meet the statutory requirement rate. Some cracks might exist for years identify each joint to be inspected.
that FRA issue this regulation within 90 without causing a rupture of the joint, Location means that the inspector
days of the enactment of SAFETEA–LU, while other cracks can progress rapidly knows the right place to go.
FRA is issuing this IFR. This IFR from an undetectable size to complete Identification means that the inspector
addresses 49 U.S.C. 20142(e)(1)(A) and failure. For example, a joint can can find the proper joint. The location
(e)(1)(C) (hereinafter referred to as completely fail under a single impact might be in miles to the nearest one-
(e)(1)(A) and (e)(1)(C)). Because 49 load if the joint is subjected to low hundredth or in Global Positioning
U.S.C. 20142(e)(1)(B) does not require temperatures and very high-tension System (GPS) coordinates to the nearest
regulatory action on the part of FRA, forces. ten meters. Because there could be
FRA is not addressing it in this FRA believes that the time and effort several joints (e.g., three or four) in that
rulemaking. it takes a track inspector to perform a same location, the identification of the
Subparagraph (e)(1)(A) mandates that complete inspection will be minimal joint will resolve that ambiguity. The
FRA require each track owner to while the benefit of a complete identification might be a unique mark
‘‘include procedures * * * to improve inspection will be high. Once a track on the joint or a description in the
the identification of cracks in rail joint inspector has arrived at a location to record (e.g., first joint in the south rail
bars.’’ Congress did not specify how inspect a joint and begun inspecting that of Track 2, 37 feet west of the insulated
FRA should effect that improvement. joint, it takes little time and effort (over joint at Signal 109.2).
One way of improving the identification and above the effort to search for and A track owner will need to pass on
of such cracks is through on-foot identify cracks in joint bars) for him or this information to maintenance groups
inspection of joints in CWR. Because her to note the condition of the entire responsible for remedying the
most cracks in joint bars can be detected joint and its surroundings. There are deficiencies found during inspections. It
by eye before they grow to failure, on- both safety and management benefits to is important that track owners provide
foot inspections can be of great value in a complete inspection. The safety accurate information on the location of
identifying joint failure. Accordingly, benefit is obvious in that it prevents the joint and a clear identification of the
FRA is requiring railroads to conduct derailments. As for management joint, to ensure that the maintenance
periodic and special on-foot inspections benefits, track owners will save money groups are working in the right place.
of CWR joints. See 213.119(g)(1). and time, because it is easier and more An adequate inspection process must
Rather than limit these on-foot cost effective to repair incipient joint also identify the joints that have
inspections to the identification of joint conditions than actual joint cracks. For received the required inspection and
those that are due for inspection. This meeting of the full RSAC on October 11, items are related to the integrity of the
ensures that the track owner performs 2005. At that time, FRA offered the joint and thus, to the safety of trains that
inspections at the required frequency. RSAC the task of reviewing comments operate over the joint.
FRA notes that, in many cases, this to the IFR and more generally Joint bars with visible or otherwise
same information is already required to examining the status of railroad CWR detectable cracks. These cracks should
carry out existing CWR plans since most plans, including joint integrity. The be identified, because they can progress
joints in CWR territory are now so- RSAC would have been free to suggest at an unpredictable rate, leading to the
called ‘‘temporary joints’’ that improvements to this IFR, together with eventual rupture of the joint bar and
correspond with locations where other proposals that will advance the then the misalignment of the rails and
adjustment of the track structure is safety of train operations over CWR a derailment.
needed to prevent track buckling that track, however the RSAC was unable to Loose, bent, or missing joint bolt. The
results from a combination of thermal agree upon a task statement (defining bolts through the joint bars and rail ends
inputs and disturbance at other-than- the scope of the activity) that would are a vital component of the joint. Bolts
neutral temperature. These joints, in meet the needs of each of the major are supposed to keep joint bars firmly
most cases, were created when a section stakeholder organizations whose supported to the joint. Where bolts are
of the rail was cut out to remove an participation would have been required missing, loose, or bent, the bolts will fail
internal flaw. in a RSAC working group. Failing to keep the joint bars firmly in contact
There is not yet an established, consensus among the major with the rails. The rails are then liable
efficient method for detecting cracks in stakeholders, FRA indicated that a task to separate when there is cold weather
joint bars by means of automated non- may be offered at a subsequent meeting. and the cold weather causes high-
destructive testing (NDT). FRA believes tension forces through the joint.
that such a system might be developed, V. Section-by-Section Analysis Bolts in joints with bars that are
and that a requirement for effective joint Section 213.119, in General separated from the web of the rail at the
bar inspection by either visual or other bolt holes tend to fail when the bolts
effective means can provide an FRA is revising § 213.119 by requiring bend. When the bolts bend beyond their
incentive for the railroad industry to track owners to incorporate into their elastic limit, they lose their design
develop such a system. FRA is aware CWR plans written procedures on the tension, and they are no longer capable
that some railroads do employ portable, inspection of joints in CWR. This will of holding the joint bars firmly against
hand-held equipment to conduct NDT require most track owners to amend the rail. The joint then permits the rails
of joint bars. their existing CWR plans. Track owners to move in relation to each other under
Use of this NDT technology, in must also create and maintain records of passing wheels, causing increased
addition to careful visual inspection, is these inspections. FRA provides details impact loads on the joint and battering
encouraged where judged effective. of these new provisions below. of the adjoining rail ends. This can
However, FRA notes that there is Section 213.119(g) potentially lead to cracks and eventually
insufficient engineering data to establish fracture of the joint bars or rail ends.
