Rule2026-08245
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
April 28, 2026
Effective
May 28, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Railroad Administration
Abstract
This rule repeals the runoff parameter from FRA's track surface requirements for track Classes 1 through 5. FRA has found that other geometry requirements in FRA's regulations already address the same safety issue.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22733-22736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08245]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 213
[Docket No. FRA-2025-0116; Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AD49
Repealing a Track Surface Requirement
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule repeals the runoff parameter from FRA's track
surface requirements for track Classes 1 through 5. FRA has found that
other geometry requirements in FRA's regulations already address the
same safety issue.
DATES: This rule is effective May 28, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yu-Jiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track
and Structures Division, FRA, telephone: (202) 493-6460, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f363a25262e21286135272e21280f2b203b61282039"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e171b04070f00094014060f00092e0a011a40090118">[email protected]</span></a>; or Aaron Moore, Senior
[[Page 22734]]
Attorney, FRA, telephone: (202) 853-4784, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c7d7d6e7372327173736e795c787368327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c6a7a7b4a9a8e8aba9a9b4a386a2a9b2e8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity
Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219,
Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's
``Department of Government Efficiency'' Deregulatory Initiative (90 FR
10583, Feb. 25, 2025), FRA is reviewing its regulatory requirements in
parts 200 through 299 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and repealing requirements that are outdated and redundant.
On July 1, 2025, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that proposed to repeal the runoff parameter from 49 CFR 213.63
in FRA's track surface requirements. 90 FR 28626. During the comment
period that closed on September 2, 2025, FRA received comments from the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED) \1\ and the
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation
Workers--Transportation Division (SMART-TD).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0116-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0116-0002</a>.
\2\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0116-0003">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0116-0003</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, BMWED supports the repeal of the runoff parameter in
section 213.63(a), contingent upon the continued enforcement of
overlapping and technically sufficient surface condition standards, as
that runoff parameter is redundant. Conversely, SMART-TD urges FRA to
withdraw this rulemaking, as SMART-TD contends that the runoff
parameter is unique, necessary, and irreplaceable. FRA disagrees with
SMART-TD and discusses the comments it received further in the Section-
by-Section Analysis of this final rule. FRA finalizes the NPRM as
proposed.
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 the
table. A working group of FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC) previously considered removing the surface runoff parameter from
FRA's regulations between 2019 and 2022.\3\ In the NPRM, FRA proposed
to repeal the runoff parameter from the existing table in paragraph (a)
(i.e., the first row of the table).\4\ The other parameters in FRA's
regulations, including the thresholds outlined in existing paragraph
(a), already capture the same track surface safety concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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>.
\4\ 90 FR 28626 (July 1, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments, BMWED supports the repeal of the runoff parameter
in section 213.63(a), contingent upon the continued enforcement of
overlapping and technically sufficient surface condition standards.
BMWED comments that runoff has become functionally redundant and is a
legacy parameter no longer necessary for ensuring compliance or safety.
BMWED also requests that FRA take the following actions: (1) clarify
that inspectors retain the authority to cite hazardous surface
conditions outside specific numeric thresholds, including updating
FRA's Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual to make that statement;
(2) reaffirm its commitment to the RSAC process for future technical
rulemakings; and (3) conduct post-repeal monitoring to verify continued
safety performance.
FRA appreciates BMWED's support of this rule and agrees that the
runoff parameter under existing section 213.63(a) is redundant and
unnecessary. In response to BMWED's three requests, first, FRA
clarifies that this final rule does not limit an FRA inspector's
ability to take enforcement action for unsafe conditions, consistent
with 49 CFR part 213. FRA will continue enforcing its track safety
requirements. Also, FRA expects railroad inspectors to protect a
geometry condition before it reaches the limit, if they are concerned
the track may degrade further prior to the next inspection.
Second, FRA appreciates BMWED's support for RSAC and agrees that
RSAC may be the appropriate forum for the agency's various stakeholders
to exchange information relating to the safety of rail operations.
Third, FRA will continue to oversee railroads' track safety, including
by conducting field inspections and automated track inspections.
