Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
(2) FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a public, oral hearing prior to December 28, 2009, one will be scheduled and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the
As will be detailed in this NPRM, the recent increase in roadway worker fatalities that have occurred on an adjacent track (
The RWP Rule requires each railroad that operates rolling equipment on track that is part of the general railroad system of transportation to “adopt and implement a program that will afford on-track safety to all roadway workers whose duties are performed on that railroad.”
Several methods are authorized to be used to provide on-track safety for roadway workers, and many of those methods involve establishing “working limits,” which is defined in part as “a segment of track with definite boundaries established in accordance with [part 214] upon which trains and engines may move only as authorized by the roadway worker having control over that defined segment of track.”
Train approach warning is another common method of establishing on-
Section 214.335(c) of the RWP Rule currently requires that roadway work groups engaged in “large-scale maintenance or construction” be provided with on-track safety in the form of “train approach warning” for train or equipment movements on adjacent tracks if the adjacent tracks are not already included within the working limits. Under the current definition of “adjacent tracks,” on-track safety as discussed above is required for any tracks with track centers spaced less than 25 feet apart from the track center of the track to which a roadway work group is assigned to perform large-scale maintenance or construction.
Although the term “large-scale maintenance or construction” is not specifically defined in the regulation, FRA noted in the preamble to the 1996 final rule establishing the RWP Rule that the principle behind the reference to large-scale maintenance or construction “is the potential for distraction, or the possibility that a roadway worker or roadway maintenance machine might foul the adjacent track and be struck by an approaching or passing train,” and further stated that “conditions in which the risk of distraction is significant” require measures to provide on-track safety on adjacent tracks.”
After the occurrence of five roadway worker fatalities in one calendar year (2003), including one on an adjacent track, FRA responded on April 27, 2004, by issuing Notice of Safety Advisory 2004-01, which was later published in the
The safety advisory explained that the requirements of the RWP Rule, including the requirement to provide adjacent track on-track safety for large-scale maintenance or construction in § 214.335(c), are only minimum standards. The advisory emphasized that railroads and railroad contractors are free to prescribe additional or more-stringent standards consistent with the rule.
FRA recommended that railroads and contractors to railroads develop and implement basic risk assessment procedures for use by roadway workers to determine the likelihood that a roadway worker or equipment would foul an adjacent track prior to initiating work activities, regardless of whether those activities were “large-scale” or “small-scale.” The advisory provided examples of relevant factors to consider in making such an assessment. These factors included whether the work could be conducted by individuals positioned between the rails of a track on which on-track safety has been established, as opposed to being on the field side of such a track toward an adjacent track; whether there was a structure between the tracks to prevent intrusion (such as a fence between the tracks at a passenger train station and the tall beam of a through-plate girder bridge); the track-center distance, to ensure that the adjacent track would not be fouled if a worker were to inadvertently trip and fall; the nature of the work (inspection or repair); the sight distances; and the speed of trains on the adjacent track.
In addition to the above recommendation concerning basic risk assessment, FRA recommended that railroads and contractors to railroads consider taking the following actions:
• Use of working limits for activities where equipment could foul adjacent track (whether large-scale or small-scale activities);
• Use rotation stops to mitigate the dangers associated with on-track
• Review procedures for directing trains through adjacent track working limits, and enhance such procedures when necessary;
• Install adjacent track warning signs/devices in the operating cab of on-track machines to remind roadway maintenance machine operators to not inadvertently depart the equipment onto a track where there may be trains and other on-track equipment passing;
• Provide additional training and monitoring to employees, emphasizing the need to cross tracks in a safe manner (i.e., single file and after looking in both directions);
• Reinforce to individual roadway workers that it is critical not to foul a track except in the performance of duty and only when on-track safety has been established. This training could be accomplished through training sessions, as well as daily job briefings; and
• Institute peer-intervention measures by which workers are encouraged to intervene when observing another roadway worker engaging in potentially non-compliant and unsafe activity.