the effectiveness of NDT techniques as Paragraph (g) requires each track Rail end batter or mismatch that
applied to joint bars in the service owner to include in its CWR plan contributes to impact loads and
environment. Further, as illustrated by provisions for the scheduling and instability of the joint. Rail end batter
the ongoing examination of NDT conducting of joint inspections. A refers to the displacement of rail steel in
technology and services by the joint person who is qualified under § 213.7 the tread at the end of the rail. Rail end
FRA/industry Rail Integrity Task Force,6 should perform these inspections on batter occurs when wheels pass over a
operator qualification and quality foot at the joint. joint and (1) the rails are pulled apart to
control remain areas of concern. Section 213.119(g)(1) the extent that the wheels can drop
Accordingly, FRA focuses the slightly into the gap, and/or (2) the rail
‘‘benchmark’’ inspection requirements New subparagraph (g)(1) identifies ends are mismatched. Rail ends can be
of this IFR on visual inspection by a those items relating to joint inspections mismatched because joint bolts are
qualified track inspector. which track owners must address in loose or because the rails do not match
FRA requests comments on this IFR. their CWR plans. FRA notes that these when installed.
FRA will consider any comments it items are the minimum, which track Excessive rail end batter causes high
receives and where appropriate, revise owners should address. Track owners impact forces on all components of the
the final rule accordingly. In addition, are, of course, free to include additional joint; this can cause the joint bar or the
FRA had provided the Railroad Safety items in their respective CWR plans. rail to rupture. Also, vibrations at a
Advisory Committee (RSAC) with an This subparagraph refers to both battered joint can cause loss of
opportunity to review the prospective periodic and special on-foot consolidation of ballast at the joint,
comments to this IFR. There was a inspections. ‘‘Periodic inspections’’ are leaving the joint vulnerable to thermal
those inspections of joints in CWR that buckling when high compressive forces
6 The Rail Integrity Task Force is a joint FRA/
railroads will conduct on a regular are generated in the rails.
industry working group. It was convened in April basis. ‘‘Special inspections’’ are those Evidence of excessive longitudinal rail
2002 to identify ‘‘best practices’’ within the railroad
industry regarding the inspection, maintenance, inspections that track owners should movement in or near the joint,
and replacement of rail. The goal of the task force initiate in response to (1) indications of including, but not limited to, wide rail
is to ‘‘reduce rail-related accidents and casualties damage to a joint, (2) environmental gap, defective joint bolts, disturbed
resulting from derailments caused by broken rail.’’ conditions, including severe cold ballast, surface deviations, gap between
The task force is comprised of subject-matter
experts from the major heavy-haul railroads, the
weather, that can adversely effect the tie plates and rail, or displaced rail
Association of American Railroads, FRA’s Office of integrity of the joint, or (3) other anchors. Longitudinal rail movement is
Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA’s Office of unusual circumstances concerning a evidence that the rails might not be
Railroad Development, as well as technical support joint. securely anchored, that excessive
from the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center. The task force has also requested and
Track inspectors should identify and tension forces are developing in the rail
received input from all of the service providers in record these listed items during their when it is cold, or that the joint bolts
the field of nondestructive testing of rail. inspections of joints, because these have lost their clamping properties after
being stretched in bending. As wheels joints that give an indication of high rail approval in writing. In that written
pass over and drop into the gap, there tension loads, or joints in segments of notification, the Associate
are high impact forces on the joint. This track subject to wide variations of Administrator will specify the date on
can have the same consequences as temperature. FRA also notes that joints which the alternate procedures will
described above for rail end batter. in CWR often provide the first become effective. After that date, the
These tension forces, combined with indication of thermal rail distress (either track owner shall comply with the
additional impact loads, have a high compressive or tension forces) or approved procedures. If the Associate
tendency to cause cracks and to cause incipient buckling. Therefore it would Administrator determines that the
rupture of joint bars and rail. be prudent for a track owner to include alternate procedures do not provide an
provisions that pay special attention to equivalent level of safety, the Associate
Section 213.119(g)(2)
joints where there are likely to be Administrator will disapprove the
This subsection requires track owners temperature extremes at either end of alternate procedures in writing. While a
to do the following when formulating the spectrum. determination is pending with the
the procedures under § 213.119(g)(1): (1) For a rail joint management program Associate Administrator, the track
Implement a system for identifying to be effective, the results of an owner shall continue to comply with
joints in CWR; (2) institute a procedure inspection must be clearly associated the requirements contained in
to inventory joints in CWR; (3) specify with the joint that has been inspected. §§ 213.119(g)(1) and (2).
