Proposed Rule2025-12191

Repealing a Track Surface Requirement

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published
July 1, 2025

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentFederal Railroad Administration

Abstract

FRA proposes to repeal the runoff parameter from its track surface requirements for track Classes 1 through 5. FRA has found that other geometry requirements in FRA's regulations already capture the same safety concerns.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28626-28629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12191]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 213

[Docket No. FRA-2025-0116]
RIN 2130-AD49


Repealing a Track Surface Requirement

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA proposes to repeal the runoff parameter from its track 
surface requirements for track Classes 1 through 5. FRA has found that 
other geometry requirements in FRA's regulations already capture the 
same safety concerns.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by September 2, 
2025. FRA may consider comments received after that date, but only to 
the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: 
    Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2025-0116 may be 
submitted by going to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and following the 
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket 
number (FRA-2025-0116), and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for 
this rulemaking (2130-AD49). All comments received will be posted 
without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>; this includes any 
personal information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act 
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and follow the

[[Page 28627]]

online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yu-Jiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track 
and Structures Division, Federal Railroad Administration, telephone: 
(202) 493-6460, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8b1bda2a1a9a6afe6b2a0a9a6af88aca7bce6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aed7dbc4c7cfc0c980d4c6cfc0c9eecac1da80c9c1d8">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>; or Aaron Moore, Senior 
Attorney, Federal Railroad Administration, telephone: (202) 853-4784, 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b1a1a09141555161414091e3b1f140f551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8dececffe2e3a3e0e2e2ffe8cde9e2f9a3eae2fb">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Consistent with the deregulatory agenda of President Donald J. 
Trump and Secretary of Transportation Sean P. Duffy, which seeks to 
unleash America's economic prosperity without compromising 
transportation safety, FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in 
parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 
Under 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety Standards, FRA prescribes minimum 
safety requirements for railroad track that is part of the general 
railroad system of transportation. Some of the requirements contained 
in part 213 could be updated to reduce burdens, make technical or 
conforming changes, or otherwise adjust to advancing technology without 
any adverse effect on railroad safety. Please review the section-by-
section analysis below for the relevant information related to FRA's 
proposed change.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 213.63 Track Surface

    Paragraph (a) of this section requires each track owner to maintain 
the surface of its track within certain parameters set forth in a 
table. FRA proposes to repeal the runoff parameter from these track 
surface requirements. A working group of FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee previously considered removing this parameter from FRA's 
regulations in 2019 and 2022.\1\ The other parameters in FRA's 
regulations, including the thresholds outlined in existing paragraph 
(a), already capture the same track surface safety concerns. FRA 
proposes removing the runoff parameter from the existing table in 
paragraph (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Track Standards Working Group Update, June 27, 2022, 
available at <a href="https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/meetings?id=61">https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/meetings?id=61</a>; Track 
Standards Working Group Update, Dec. 12, 2022, available at <a href="https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/meetings?id=62">https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/meetings?id=62</a>; Approved Minutes from Dec. 12, 
2022, RSAC Meeting, available at <a href="https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/meetings?id=63">https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/meetings?id=63</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FRA has considered the impact of this proposed rule under E.O. 
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), and 
DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking (Mar. 10, 
2025). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not 
a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. FRA 
proposes to remove the runoff parameter from the track surface 
requirements in 49 CFR 213.63(a), as it is unnecessary and the other 
geometry requirements in that paragraph capture the same safety 
concerns.
    FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this proposed 
rule. Because this proposed rule would reduce the regulatory burden on 
track owners by eliminating the costs to measure and meet the runoff 
parameters currently set forth in 49 CFR 213.63(a), this proposed rule 
would provide cost savings to regulated entities. In addition, this 
proposed rule would provide some qualitative benefits to regulated 
entities and the U.S. government by eliminating an unnecessary 
requirement from part 213.

B. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)

    E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, 
Jan. 31, 2025), requires that for ``each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory 
action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for 
elimination.'' \2\ Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB 
(Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 
14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 
regulatory action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 14192 of 
January 31, 2025. Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. 90 FR 
9065-9067 (Feb. 6, 2025).
    \3\ Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and 
Budget. Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, 
Titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.'' Memorandum M-
25-20. Mar. 26, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as ``an action that 
has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.'' This proposed 
rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and 
therefore it would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon 
issuance of a final rule. While FRA affirms that each amendment 
proposed in this NPRM has a cost that is negligible or ``less than 
zero'' consistent with E.O. 14192, FRA still requests comment on the 
extent of the cost savings for the changes proposed in this NPRM.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\4\ 
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory 
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any 
significant economic impact. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an 
analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and 
mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these 
businesses. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and 
are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the 
head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. This rule proposes to remove an unnecessary requirement 
from part 213 that would otherwise require entities to measure and meet 
the runoff parameters in existing 49 CFR 213.63(a). While this rule may 
impact many regulated entities, including small entities, the proposed 
rule would reduce the regulatory burden on track owners and provide 
benefits by eliminating the costs associated with measuring and meeting 
runoff parameters. Consequently, FRA certifies that the proposed action 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FRA 
wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so 
they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in 
the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small 
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have 
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please 
consult

[[Page 28628]]

the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it contains 
no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Therefore, an information 
collection submission to OMB is not required.

E. Environmental Assessment

    FRA has analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
4336 and DOT NEPA Order 5610.1C, FRA has determined that this rule is 
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), ``[p]lanning 
and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to 
construction, such as: [p]romulgation of rules, regulations, and 
directives.'' This rulemaking is not anticipated to result in any 
environmental impacts, and there are no unusual or extraordinary 
circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.
    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking 
has no potential to affect historic properties. FRA has also determined 
that this rulemaking does not approve a project resulting in a use of a 
resource protected by Section 4(f).

F. Federalism Implications

    This proposed rule would not have a substantial effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with E.O. 13132, 
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the 
aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one 
year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private 
sector. Thus, consistent with section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1532), FRA is not required 
to prepare a written statement detailing the effect of such an 
expenditure.

H. Energy Impact

    E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for 
any ``significant energy action.'' FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 
in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined that this proposed rule is 
not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of E.O. 13211.

I. E.O. 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Nov. 6, 2000). The 
proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 
Indian tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
Indian tribal governments, and would not preempt tribal laws. 
Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do 
not apply, and a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

J. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 \5\ prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. This rulemaking is purely domestic in nature and is not 
expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business 
overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 19 U.S.C. ch. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, as described in 
the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through 
<a href="http://www.transportation.gov/privacy">www.transportation.gov/privacy</a>. To facilitate comment tracking and 
response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of 
their organization; however, submission of names is completely 
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely 
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments 
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the 
agency for alternate submission instructions.

L. Rulemaking Summary

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be 
found at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, Docket No. FRA-2025-0116, in the SUMMARY 
section of this proposed rule.

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:

0
1. The authority citation for part 213 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 
and 49 CFR 1.89.

0
2. Revise Sec.  213.63(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  213.63  Track surface.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each track 
owner shall maintain the surface of its track within the limits 
prescribed in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Class of track
            Track surface  (inches)             ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1            2            3            4            5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deviation from uniform profile on either               3       2\3/4\       2\1/4\            2       1\1/4\
 rail at the mid-ordinate of a 62-foot chord
 may not be more than..........................
The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point            3            2       1\3/4\       1\1/4\            1
 on tangent or reverse crosslevel elevation on
 curves may not be more than...................
The difference in crosslevel between any two               3       2\1/4\            2       1\3/4\       1\1/2\
 points less than 62 feet apart may not be more
 than *\1\ \2\.................................

[[Page 28629]]

 
* Where determined by engineering decision                 2       1\3/4\       1\1/4\            1        \3/4\
 prior to June 22, 1998, due to physical
 restrictions on spiral length and operating
 practices and experience, the variation in
 crosslevel on spirals per 31 feet may not be
 more than.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as limited by Sec.   213.57(a), where the elevation at any point in a curve equal or exceeds 6
  inches, the difference in crosslevel within 62 feet between that point and a point with greater elevation may
  not be more than 1\1/2\ inches.
\2\ However, to control harmonics on Class 2 through 5 jointed track with staggered joints, the crosslevel
  differences shall not exceed 1\1/4\ inches in all of six consecutive pairs of joints, as created by seven low
  joints. Track with joints staggered less than 10 feet apart shall not be considered as having staggered
  joints. Joints within the seven low joints outside of the regular joint spacing shall not be considered as
  joints for purposes of this footnote.

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Kyle D. Fields,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2025-12191 Filed 6-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.