In the twelve years since the RWP Rule went into effect on January 15, 1997, there have been nine roadway worker fatalities on an adjacent track. Seven of those fatalities have occurred on a controlled track that was adjacent to the track on which a roadway work group, with at least one of the roadway workers on the ground, was engaged in a common task with an on-track roadway maintenance machine or coupled equipment. FRA notes that there has been only one adjacent-track fatality where a roadway work group had been engaged in a common task with a lone hi-rail vehicle, defined in § 214.7 as “a roadway maintenance machine that is manufactured to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and is equipped with retractable flanged wheels so that the vehicle may travel over the highway or on railroad tracks.”
Of the seven fatalities that occurred under the circumstances described above and which this rule proposes to address, three occurred during the period after the effective date of the rule and before the publication of the safety advisory on May 3, 2004, and four have occurred since that period. In the four-year period prior to May of 2004 (May 1, 2000—April 30, 2004), there has been one adjacent-track fatality known to have occurred under such circumstances, for a rate of .25 per year. In the four-year period since (May 1, 2004—April 30, 2008), there have been four adjacent-track fatalities, for a rate of one per year, which is four times the rate of the previous four-year period. While FRA recognizes that even one death can make rates change dramatically when the total number of deaths is small, the increase in the rate of these deaths despite the safety advisory leads FRA to conclude that regulatory action is needed to avert an escalating number of deaths. Moreover, given the extensive participation in developing these consensus regulatory provisions by representatives of all of the key interests involved in this issue, it is contrary to the public interest to wait for all of the other issues in the larger RWP rulemaking to be resolved or to engage in lengthy periods for notice and public comment before acting to prevent more deaths.
The following is a brief summary of the results of FRA's investigations of the four most recent incidents that resulted in these unfortunate fatalities:
While the above discussion focuses on those fatalities that have occurred on an adjacent track where a roadway work group, with at least one of the roadway workers on the ground, was engaged in a common task with an on-track roadway maintenance machine or coupled equipment on an occupied track, it is important to discuss some of the common circumstances in all nine of the fatalities that have occurred on an
Second, all nine of the fatalities occurred on an adjacent track that was quite closely-spaced to the track that the roadway work group was occupying. Six of the adjacent tracks had track centers that were spaced approximately 14 feet or less from the respective track centers of the tracks that the roadway work groups were occupying, and all nine of the adjacent tracks were spaced 15 feet or less from the track centers of the respective occupied tracks. This common circumstance was also taken into consideration in FRA's proposed definition of “adjacent controlled track,” which would have a narrower applicability for purposes of proposed § 214.336 than the term “adjacent tracks,” because it would not include tracks with track centers that were spaced more than 19 feet (but less than 25 feet) away from the track center of the occupied track.
The third common circumstance of the nine fatalities on adjacent track is the time of year. Four of the fatalities occurred during the first quarter (January-March), none of the fatalities occurred in the second and third quarters of the year (April-June and July-September, respectively), and the other five fatalities occurred during the fourth quarter (October-December). As noted earlier in Section I., above, because incidents involving adjacent controlled tracks appear to present clear evidence of significant risk that is not effectively addressed by the current regulation, FRA has concluded that moving forward with this proposal in advance of the other proposals contained in the RSAC consensus is necessary and appropriate in order to reduce the risk of additional fatalities on adjacent track that are likely to occur late this year or early next year in the absence of further regulatory action.
On April 11, 2008, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED) and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) filed a joint petition requesting that FRA issue an emergency order under 49 U.S.C. 20104(a) requiring adjacent-track protection for roadway work groups. The petition noted that similar requests, which were filed on October 7, 2005, November 7, 2003, and December 21, 1999, were denied by FRA. The petitioners expressed their belief that, under the existing provisions of the rule, roadway workers will continue to suffer preventable serious injuries and death. The petitioners asserted that FRA should require railroads and their contractors to establish on-track safety on adjacent tracks (“adjacent-track on-track safety”) for a wider range of work activities. In FRA's January 5, 2006 denial of the October 2005 petition, FRA noted that the RSAC working group tasked to review and revise the RWP Rule (“RWP Working Group”) was “committed to presenting comprehensive draft language * * * that would more closely tailor the solution to the problem.” And while the RWP Working Group did in fact draft this language, and both the Working Group and the full RSAC were able to reach consensus on such language, BMWED and BRS were concerned that the language, which has not been published as an NPRM, would not become a final rule for a considerable period of time, leaving the possibility for further preventable fatalities. BMWED and BRS urged FRA to issue an emergency order that would adopt the adjacent-track consensus language of the RWP RSAC.