the conditions of potential joint failure This is necessary so that a work group FRA expects that the track owner will
for which personnel must inspect dispatched to repair a joint will be able include a risk analysis in its supporting
(including, at a minimum, the items to locate the joint and confirm that they statement of justification for alternate
listed in subparagraph (g)(1)); (4) specify are at the correct location. It is up to the procedures. The risk analysis, whether
the remedial action that personnel track owner to determine the method of qualitative or quantitative, should
should take when they discover joints identification and correlation. Possible demonstrate that the track owner’s
that are out of compliance with either methods include marking the joint or program is at least as good (as applied
part 213 or the track owner’s CWR plan; the adjacent track with a unique number across the entire railroad) as the
and (5) specify the timing of or using Global Positioning System benchmark level of inspection that FRA
inspections. receivers. mandates in this IFR. The risk analysis
Subparagraph (g)(2)(v) requires track FRA notes that part 213 has existing would likely address such issues as
owners to specify the timing of requirements addressing rail joints, tonnage, grades, curvature, prior joint
inspections. It also establishes including requirements for remediating failure rates (with respect to frequency),
minimum inspection frequencies for cracked or broken joint bars. For type of traffic, average train speed, and
certain joints. The differences are based instance, pursuant to § 213.121(b), ‘‘if a proximity to populations. The track
on the class of track and the operation joint bar on Classes 3 through 5 track is owner might use risk analysis
of passenger trains. The rule requires all cracked, broken, or because of wear techniques to focus more frequent
joints in CWR in track classes 4 and allows excessive vertical movement of inspections in areas of greater risk (e.g.,
higher to be inspected before October either rail when all bolts are tight, it approaches to bridges, close proximity
31, 2006 and within 190 days of the shall be replaced.’’ Also, pursuant to to populated areas, heavy tonnage,
previous inspection thereafter. It § 213.121(b), ‘‘if a joint bar is cracked or significant hazardous materials traffic),
requires all joints in class 3, and class broken between the middle two bolt while utilizing a lesser frequency at
2 track on which passenger trains holes it shall be replaced.’’ Existing other locations and optimizing safety
operate, to be inspected before April 30, requirements for rail joints will and efficiency.
2007 and within 370 days of the continue to apply to all rail joints, FRA will be most anxious to learn
previous inspection thereafter. FRA regardless of whether the rail joints are when an efficient, effective, and
requires railroads to conduct in CWR or in conventional jointed rail. economical automated procedure for
inspections more frequently for the See § 213.121. joint bar inspection is developed. To
higher class tracks (classes 4, 5, and 6), this end, FRA is making efforts to
because trains operate over these tracks Section 213.119(g)(3) explore new technologies for inspecting
at a faster speed and therefore the This subsection permits a track owner joint bars. FRA’s Office of Research and
consequences of an accident are much to devise an alternate program for the Development is currently funding
more serious. inspection of joints in CWR. A track research to develop an automated,
The rule does not establish minimum owner seeking to deviate from the vehicle-mounted, visual imaging system
inspection frequencies for joints in class minimum inspection frequencies that can survey joint bars across a
1 track, or class 2 track over which specified in §§ 213.119(g)(1) and (2) territory by recording digital
passenger trains do not operate. FRA should submit the alternate procedures photographic images and generating the
believes that the costs would outweigh and a supporting statement of data to exception reports.
the benefits if FRA set minimums for all justification to FRA’s Associate The Rail Integrity Task Force,7 a joint
the lower classes of tracks. In addition, Administrator for Safety (Associate FRA/industry working group, is also
trains that operate over the lower classes Administrator). In the supporting exploring the conditions under which
of track do so at slower speeds and so statement, the track owner must include railroads can more effectively detect
there is less risk of accident and less data and analysis that establishes to the joint bar cracks. One of the primary
serious consequences of an accident. satisfaction of the Associate objectives of this Task Force is to review
FRA emphasizes that the inspection Administrator for Safety that the industry best practices for the
frequency in subparagraph (g)(2)(v) is a alternate procedures provide at least an inspection, maintenance, and
minimum requirement. FRA notes that equivalent level of safety across the replacement of rail. The Task Force is
certain joints, due to their configuration, railroad. examining options for vehicle-mounted
condition, or environmental If the Associate Administrator for non-destructive testing that might, at a
circumstances, will probably require Safety approves the alternate future date, provide the ability to detect
more frequent inspections. Examples procedures, the Associate Administrator
would be joints with only four bolts, will notify the track owner of such 7 See footnote 6 supra.
both internal defects as well as cracks in inspection record requirements found in B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
joint bars. § 213.241(b).
Technology (including frequent The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
Section 213.343(j) (the Act) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
automated track geometry surveys) and
sound CWR management, including Subpart G of Part 213 contains the a review of proposed and final rules to
prompt removal of so-called track safety standards for train assess their impact on small entities.