In its comments, SMART-TD urges FRA to withdraw this rulemaking, as
SMART-TD expects that repealing the runoff parameter will embolden
railroads to accept track conditions that place crews and the public at
greater risk of injury and derailment. SMART-TD argues that the runoff
parameter is unique, necessary, and irreplaceable in the rulebook.
SMART-TD asserts that the runoff parameter exists for a reason--that
is, to control lateral motion in track transitions: ``Lateral
instability increases the risk of derailment, introduces unsafe forces
into locomotives and cars, and magnifies wear and tear on track
components. Over time, unchecked lateral motion compounds into more
rapid track degradation, creating a cycle of instability that ends in
catastrophe.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0116-0003">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FRA-2025-0116-0003</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA does not agree with SMART-TD that the runoff provision is
``irreplaceable,'' or that repealing it will reduce safety. The runoff
parameter under section 213.63(a) was meant to confront situations
where track is elevated because of surfacing or bridge work, not
degradation or deterioration. When trains encounter this ramp, they
experience a vertical pitch or bounce if the elevation occurs in too
short a distance. However, FRA's experience is that railroad
maintenance practices make the limit unnecessary. FRA is confident that
the existing limits for surface profile detect the same unsafe
conditions. Like runoff, the profile parameter covers vertical changes
in the surface uniformity of the rail, the only difference being it is
measured over a 62-foot distance as opposed to runoff, which is
measured at a 31-foot distance.
With that said, FRA generally agrees with SMART-TD's comments about
the safety risks of track surface conditions causing undesirable in-
train forces and the value of locomotive engineers and conductors
reporting rough track. The existing geometry limits under profile,
crosslevel, and warp cover this concern, and are not modified by this
rulemaking.
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 final rule under E.O. 12866
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
FRA analyzed the potential costs and benefits of this final rule.
This final rule repeals the runoff parameter in FRA's track surface
requirements, and therefore, this final rule will reduce the regulatory
burden on track owners by
[[Page 22735]]
eliminating the costs to measure and meet the runoff parameters
currently set forth in 49 CFR 213.63(a). This rule will provide cost
savings to regulated entities. In addition, this rule will provide some
qualitative benefits to regulated entities and the U.S. government by
eliminating an unnecessary requirement from part 213.
B. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires
that for ``each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten
prior regulations be identified for elimination.'' \6\ Implementation
guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26,
2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14192 of
January 31, 2025, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR
9065-9067 (Feb. 6, 2025).
\7\ Executive Office of the President, OMB, Guidance
Implementing Section 3 of E.O. 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 final
rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore it will be
considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of this
final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996,\8\ 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, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and government jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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. By extending this regulatory relief, many regulated
entities, including small entities, will experience cost savings.
Consequently, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule offers regulatory flexibilities, and it does not
impose any new information collection requirements or modify any
existing information collection requirements. Therefore, an information
collection submission to OMB is not required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The existing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in part 213 became
effective when they were approved by OMB on February 7, 2024. The OMB
control number is OMB No. 2130-0010, and OMB approval expires on
February 28, 2027.
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 5610.1D, FRA has determined that this rule is
categorically excluded pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 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.
F. Federalism Implications
This final rule will not have a substantial effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 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 final rule will 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 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' \9\ FRA has
evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and determined
that this final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' within the
meaning of E.O. 13211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
FRA has evaluated this final rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, Nov. 6, 2000). The final
rule will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
tribal governments, and will 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 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 final rule 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.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 213
Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Final Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends part 213 of
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 213--TRACK SAFETY STANDARDS
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:
[[Page 22736]]
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 rail at the mid- 3 2 \3/4\ 2 \1/4\ 2 1 \1/4\
ordinate of a 62-foot chord may not be more than..................
The deviation from zero crosslevel at any point on tangent or 3 2 1 \3/4\ 1 \1/4\ 1
reverse crosslevel elevation on curves may not be more than.......
The difference in crosslevel between any two points less than 62 3 2 \1/4\ 2 1 \3/4\ 1 \1/2\
feet apart may not be more than * \1\ \2\.........................
* Where determined by engineering decision prior to June 22, 1998, 2 1 \3/4\ 1 \1/4\ 1 \3/4\
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, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.89.
David A. Fink,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-08245 Filed 4-27-26; 8:45 am]
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 April 28, 2026.
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.