On April 18, 2008, the American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) filed a letter in support of the BMWED and BRS joint petition. In the letter, ATDA agreed that preventable injuries and deaths continue to occur because of a lack of positive regulation mandating adjacent-track on-track safety and urged FRA to issue an emergency order based upon the RSAC-approved and consensus-based replacement language for § 214.235(c), as indicated in the joint petition.
As an emergency order does not require prior notice to the affected party or an opportunity to be heard prior to issuance of the order, Congress declared that such an order may be invoked only where an unsafe condition or practice “causes an emergency situation involving a hazard of death or personal injury.” 49 U.S.C. 20104. By letter dated June 4, 2008, FRA denied the joint petition for emergency order, noting that the increased rate of adjacent-track-related fatalities cited in the joint petition makes a strong case for regulatory action, but does not constitute an emergency situation “that has developed suddenly and unexpectedly in which the danger is immediate.” To address this serious safety concern, FRA decided to issue a separate NPRM with an abbreviated comment period, as further discussed in Section VI.C., below.
In March 1996, FRA established RSAC, which provides a forum for developing consensus recommendations to FRA's Administrator on rulemakings and other safety program issues. The Committee includes representation from all of the agency's major stakeholder groups, including railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other interested parties. A list of member groups follows:
When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to RSAC, and after consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If the task is accepted, RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These recommendations are developed by consensus. A working group may establish one or more task forces to develop facts and options on a particular aspect of a given task. The individual task force then provides that information to the working group for consideration. If a working group comes to unanimous consensus on recommendations for action, the package is presented to the full RSAC for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by a simple majority of RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA. FRA then determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because FRA staff play an active role at the working group level in discussing the issues and options and in drafting the language of the consensus proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the recommendation, and the agency exercises its independent judgment on whether the recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is soundly supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal or final rule. Any such variations would be noted and explained in the rulemaking document issued by FRA. If the working group or RSAC is unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for action, FRA moves ahead to resolve the issue through traditional rulemaking proceedings.
On January 26, 2005, the RSAC formed the RWP Working Group (“Working Group”) to consider specific actions to advance the on-track safety of employees of covered railroads and their contractors engaged in maintenance-of-way activities throughout the general system of railroad transportation, including clarification of existing requirements. The assigned task was to review the existing rule, technical bulletins, and a safety advisory dealing with on-track safety. The Working Group was to consider implications and, as appropriate, consider enhancements to the existing rule. The Working Group would report to the RSAC any specific actions identified as appropriate, and would report planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled Committee meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion.
The Working Group is comprised of members from the following organizations:
The Working Group held 12 multi-day meetings. The group worked diligently and was able to reach consensus on 32 separate items.
One of the items on which the Working Group was able to reach consensus dealt specifically with the adjacent-track on-track safety issue in § 214.335 On-track safety procedures for roadway work groups. The consensus language developed by the Working Group for this topic, which was approved by the full RSAC and formally recommended to FRA for paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), is as follows:
For paragraph (c)—“On-track safety is required for adjacent controlled track within 19 feet of the centerline of the occupied track when roadway work group(s) consisting of roadway workers on the ground and on-track self-propelled or coupled equipment are engaged in a common task on an occupied track.
• “Except as provided by paragraph (c)(3) of this section, when trains are cleared through working limits on an adjacent controlled track, or when watchman/lookout warning in accordance with § 214.329 is the form of adjacent on-track safety, roadway workers shall occupy a predetermined place of safety and all on-ground work and equipment movement activity within the fouling space of the occupied track shall cease upon notification of pending adjacent track movement (working limits) or upon receiving the watchman/lookout warning.
• “When single or multiple movements are cleared through adjacent controlled track working limits, on-ground work and equipment movement on the occupied track may resume only after all such movements on adjacent track have passed each component of the Roadway Work Group(s). If the train stops before passing all roadway workers, the employee in charge shall communicate with the engineer prior to allowing the work to resume.