‘‘temporary’’ joints, may provide the operations at track classes 6 and higher. The U.S. Small Business Administration
additional information required to Section 213.343 (which is found in (SBA) stipulates in its ‘‘Size Standards’’
verify the ongoing integrity of joints in subpart G) contains the CWR that the largest a railroad business firm
CWR. The alternative procedures requirements for train operations at that is ‘‘for-profit’’ may be, and still be
provision of this IFR will allow track track classes 6 and higher. FRA is classified as a ‘‘small entity’’ is 1,500
owners to take advantage of these new adding paragraph (j) to 213.343. It employees for ‘‘Line-Haul Operating
approaches as they become available. applies the joint bar inspection Railroads,’’ and 500 employees for
requirements in the revised 213.119 to ‘‘Switching and Terminal
Sections 213.119(h)–(j) train operations at track classes 6 and Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small entity’’ is
With the addition of a new section higher. Accordingly, § 213.343(j) states defined in the Act as a small business
213.119(g), FRA has renumbered the old that track owners shall revise their CWR concern that is not independently
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i). The training plans to include provisions for the owned and operated, and is not
requirements previously located in inspection of joint bars in accordance dominant in its field of operation. SBA’s
§ 213.119(g) are now located in with §§ 213.119(g) and (i)(3). ‘‘size standards’’ may be altered by
§ 213.119(h). The recordkeeping Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of federal agencies after consultation with
requirements previously located in Civil Penalties SBA and in conjunction with public
§ 213.119(h) are now located in comment. Pursuant to that authority,
§ 213.119(i). The definitions section FRA made a minor change to the
Schedule of Civil Penalties. Because FRA has published a final policy, which
formerly located in § 213.119(i) are now formally establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as
located in § 213.119(j). FRA added a new paragraph to
§ 213.119, FRA adjusted the civil railroads that meet the line haulage
Section 213.119(i) penalty schedule accordingly. revenue requirements of a Class III
Paragraph (i) contains the railroad. The revenue requirements are
VI. Regulatory Impact currently $20 million or less in annual
recordkeeping requirements for
railroads that have track constructed of A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT operating revenue. The $20 million
CWR. At a minimum, railroads must Regulatory Policies and Procedures limit (which is adjusted by applying the
keep records of the items listed in This rule has been evaluated in railroad revenue deflator adjustment) is
§ 213.119(i)(1) through (i)(3). With this accordance with existing policies and based on the Surface Transportation
interim final rule, FRA has added the procedures and determined to be non- Board’s (STB) threshold for a Class III
recordkeeping requirement listed in significant under both Executive Order railroad carrier. FRA uses the same
(i)(3). 128566 and DOT policies and revenue dollar limit to determine
Subparagraph (i)(3)(A) provides that procedures. 44 FR 11034; February 26, whether a railroad or shipper or
railroads must keep records of joint 1979. contractor is a small entity.
inspections. The record must include, at As part of the regulatory impact In this IFR, there are approximately
the most basic level, the fact that analysis, FRA has assessed a 200 small railroads that have CWR and
personnel performed an inspection of quantitative measurement of costs and are affected. FRA has adopted a phase-
the joint. The record must include the benefits expected from the in to minimize the significant economic
location of each joint, and each joint implementation of this interim final impact on these small entities. As FRA
must be identified with sufficient rule. The major costs anticipated from is publishing this rule as an IFR in order
precision that personnel could implementing this IFR include: the to comply with statutory requirements,
subsequently locate and identify the modification of existing CWR plans, the FRA has not received any comments
joint without ambiguity. In addition, the modification of existing software to take yet. FRA requests comments on this
record must clearly convey the results of an inventory, and the deterioration of economic analysis and encourages small
the inspection of each joint, so that the safety on track other than that with entities to comment on the impact on
personnel correcting the deficiencies CWR joints. The major benefit
small entities.
will know what actions they must take. anticipated from implementing this IFR
Finally, the record must include the will be a decrease in rule-affected C. Paperwork Reduction Act
remedial action required (if any) by the accidents.
track owner’s CWR plan. Subparagraph The rule will result in an initial cost The information collection
(i)(3)(B) provides that track owners must of $137,000. Depending upon the requirements in this IFR have been
maintain these joint inspection records railroad’s implementation, it may also submitted for approval to the Office of
in accordance with § 213.241. result in an increase of some accidents Management and Budget (OMB) under
of $20,000 per year and a decrease in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Section 213.241(b) rule-affected accidents of $790,000 per 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The section that
FRA has added § 213.119 to the list of year, for a net decrease in accident costs contains the new information collection
sections in § 213.241(b), thereby of $770,000. This yields a net benefit of requirements is noted and the estimated
requiring that inspections of joints made $653,000 in the first year and $770,000 time to fulfill each of the other
pursuant to § 213.119 comply with the per year in subsequent years. requirements is as follows:
Respondent Total annual Average time per Total amount Total annual
CFR section universe responses response burden hours burden cost
213.4—Excepted Track
—Designation of track as excepted .... 200 railroads .......... 20 orders ............... 15 minutes ............. 5 $190
—Notification to FRA about removal of 200 railroads .......... 15 notifications ....... 10 minutes ............. 3 114
excepted track.
213.5—Responsibility of track owners ....... 685 railroads .......... 10 notifications ....... 8 hours ................... 80 3,040
213.7—Designation of qualified persons to
supervise certain renewals and inspect
track
—Designations .................................... 685 railroads .......... 1,500 names .......... 10 minutes ............. 250 9,500
—Designations (partially qualified) 685 railroads .......... 250 names ............. 10 minutes ............. 42 1,596
under paragraph (c) of this section.
213.17—Waivers ........................................ 685 railroads .......... 6 petitions .............. 24 hours ................. 144 5,472
213.57—Curves, elevation and speed limi-
tations
—Request to FRA for approval ........... 685 railroads .......... 2 requests .............. 40 hours ................. 80 3,040
—Notification to FRA with written con- 685 railroads .......... 2 notifications ......... 45 minutes ............. 2 76
sent of other affected track owners.
—Test Plans For Higher Curving 1 railroad ................ 2 test plans ............ 16 hours ................. 32 1,216
Speeds.
213.110—Gage Restraint Measurement 685 railroads .......... 10 notifications + 2 45 min./4 hours ...... 16 608
Systems (GRMS)—Implementing tech rpts.
GRMS—Notices & Reports.
—GRMS Vehicle Output Reports ........ 685 railroads .......... 50 reports .............. 5 minutes ............... 4 152
—GRMS Vehicle Exception Reports ... 685 railroads .......... 50 reports ............... 5 minutes ............... 4 152
—GRMS/PTLF—Procedures For Data 685 railroads .......... 4 proc. Docs. ......... 2 hours ................... 8 305
Integrity.
—GRMS Training Programs/Sessions 685 railroads .......... 2 prog. + 5 sess. ... 16 hours ................. 112 4,256
—GRMS Inspection Records .............. 685 railroads .......... 50 records .............. 2 hours ................... 100 3,800
213.119—Continuous welded rail (CWR),
general
(g) Written procedures for CWR (New) ...... 239 railroads/ 240 modif. proc. ..... 3 hrs./1 hr. ............. 320 0 (Included in
ASLRRA. IFA RIA)
667,652
—Alternate Procedures For Rail Joints 239 railroads .......... 7 letters + 7 proc. .. 30 min. + 953 hrs. 6,675 667,652
(New).
—Training Programs For CWR Proce- 239 railroads/ 240 training Prog. .. 2 hea./12 hours ..... 490 18,620
dures (New). ASLRRA.
—Record Keeping ............................... 239 railroads .......... 2,000 records ......... 10 minutes ............. 233 12,654
—Record Keeping For CWR Rail 239 railroads .......... 360,000 rcds. ......... 2 minutes ............... 12,000 456,000
Joints (New).
—Periodic Records For CWR Rail 239 railroads .......... 480,000 rcds. ......... 1 minute ................. 8,000 304,000
Joints (New).
213.233—Track inspections ....................... 685 railroads .......... 2,500 inspections ... 1 minute ................. 42 1,512
213.241—Inspection records ...................... 685 railroads .......... 1,542,089 rcds ....... Varies ..................... 1,672,941 60,225,876
213.303—Responsibility for Compliance .... 2 railroads .............. 1 petition ................ 8 hours ................... 8 304
213.305—Designation of qualified individ- 2 railroads .............. 150 designations ... 10 minutes ............. 25 950
uals; general qualifications.
—Designations (Partially qualified) ..... 2 railroads .............. 20 designations ...... 10 minutes ............. 3 114
213.317—Waivers ...................................... 2 railroads .............. 1 petition ................ 24 hours ................. 24 912
213.329—Curves, elevation and speed
limitations
—FRA approval of qualified equip- 2 railroads .............. 3 notifications ......... 40 hours ................. 120 4,560
ment and higher curving speeds.
—Written notification to FRA with writ- 2 railroads .............. 3 notifications ......... 45 minutes ............. 2 76
ten consent of other affected track
owners.
2213.333—Automated Vehicle Inspec-
tion System.
—Track Geometry Measurement Sys- 3 railroads .............. 18 reports ............... 20 hours ................. 360 12,960
tem.
—Track/Vehicle Performance Meas-
urement System:
—Copies of most recent exception 2 railroads .............. 13 printouts ............ 20 hours ................. 260 9,360
printouts.
213.341—Initial inspection of new rail and
welds
—Mill inspection .................................. 2 railroads .............. 2 reports ................ 8 hours ................... 16 608
—Welding plan inspection ................... 2 railroads .............. 2 reports ................ 8 hours ................... 16 608
—Inspection of field welds .................. 2 railroads .............. 125 records ............ 20 minutes ............. 42 1,596
213.343—Continuous welded rail (CWR)
—Recordkeeping ................................. 2 railroads .............. 150 records ............ 10 minutes ............. 25 950
213.345—Vehicle qualification testing ........ 1 railroad ................ 2 reports ................ 16 hours ................. 32 1,216
Respondent Total annual Average time per Total amount Total annual
CFR section universe responses response burden hours burden cost
213.347—Automotive or Railroad Cross- 1 railroad ................ 2 plans ................... 8 hours ................... 16 608
ings at grade—Protection Plans.
213.369—Inspection Records
—Record of inspection ........................ 2 railroads .............. 500 records ............ 1 minute ................. 8 288
—Internal defect inspections and re- 2 railroads .............. 50 records .............. 5 minutes ............... 4 144
medial action taken.