• “When single or multiple movements are cleared through adjacent controlled track working limits at a speed no greater than 25 mph, work performed exclusively between the rails of the occupied track, or to the field side of the occupied track with no adjacent track, may continue upon notification of each roadway worker of movement on adjacent track. On-ground work shall not be performed within 25 feet to the front or 25 feet to the rear of roadway maintenance machine(s) on the
For paragraph (d), the Working Group recommended “Equipment may not foul an adjacent controlled track unless protected by working limits and there are no movements authorized through the working limits by the roadway worker in charge.”
And for paragraph (e), the Working Group recommended “The mandatory provisions for adjacent controlled track protection under this subpart are not applicable to work activities involving—
• “A hi-rail vehicle as defined in § 214.7, provided such hi-rail vehicle is not coupled to railroad cars. Where multiple hi-rail vehicles are engaged in a common task, the on-track safety briefing shall include discussion of the nature of the work to be performed to determine if adjacent controlled track protection is necessary. Nothing in this subpart prohibits the roadway worker in charge of the hi-rail vehicle from establishing adjacent controlled track protection, as he/she deems necessary.
• “On-ground roadway workers exclusively performing work on the field side of the occupied track.
• “Catenary maintenance tower cars with roadway workers positioned on the ground within the gage of the occupied track for the sole purpose of applying or removing grounds. Nothing in this subpart prohibits the roadway worker in charge of the catenary maintenance tower car from establishing adjacent track protection, as he/she deems necessary.”
Upon reviewing the joint petition of the BRS and BMWED for an emergency order, the consensus language of the Working Group quoted above, and the relevant accident data concerning roadway workers fouling adjacent tracks, FRA decided to issue a separate NPRM
In light of recent roadway worker fatality trends, FRA determined that the agency must propose a more prescriptive approach to prevent further fatalities. The need to mandate adjacent-track on-track safety was recognized by FRA, members of the Working Group, and members of the full RSAC. The consensus language developed by the Working Group and recommended by the full RSAC is expected to reduce the risk of roadway worker fatalities due to fouling an adjacent track while working in conjunction with on-track equipment on an occupied track. As part of the process in drafting the NPRM in the larger RWP rulemaking, FRA circulated the consensus rule text concerning adjacent track and other items for errata review. Both AAR and BMWED submitted comments on this provision. To address these issues, and other potential ambiguities discovered upon a closer review of the rule text, FRA reorganized and modified the consensus text in issuing an NPRM.
FRA published an NPRM addressing adjacent-track on-track safety on July 17, 2008 (73 FR 41214), but formally withdrew the notice on August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47124). The withdrawal stated, in part—“[i]n crafting the NPRM, FRA presented the RSAC consensus language in the preamble verbatim and transparently explained its rationale for all changes it made to the consensus language. As this was an NPRM, FRA sought comment on the entire proposal, including those portions that FRA sought to clarify.
“FRA recognizes that inadvertent errors do sometimes occur in formulating a proposal and expects that interested parties would provide comments to both FRA and all other interested parties through the established comment process detailed in the NPRM. Given the alleged discrepancies between the consensus language and the proposed rule, the need to clarify the essential issues and move toward resolution of the safety concern at hand, and the ex parte communications regarding this proposed rule, FRA has decided to withdraw this rulemaking and will take such further regulatory steps as safety requires.”
BMWED and BRS filed a joint request to extend the comment period to 60 days on July 28, 2008, as well as preliminary joint comments detailing their concerns with the substance of FRA's initial NPRM on August 10, 2008 (just after FRA issued the withdrawal notice, but prior to the publication of the notice in the
The first issue raised in the joint comments was the proposed removal of the definition of the term “Adjacent tracks” in § 214.7. BMWED and BRS stated that the removal of the definition in § 214.7 would remove tens of thousands of miles of non-controlled track from the scope of the regulation. FRA disagrees with this interpretation of the NPRM, since the proposed removal of the definition is not what would have removed non-controlled track from the scope of adjacent-track on-track safety; rather, it was the substantive provision itself that the RSAC recommended and that formed the basis for FRA's proposal that would have removed it. Since the term was no longer being used anywhere else in part 214, it would have caused confusion to have a definition that included non-
The joint comments also describe a concern with the withdrawn NPRM's proposed language in § 214.336(a)(1)(ii) that would have permitted a component of a roadway work group to resume all on-ground work and equipment movement after the “head-end” of a movement passed by the component's location when trains are cleared through working limits at speeds greater than 25 mph. The joint comments insist that the RSAC Working Group's intent was for work to stop for the entire movement, not just the head-end.