All estimates include the time for FRA cannot impose a penalty on Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise
reviewing instructions; searching persons for violating information prohibited by law, assess the effects of
existing data sources; gathering or collection requirements, which do not Federal regulatory actions on State,
maintaining the needed data; and display a current OMB control number, local, and tribal governments, and the
reviewing the information. Pursuant to if required. FRA intends to obtain private sector (other than to the extent
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits current OMB control numbers for any that such regulations incorporate
comments concerning: whether these new information collection requirements specifically set forth in
information collection requirements are requirements resulting from this law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C.
necessary for the proper performance of rulemaking action prior to the effective 1532) further requires that ‘‘before
the function of FRA, including whether date of a final rule. The OMB control promulgating any general notice of
the information has practical utility; the number, when assigned, will be proposed rulemaking that is likely to
accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the announced by separate notice in the result in the promulgation of any rule
burden of the information collection Federal Register. that includes any Federal mandate that
requirements; the quality, utility, and may result in the expenditure by State,
D. Environmental Impact local, and tribal governments, in the
clarity of the information to be
collected; and whether the burden of FRA has evaluated these revised track aggregate, or by the private sector, of
collection of information on those who safety regulations in accordance with its $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
are to respond, including through the procedures for ensuring full annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and
use of automated collection techniques consideration of the potential before promulgating any final rule for
or other forms of information environmental impacts of FRA actions, which a general notice of proposed
technology, may be minimized. For as required by the National rulemaking was published, the agency
information or a copy of the paperwork Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. shall prepare a written statement’’
package submitted to OMB, contact 4321 et seq.), other environmental detailing the effect on State, local, and
Robert Brogan via e-mail at statutes, Executive Orders, and DOT tribal governments and the private
Robert.Brogan@fra.dot.gov. Order 5610.1c. This IFR meets the sector. This IFR will not result in the
criteria that establish this as a non-major expenditure, in the aggregate, of
Organizations and individuals
action for environmental purposes. $100,000,000 or more in any one year,
desiring to submit comments on the
and thus preparation of such a
collection of information requirements E. Federalism Implications
statement is not required.
should direct them to the Office of FRA has analyzed this IFR in
Management and Budget, Attention: accordance with the principles and G. Energy Impact
Desk Officer for the Federal Railroad criteria contained in Executive Order Executive Order 13211 requires
Administration, Office of Information 13132, issued on August 4, 1999, which Federal agencies to prepare a Statement
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC directs Federal agencies to exercise great of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
20503, and should also send a copy of care in establishing policies that have energy action.’’ See 66 FR 28355 (May
their comments to Robert Brogan, federalism implications. See 64 FR 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order a
Federal Railroad Administration, MS– 42355. This IFR will not have a ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
25, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., substantial effect on the States, on the any action by an agency that
Washington, 20590; or to Victor Angelo, relationship between the national promulgates or is expected to lead to the
Federal Railroad Administration, MS– government and the States, or on the promulgation of a final rule or
35, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., distribution of power and regulation, including notices of inquiry,
Washington, 20590. Comments may also responsibilities among various levels of advance notices of proposed
be sent electronically via e-mail to Mr. government. This IFR will not have rulemaking, and notices of proposed
Brogan at Robert.Brogan@fra.dot.gov or federalism implications that impose any rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant
to Mr. Angelo at direct compliance costs on State and regulatory action under Executive Order
Victor.Angelo@fra.dot.gov. local governments. FRA believes that 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is
OMB is required to make a decision this IFR has no federalism implications, likely to have a significant adverse effect
concerning the collection of information other than the preemption of state laws on the supply, distribution, or use of
requirements contained in this IFR covering the subject matter of this IFR, energy; or (2) that is designated by the
between 30 and 60 days after which occurs by operation of law under Administrator of the Office of
publication of this document in the 49 U.S.C. 20106 whenever FRA issues a Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment rule or order. significant energy action. FRA has
to OMB is best assured of having its full evaluated this IFR in accordance with
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days F. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of Executive Order 13211. FRA has
of publication. The IFR will respond to 1995 determined that this IFR is not likely to
any OMB or public comments on the Pursuant to Section 201 of the have a significant adverse effect on the
information collection requirements Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 supply, distribution, or use of energy.
contained in this IFR. (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Consequently, FRA has determined that
this IFR is not a ‘‘significant energy FRA requests comment on this IFR, (g) Procedures which prescribe the
action’’ within the meaning of the and as required by § 20103(e) of the scheduling and conduct of physical
Executive Order. Federal Railroad Safety Act, as codified track inspections to detect cracks and
(49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.), will provide other indications of incipient failures in
H. Privacy Act Statement
an opportunity for oral comment if it is joints in CWR. This paragraph is
Anyone is able to search the requested prior to the expiration of the effective January 3, 2006.