While drafting this section in the withdrawn NPRM, FRA made a good faith determination of the meaning of the consensus language and could not distinguish whether the Working Group meant “head-end” or entire “movement.” (This determination is reflected in the preamble, and comments were requested.) Based on AAR's errata review comments and FRA's review of the January 10-11, 2006 Working Group meeting minutes, it appeared possible that an error was made, with respect to the “head-end only” requirement, by the Working Group in creating the final draft of the consensus language that was eventually presented to the full RSAC for approval. The draft being discussed at the January meeting allowed work to commence at the head-end during movement at 30 mph, but required that the entire movement pass before allowing work to commence at speeds greater than 30 mph. The Working Group reached consensus on the “concepts of the proposal” for this item at its February 1-2, 2006 meeting.
Upon reviewing other documents from that meeting, FRA has determined that railroad management's proposal that included the 40-mph threshold also appears to have conceded that the entire movement must pass before permitting work to resume, regardless of speed. While it is possible that the concession of the entire movement passing was conditioned upon railroad labor accepting railroad management's proposal as a whole (including the 40-mph threshold), FRA did not receive any further comments from AAR or any of its members on this issue, despite the request for comments on this issue in the July 17, 2008 NPRM. Since the consensus language eventually approved by the full RSAC most closely resembled that which railroad labor proposed to the Working Group, FRA has decided to edit the language in this NPRM to require that all work not subject to an exception be permitted to resume only after the entire movement (
Regarding the limited work activities that would be permitted to continue under FRA's initial proposal when trains are passing on an adjacent controlled track at speeds of 25 mph or less, BMWED and BRS note that the language proposed by FRA in paragraph (a)(2) differed from the consensus language in paragraph (c)(3) (indicating that work conducted “exclusively between the rails of the occupied track, or to the field side of the occupied track with no adjacent track” would be permitted to continue, provided that the work was not conducted within 25 feet of the front or rear of any roadway maintenance machine). BMWED and BRS expressed their concern that it would be unsafe to permit work to the field side if working limits are not specifically required on any adjacent track on that side.
While paragraph (c)(3) of the consensus language permitted all work to continue to the field side of the occupied track only if there was no adjacent track present, the consensus language did not impose such a limitation in the broad exception for on-ground work on the field side of the occupied track in paragraph (e)(2) (now proposed paragraph (e)(1)). FRA's original proposal would have permitted certain work to continue to the field side, provided that on-track safety (including train approach warning) had been established in accordance with this subpart on any adjacent track on that side.
In consideration of the concern raised by BMWED and BRS in their joint comments, FRA has adjusted the language originally proposed so as to better ensure the safety of the workers on that side of the occupied track. In addition to permitting work to continue while exclusively positioned on the field side of an occupied track that has no adjacent track on that side, the new proposal would also permit work to continue while exclusively positioned on the field side of an occupied track that has an adjacent track on that side provided that working limits have been established on the closest adjacent track on that side and there are no movements authorized through the working limits by the roadway worker in charge on that adjacent track. The above proposed conditions for conducting work while positioned on the field side have been summarized in the definition of a new term, “clear side,” in § 214.336(a)(3), so as to avoid having to repeat these conditions in the rule text proposed in paragraphs (c) and (e)(1) of this section. In applying the exception in proposed paragraph (e)(1), FRA notes that the “clear side” portion of the proposal would have the effect of requiring that working limits be established on an adjacent track (on the field side where the on-ground roadway workers are exclusively positioned) that is non-controlled and whose centerline is 25 feet from the centerline of the occupied track, while no form of on-track safety (
Another issue that BMWED and BRS would like FRA to reconsider is the proposed requirement for railroads to provide training or issue a bulletin with the proposed new requirements for adjacent-track on-track safety. The proposed requirement that railroads issue a bulletin or other document to the roadway workers was intended as a stop-gap measure, together with extended on-track safety job briefings, since most railroads provide their employees with annual training at the beginning of the calendar year. This was not a new concept, as the proposal was based on a similar provision in Emergency Order No. 24, and because FRA believes that this, in conjunction with job briefings on the issue, is the approach most railroads take to train their employees when an operating rule change goes into effect mid-year. BMWED and BRS, however, noted in their joint comments that this was not adequate training, and expressed their fear that that this would shift the burden for effective training from the employer to unsuspecting employees. They also noted a concern that the proposed requirement for the employers to obtain a written receipt or acknowledgement may also affect their memberships' legal rights under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Because of the timing of the withdrawal of the NPRM, FRA believes that it can coordinate this NPRM and final rule to correspond with the railroad's annual training cycle for roadway worker protection, thus making the requirement to issue a bulletin unnecessary as a stop-gap measure.
Finally, the joint comments note that FRA's initial proposal also differs from the RSAC consensus language because FRA proposed to move the section of the rule that pertains to adjacent-track on-track safety from § 214.335(c) to a new proposed § 214.336. FRA does not agree with these comments and denies that moving language from one section to another, for clarification purposes, changes the substance and intent of the provision. Currently, § 214.335 of the existing regulation for on-track safety for roadway work groups contains only one short provision that is applicable to adjacent track protection, that is, paragraph (c). The RSAC recognized that this provision is vague as to what circumstances mandate adjacent-track on-track safety, and this was the very reason for the RSAC's recommendation to amend it. Because of the complex revisions to the regulation with respect to adjacent-track on-track safety, and to avoid having too many levels of subparagraphs in the rule text, FRA believes it is necessary to create a new section. A new section would not change the substance or application of the regulation in any way, and additions to regulations often require the restructuring of subsections in order to promote clear, concise interpretation.
AAR submitted draft comments to FRA on September 16, 2008. Although the draft comments were received after the date that the NPRM was formally withdrawn, FRA has decided to post them to the docket and discuss them in this NPRM, in an effort to continue FRA's transparency in these proceedings as well as to encourage an open discussion and resolution of the related issues at this NPRM stage, rather than at the later, final rule stage.
The first issue concerns the applicability of proposed § 214.336(a) to “a roadway work group with at least
FRA had proposed to amend this portion of the consensus language for clarity, since the consensus language (“when roadway work group(s) consisting of roadway workers on the ground and on-track self-propelled or coupled equipment are engaged in a common task on an occupied track”) contained the words “roadway work group(s)” and “equipment,” both of which could be interpreted as plural and result in confusion concerning how many roadway workers needed to be on the ground before this section would apply. FRA specifically chose the clarifying words “one or more roadway workers on the ground” because FRA believed that this was the intent of the Working Group, since there was no safety rationale for excluding roadway work groups that consist of only two roadway workers. In choosing this language, FRA assumed that in a two-person roadway work group, one roadway worker was assigned to operate the equipment, and the other was assigned to perform duties on the ground in a common task with the machine and presumably its operator. The potential for distraction of the one roadway worker on the ground in a roadway work group consisting of only two roadway workers is the same as for each of the two roadway workers on the ground in a roadway work group consisting of three roadway workers. Moreover, FRA analysis of the agency's accident investigations of these types of incidents has revealed that four
AAR also requested that the exception for hi-rails in proposed § 214.336(b)(2) of the former NPRM be expanded to include rail-bound geometry and detection equipment, since the level of distraction posed by this equipment is similar to that of hi-rails. AAR suggests that the language in that section be amended by adding “or self-propelled track geometry or detector car.” FRA notes that while a rail-bound geometry car tends to be much larger than a hi-rail, it seems that the level of distraction is similar for a roadway worker on the ground who is field-verifying a measurement behind a geometry car and a roadway worker on the ground who is replacing a bolt behind a hi-rail; nonetheless, FRA seeks comment as to whether this type of equipment should be added to the exception.
The comments further request that an exception be added (
AAR also recommended that FRA permit the machine operator to perform work on the ground within 25 feet of the front or rear of the roadway maintenance machine that he or she is operating, during adjacent-controlled-track movements of 25 mph or less. It would be impractical not to allow the operator to step off of his machine and walk directly behind it. Accordingly, AAR suggests that the proposed paragraph 214.336(a)(2)(i) (now proposed as § 214.336(