electronic form of all comments comment period. (1) At a minimum, these procedures
received into any of DOT’s dockets by FRA has made this rule effective 30 shall address periodic and special on-
the name of the individual submitting days after the date of publication. foot inspection of joints and of the track
the comment (or signing the comment, Although FRA has considered making adjacent to joints, in order to identify—
if submitted on behalf of an association, this rule effective immediately, FRA (i) Joint bars with visible or otherwise
business, labor union, etc). You may believes that railroads need time to detectable cracks;
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act prepare amendments to their CWR (ii) Loose, bent, or missing joint bolts;
Statement published in the Federal plans, to put administrative systems in (iii) Rail end batter or mismatch that
Register on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, order supporting this IFR, and to contributes to impact loads and
Number 70, Pages 19477–78) or you disseminate necessary information to instability of the joint; and
may visit http://dms.dot.gov. their personnel effected by this rule. (iv) Evidence of excessive
Making the rule effective within 30 days longitudinal rail movement in or near
List of Subjects the joint, including, but not limited to,
will expedite resolution of any petitions
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting for reconsideration and hasten wide rail gap, defective joint bolts,
and recordkeeping requirements. implementation of the rule. See 49 CFR disturbed ballast, surface deviations,
211.29. Note that the compliance date gap between tie plates and rail, or
The Interim Final Rule displaced rail anchors.
for placing the revised CWR plan in
Issuance of Interim Final Rule; Request (2) In formulating the procedures
place is 60 days following the
for Public Comment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
publication of this rule, allowing time
the track owner shall—
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 for resolution of any petitions for
(i) Implement a system for identifying
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) requires that, before reconsideration, including any
each joint by its location in track with
issuing a rule, the agency provide notice necessary technical corrections pointed
sufficient precision that personnel can
and the opportunity for public comment out by any such petition, while ensuring
return to the joint and identify it
(§ 553(b)(3)(B)), except ‘‘when the prompt implementation. The interval
without ambiguity;
agency for good cause finds (and between the effective date and the (ii) List each joint in an inventory that
incorporates the finding and a brief compliance date also provides an will enable personnel to identify joints
statement of reasons therefore in the opportunity for official review of any due for periodic inspection;
rules issued) that notice and public alternative implementations. (iii) Specify the conditions of
procedures thereon are impracticable, ■ For the reasons discussed in the potential joint failure for which
unnecessary, or contrary to public preamble, the Federal Railroad personnel must inspect, including, at a
interest.’’ FRA finds that the delay Administration amends part 213 of minimum, the items listed in paragraph
inherent to normal notice and comment chapter II, subtitle B of Title 49, Code (g)(1) of this section;
rulemaking would be impractical if FRA of Federal Regulations, as follows: (iv) Specify the appropriate remedial
intends to fulfill the SAFETEA–LU actions, consistent with this part, that
statutory mandate that requirements be PART 213—[AMENDED] should be taken when personnel find
implemented within 90 days. FRA has conditions of potential joint failure; and
acted both immediately to implement ■ 1. The authority citation for part 213 (v) Specify the timing of the
this mandate and has deferred other, continues to read as follows: inspections, which should be based on
conflicting work. FRA would be unable Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20114 and the configuration and condition of the
to meet the statutory requirement for 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR joint. At a minimum, track owners must
prompt action if FRA were to issue a 1.49(m). specify that all joints in CWR in track
notice of proposed rulemaking, receive classes 4 and higher must be inspected
public comment, consider comments ■ 2. Section 213.119 is amended by before October 31, 2006 and within 190
received, and prepare and issue a final revising the introductory language and days of the previous inspection
rule. FRA also finds that further delay paragraph (g) through (i) and by adding hereafter; and all joints in CWR in track
would be contrary to the public interest, a new paragraph (j) to read as follows: classes 3, and class 2 track on which
given the strong safety concerns passenger trains operate, must be
§ 213.119 Continuous welded rail (CWR);
expressed by the underlying statute. inspected before April 30, 2007 and
general
FRA believes that Congress clearly within 370 days of the previous
intended that FRA issue this rule in so Each track owner with track inspection thereafter.
short a time period in order to help constructed of CWR shall have in effect (3) In lieu of the requirements for the
prevent additional train accidents and comply with a plan that contains inspection of rail joints contained in
caused by the failure of joints in CWR written procedures which address: the paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section,
in the very near term. Allowing time for installation, adjustment, maintenance a track owner may seek approval from
full notice and comment procedure and inspection of CWR; inspection of FRA to use alternate procedures.
would frustrate this intent and could joints in CWR; and a training program (i) The track owner shall submit the
potentially result in train accidents that for the application of those procedures. alternate procedures and a supporting
would otherwise be avoided by The plan shall be submitted to the statement of justification to the
adherence to the new requirements in Federal Railroad Administration by Associate Administrator for Safety
this rule. The public interest clearly March 22, 1999. FRA reviews each plan (Associate Administrator).
supports issuance of this IFR in order to for compliance with the following— (ii) If the Associate Administrator
avoid such consequences. * * * * * finds that the alternate procedures
provide an equivalent or higher level of (B) The results of the inspection of (8) Rail Temperature means the
safety than the requirements in each joint; and temperature of the rail, measured with
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this (C) Any remedial action required a rail thermometer.
section, the Associate Administrator under the track owner’s CWR plan. (9) Tight/Kinky Rail means CWR
will approve the alternate procedures by (ii) Track owners shall maintain which exhibits minute alinement
notifying the track owner in writing. records required by paragraph (i)(3)(i) in irregularities which indicate that the rail
The Associate Administrator will accordance with § 213.241. is in a considerable amount of
specify in the written notification the (j) As used in this section— compression.
date on which the procedures will (1) Adjusting/De-stressing means the (10) Train-induced Forces means the
become effective, and after that date, the procedure by which a rail’s temperature vertical, longitudinal, and lateral
track owner shall comply with the dynamic forces which are generated
is re-adjusted to the desired value. It
procedures. If the Associate during train movement and which can
typically consists of cutting the rail and
Administrator determines that the contribute to the buckling potential.
removing rail anchoring devices, which
alternate procedures do not provide an (11) Track Lateral Resistance means
provides for the necessary expansion
equivalent level of safety, the Associate the resistance provided by the rail/
and contraction, and then re-assembling
Administrator will disapprove the crosstie structure against lateral
the track.
alternate procedures in writing, and the displacement.
track owner shall continue to comply (2) Buckling Incident means the
formation of a lateral mis-alinement (12) Track Longitudinal Resistance
with the requirements in paragraphs means the resistance provided by the
(g)(1) and (2) of this section. sufficient in magnitude to constitute a
deviation from the Class 1 requirements rail anchors/rail fasteners and the
(iii) While a determination is pending ballast section to the rail/crosstie
with the Associate Administrator on a specified in § 213.55. These normally
occur when rail temperatures are structure against longitudinal
request submitted pursuant to paragraph displacement.
(g)(3) of this section, the track owner relatively high and are caused by high
shall continue to comply with the longitudinal compressive forces. ■ 3. Section 213.241(b) is revised to
requirements contained in paragraphs (3) Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) read as follows:
(g)(1) and (2) of this section. means rail that has been welded
(h) The track owner shall have in together into lengths exceeding 400 feet. § 213.241 Inspection records.
effect a comprehensive training program (4) Desired Rail Installation * * * * *
for the application of these written CWR Temperature Range means the rail (b) Each record of an inspection under
procedures, with provisions for periodic temperature range, within a specific §§ 213.4, 213.119, 213.233, and 213.235
re-training, for those individuals geographical area, at which forces in shall be prepared on the day the
designated under § 213.7 as qualified to CWR should not cause a buckling inspection is made and signed by the
supervise the installation, adjustment, incident in extreme heat, or a pull-apart person making the inspection. Records
and maintenance of CWR track and to during extreme cold weather. shall specify the track inspected, date of
perform inspections of CWR track. (5) Disturbed Track means the inspection, location and nature of any
(i) The track owner shall prescribe disturbance of the roadbed or ballast deviation from the requirements of this
recordkeeping requirements necessary section, as a result of track maintenance part, and the remedial action taken by
to provide an adequate history of track or any other event, which reduces the the person making the inspection. The
constructed with CWR. At a minimum, lateral or longitudinal resistance of the owner shall designate the location(s)
these records must include: track, or both. where each original record shall be
(1) Rail temperature, location and date maintained for at least one year after the
(6) Mechanical Stabilization means a
of CWR installations. This record shall inspection covered by the record. The
type of procedure used to restore track
be retained for at least one year; owner shall also designate one location,
(2) A record of any CWR installation resistance to disturbed track following
certain maintenance operations. This within 100 miles of each state in which
or maintenance work that does not they conduct operations, where copies
conform with the written procedures. procedure may incorporate dynamic
track stabilizers or ballast consolidators, of records which apply to those
Such record shall include the location operations are either maintained or can
of the rail and be maintained until the which are units of work equipment that
are used as a substitute for the be viewed following 10 days notice by
CWR is brought into conformance with the Federal Railroad Administration.
such procedures; stabilization action provided by the
(3) Information on inspection of rail passage of tonnage trains. ■ 4. Section 213.343 is amended by
joints. (7) Rail Anchors means those devices adding a new paragraph (j) to read as
(i) After the initial inspection of each which are attached to the rail and bear follows:
joint in accordance with paragraph (g) of against the side of the crosstie to control
this section, the track owner must longitudinal rail movement. Certain § 213.343 Continuous welded rail (CWR).
include in the record: types of rail fasteners also act as rail * * * * *
(A) The location of each joint in CWR anchors and control longitudinal rail (j) Track owners shall revise their
with such precision that the joint can be movement by exerting a downward CWR plans to include provisions for the
located and identified in the field with clamping force on the upper surface of inspection of joint bars in accordance
no ambiguity; the rail base. with §§ 213.119(g) and (i)(3).
■ 5. Appendix B to part 213 is amended Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of

by revising the entry for § 213.119 to Civil Penalties
read as follows:
Section Violation Willful violation
* * * * * * *
§ 213.119 Continuous welded rail
(a) through (i) .................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 7,500
* * * * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 26,

2006.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–21845 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

Rule: Track Safety Standards: Continuous Welded Rail Joints Inspection

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rule: Track Safety Standards: Continuous Welded Rail Joints Inspection

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

66288 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

■ 5. Appendix B to part 213 is amended Appendix B to Part 213—Schedule of

Section Violation Willful violation

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 26,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi