Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
(2) FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a public hearing. However, if prior to September 19, 2012, FRA receives a specific request for a public hearing accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statement, a hearing will be scheduled and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the
In 2005, the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) accepted a task to review the existing RWP regulation at subpart C of part 214. The RSAC established the RWP Working Group (the “Working Group”) to recommend consideration of specific actions to advance the on-track safety of railroad employees and contractors engaged in maintenance-of-way activities throughout the general system of railroad transportation, including clarification of existing regulatory requirements.
The Working Group reached consensus on 32 separate items, which the full RSAC recommended to FRA. FRA drafted this NPRM to address the RSAC consensus recommendations, the issue of electronic display of track authorities, several other items on which the Working Group was unable to reach consensus, and miscellaneous other revisions. FRA is also proposing to update certain incorporations by reference of personal protective equipment standards in FRA's Bridge Worker Safety Standards at subpart B of part 214 by cross referencing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) regulations on the same point.
Noteworthy consensus recommendations that FRA is addressing in this NPRM include: a job briefing requirement regarding the accessibility of the roadway worker in charge; the adoption of procedures for how roadway workers walk across railroad track; a new allowance for railroad's conducting snow removal and weed spraying operations; a clarification of the existing “foul time” provision; a new “verbal protection” provision; three new permissible methods of
As mentioned above, FRA is also addressing other items on which the Working Group was unable to reach consensus and certain miscellaneous other revisions. Noteworthy among these items are: A new provision regarding the removal of objects from railroad track when train approach warning is used as the method of on-track safety; the electronic display of working limits authorities; amendments to the existing provision governing the qualification of roadway workers in charge; a new section addressing passenger station platform snow removal; a new provision governing the use of “occupancy behind” or “conditional” working limit authorities; the phase-out of the use of definite train location and informational train line-ups, potential amendments to the existing roadway worker protection and blue signal protection requirements for work performed within shop areas, and, the use of other railroad track as a place of safety when train approach warning is used as the method of on-track safety; and, a request for further comment on the use of certain tunnel niches as a place of safety for roadway workers.
FRA has estimated the costs of this proposed rule, evaluated over a 20-year period and using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. For the 20-year period analyzed, the estimated quantified cost that would be imposed on industry totals $5,840,921 with a present value of $3,103,980 (PV, 7 percent) and $4,350,537 (PV, 3 percent). FRA also estimates that for the 20-year period analyzed, the estimated quantified benefits total $119,507,405 with a present value of $63,310,902 (PV, 7 percent) and $88,902,763 (PV, 3 percent). This analysis demonstrates that the benefits for this proposed rule would exceed the costs.
The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 20103, provides that, “[t]he Secretary of Transportation, as necessary, shall prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety supplementing laws and regulations in effect on October 16, 1970”. The Secretary's responsibility under this provision and the balance of the railroad safety laws have been delegated to the Federal Railroad Administrator. 49 CFR 1.49(m). In the field of railroad workplace safety, FRA has traditionally pursued a very conservative course of regulation, relying upon the industry to implement suitable railroad safety rules and mandating in the broadest of ways that employees be “instructed” in the requirements of those rules and that railroads create and administer programs of operational tests and inspections to verify rules compliance. This approach is based on several factors, including recognition of the strong interest of railroads in avoiding costly accidents and personal injuries, the limited resources available to FRA to directly enforce railroad safety rules, and the apparent success of management and employees in accomplishing most work in a safe manner.
Over the years, however, it became necessary to codify certain requirements, either to remedy perceived shortcomings in the railroads' rules to emphasize the importance of compliance, or to provide FRA a more direct means of promoting compliance. These actions, which in many cases were preceded or followed by statutory mandates, included adoption of rules governing:
• Bridge Worker Safety Standards (49 CFR part 214 subpart B);
• Roadway Worker Protection (49 CFR part 214 subpart C); and
• On-Track Roadway Maintenance Machines and Hi-Rail Vehicles (49 CFR part 214 subpart D).
In 1990, FRA received a petition to amend its track safety standards from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED), which included issues pertaining to the hazards faced by roadway workers. Subsequently, in response to the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act, Public Law 102-365, 106 Stat. 972, enacted September 3, 1992. FRA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on November 16, 1992, announcing the opening of a proceeding to amend the Federal Track Safety Standards to, in part, address hazards faced by roadway workers. 57 FR 54038.
FRA held workshops to solicit the views of the railroad industry and representatives of railroad employees on the need for substantive change in the track regulations. The subject of injury and death to roadway workers was of such great concern that FRA received petitions for emergency orders and requests for rulemaking from both the BMWED and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS). Finding that no imminent hazards existed that would justify issuance of emergency orders at the time, FRA did not issue any emergency orders in response to those petitions, but instead initiated a separate proceeding to consider regulations to eliminate hazards faced by roadway workers.
On August 17, 1994, FRA published its notice of intent to establish a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) for regulatory negotiation. 59 FR 42200. The FAC was tasked with submitting a report, including proposed regulatory language, containing the FAC's consensus recommendations. On December 27, 1994, the Office of Management and Budget approved the Charter to establish a Roadway Worker Safety Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) comprised of twenty-five members. The Advisory Committee held seven multiple-day negotiating sessions. An independent task force, comprised of representatives of several railroads and labor organizations, had met during the preceding year and independently analyzed on-track safety practices. This task force presented information at the first Advisory Committee meeting. The Advisory Committee reached consensus on eleven specific recommendations and nine general recommendations. These recommendations served as the basis for FRA's first RWP NPRM, which was published on March 14, 1996. 61 FR 10528. FRA published a final rule establishing the original RWP regulation on December 16, 1996, which became effective on January 15, 1997 (61 FR 65959). The final rule largely incorporated the Advisory Committee's recommendations.
In March 1996, FRA established the RSAC, which provides a forum for collaborative rulemaking and program development. The RSAC includes representatives from all of the railroad industry's major stakeholder groups, including railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, and other interested parties. A list of RSAC members follows:
• American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners (AARPCO);
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO);
• American Chemistry Council;
• American Petroleum Institute;
• American Public Transportation Association (APTA);
• American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA);
• American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA);
• Association of American Railroads (AAR);
• Association of Railway Museums (ARM);
• Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM);
• Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET);
• Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED);
• Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
• The Chlorine Institute, Inc.;
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA);*
• The Fertilizer Institute;
• High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA);
• Institute of Makers of Explosives;
• International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers;
• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
• Labor Council for Latin American Advancement;*
• League of Railway Industry Women;*
• National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP);
• National Association of Railway Business Women;*
• National Conference of Firemen & Oilers;
• National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association (NRC);
• National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak);
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB);*
• Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
• Safe Travel America (STA);
• Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte;*
• Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA);
• Tourist Railway Association, Inc.;
• Transport Canada;*
• Transport Workers Union of America (TWU);
• Transportation Communications International Union/BRC (TCIU/BRC);
• Transportation Security Administration (TSA);* and
• United Transportation Union (UTU).
*Indicates associate, non-voting membership.
When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to the RSAC, and after consideration and debate, the RSAC may accept or reject the task. If the task is accepted, the 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 the RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA. FRA then determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because FRA staff plays an active role at the working group level in discussing the issues and options and in drafting the language of the consensus proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the recommendation, and the agency exercises its independent judgment on whether the recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is soundly supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal or final rule. Any such variations are noted and explained in the rulemaking document issued by FRA. If the working group or the RSAC is unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for action, FRA may move ahead to resolve the issue through traditional rulemaking proceedings.
As discussed above, on January 26, 2005, the RSAC formed the RWP Working Group to consider specific actions to advance the on-track safety of employees of covered railroads and their contractors who are 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 RWP regulation, technical bulletins, and a safety advisory dealing with on-track safety for roadway workers, and, as appropriate, consider enhancements to the existing rule which would further reduce the risk of serious injury or death to roadway workers. The Working Group was directed to report
The Working Group was comprised of members from the following organizations:
• AAR, including members from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), Canadian National Railway Company (CN), Canadian Pacific Railway, Limited (CP), Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS), Norfolk Southern Corporation railroads (NS), and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP);
• Belt Railroad of Chicago;
• Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (IHB);
• Long Island Rail Road (LIRR);
• Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (Metro-North);
• Montana Rail Link;
• Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra);
• RailAmerica, Inc.;
• Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA);
• UTU; and
• Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad (WNY&P).
The Working Group held 12 multi-day meetings. The Working Group worked diligently and was able to reach consensus on 32 separate items. The Working Group attained consensus to recommend that part 214
• § 214.309—revision to address on-track safety manual for lone workers and changes to the manual.
• § 214.315—requirement that information concerning adjacent tracks be included in on-track safety job briefings; accessibility of the roadway worker in charge.
• § 214.317—new paragraph to formalize procedures for roadway workers to walk across tracks; new paragraph for on-track weed spray and snow blowing operations on non-controlled track.
• § 214.321—new paragraph to address the use of work crew numbers.
• § 214.323—clarification of foul time provision whereby roadway worker in charge or train dispatcher may not permit movements into such working limits.
• § 214.324—new section called “verbal protection” for abbreviated working limits within manual interlocking and controlled points.
• § 214.327—three new paragraphs to formalize the following instruments to make non-controlled track inaccessible: occupied locomotive as a point of inaccessibility; block register territory; and, the use of track bulletins to make track inaccessible within yard limits.
• § 214.335—complete revision of paragraph (c) concerning on-track safety for tracks adjacent to occupied tracks. Key elements are the elimination of “large-scale” and the addition of a new requirement for on-track safety for tracks adjacent to occupied tracks for specific work activities (addressed in separate rulemaking proceeding as discussed further below).
• § 214.337—allowance for the use of individual train detection at controlled points consisting only of signals and a new paragraph limiting equipment/materials that can only be moved by hand by a lone worker.
• § 214.339—complete revision of this section concerning audible warning by trains to address operational considerations.
• § 214.343—new paragraph to ensure contractors receive requisite training/and or qualification before engaged by a railroad.
• § 214.345—lead-in phrase requiring all training to be consistent with initial or recurrent training, as specified in § 214.343(b).
• §§ 214.347, .349, .351, .353, and .355—consistent requirements for various roadway worker qualifications and a maximum 24-month time period between qualifications.
On June 26, 2007, the full RSAC voted to accept the above recommendations presented by the Working Group. In addition to the above, the Working Group worked on a proposal for use of electronic display of authorities as a provision under exclusive track occupancy. The Working Group developed lead-in regulatory text and agreed to some conceptual items. When circulated back to the Working Group prior to the full RSAC vote, however, technical issues were raised that could not be resolved in the time available. Accordingly, in this NPRM, FRA is addressing the electronic display issue, and certain of the other issues that the Working Group was unable to reach consensus on. The other items that the Working Group was unable to reach consensus on were:
• § 214.7—new term and definition for a “remotely controlled hump yard facility.”
• § 214.7—revision to the definition for the term “roadway worker.”
• § 214.317—use of tunnel clearing bays.
• § 214.321—track occupancy after passage of a train.
• § 214.329—removal of objects from the track under train approach warning.
• § 214.336—passenger station platform snow removal and cleaning.
• § 214.337—consideration of allowance for the use of individual train detection at certain types of manual interlockings or controlled points.
• § 214.353—qualification of employees other than roadway workers who directly provide for the on-track safety of a roadway work group.
As mentioned above, the Working Group was able to reach consensus on items that dealt specifically with the adjacent-track on-track safety issues. In light of roadway worker fatality trends involving adjacent track protections, and to expedite the lowering of the safety risk associated with roadway workers fouling adjacent tracks, FRA decided to undertake a rulemaking proceeding separately, and in advance of this NPRM, to specifically address adjacent-track safety issues contemplated by the Working Group. As such, FRA published an NPRM addressing adjacent-track on-track safety on July 17, 2008 (73 FR 41214), but formally withdrew the NPRM on August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47124). FRA then issued a revised NPRM, which was published on November 25, 2009 (74 FR 61633), and a final rule was published on November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74586). The provisions contained in that final rule are currently scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2013. Accordingly, as the adjacent track rulemaking was undertaken separately, the subpart C section numbering for the consensus items as agreed upon by the Working Group has changed slightly from that recommended. This NPRM will note any relevant numbering changes in the section-by-section analysis below. FRA acknowledges that it has received petitions for reconsideration of the adjacent track final rule.
The section-by-section analysis below includes explanations of the proposed revisions to the RWP regulation, including certain consensus items recommended by the Working Group, certain of the non-consensus items listed above, and certain other miscellaneous items being proposed by FRA. FRA notes that the Working Group meetings discussed above took place between 2005 and 2007. In the interim, during FRA's efforts to publish the adjacent track rulemaking discussed above, there have been changes in the railroad industry. Notably, Congress' passage of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Division A, 122 Stat. 4848) (RSIA), has required significant new FRA regulatory efforts.
These new efforts include FRA's recently published NPRM addressing minimum training standards and plans. Section 401 of RSIA (codified at 49 U.S.C. 20162) mandates that FRA promulgate a regulation that sets minimum training standards for “each class and craft of safety-related railroad employee.” FRA has undertaken this mandated rulemaking via the RSAC process (Task No. 10-01, Training Standards Working Group). The training standards NPRM was published on February 7, 2012 (77 FR 6412), and includes proposed minimum training standards for roadway workers as defined by existing § 214.7
As a result, although in 2007 the full RSAC recommended that FRA adopt the RWP Working Group's proposed consensus training requirements for roadway workers, FRA's training standards NPRM proposes to address training issues pertaining to roadway workers.
The Working Group also came to consensus to add a new paragraph (e) to existing § 214.343, which pertains to the training of roadway workers. That recommended paragraph would have required that each railroad require that contractor employees receive the requisite roadway worker training and qualification prior to performing any roadway worker duties. FRA is not including that consensus recommendation in this NPRM. Under the existing RWP regulation, contractor employees are already required to receive roadway worker training prior to performing roadway worker duties.
The RSAC also recommended that FRA adopt the Working Group consensus language for the definition of the term “interlocking, automatic”, with that definition mirroring the existing definition of the same term found at 49 CFR 236.750. However, that term is not actually used anywhere in the existing text of part 214, nor is it used in any of the text proposed in this NPRM. The minutes to the Working Group meetings indicate that potentially this definition was recommended in an effort to help the regulated community differentiate between an automatic interlocking and a manual interlocking (within the limits of which individual train detection is not permitted via existing § 214.337). Because the term is not used in the regulation as it exists currently or as proposed in this NPRM, FRA is not proposing to adopt the Working Group's recommended definition. The recommended consensus definition of “interlocking, manual”, and the accompanying discussion in the section-by-section analysis, should enable differentiation of those terms. Further, FRA and the regulated community can always look to the existing definition of “interlocking, automatic” contained in part 236 for additional guidance, if necessary.
There were several items addressed during the Working Group meetings for which no consensus was reached. For most of those items, FRA is proposing rule text in this NPRM and is requesting comment on those proposals. However, for certain of these non-consensus items, FRA is not proposing rule text. For example, the Working Group discussed various potential amendments to the definition of “roadway worker” found at 49 CFR 214.7. After consideration, FRA is not proposing an amendment to that definition. FRA believes the meaning of the existing definition is clear. One of the potential recommendations discussed by the Working Group was to specifically add the words “who fouls a track in connection with” to the first sentence of the existing definition. FRA, in contemplating such an addition, revisited the preamble to the 1996 final rule promulgating the RWP regulation. In that preamble FRA explained that a proposal for a similar addition of language to the definition of the term “roadway worker” was unnecessary and would “severely limit the application of the rule due to the difficulty in determining when a worker becomes engaged in a task.” (61 FR 65962). FRA maintains that same position today. The definition for the term “roadway worker” describes employees who are covered by this regulation, and not when that coverage begins or ends. As is explained in FRA Technical Bulletin G-05-13, the existing provisions of § 214.313 already require that when a roadway worker fouls a track, including when performing preparatory activities to make such track inaccessible to establish working limits, that on-track safety is required. FRA disagrees that an amendment to the definition of the term “roadway worker”, as discussed during the Working Group meetings, would make the established RWP on-track safety requirements any more clear.
The Working Group also discussed the potential addition of a definition to existing § 214.7 for the term “remotely controlled hump yard facility.” That term is used in existing § 214.337(c)(3), which prohibits the use of individual
For these reasons, FRA is not proposing a definition for the term “remotely controlled hump yard facility” in this NPRM. If a dispute regarding the limits of a remotely controlled hump yard facility arises, FRA will, on a case-by-case basis, provide assistance in identifying that facility's limits based on the particular physical layout of the facility.
The Working Group also addressed the use of tunnel niches or clearing bays as a place of safety for roadway workers when such niches are outside the clearance envelope but, by design, may be less than four feet from the field side of the rail. The Working Group discussed this issue at length, but no consensus was reached. FRA is not proposing regulatory text regarding this issue in this NPRM. Instead, FRA is requesting further comment below on how to best address the use of such tunnel niches in a final rule.
For the remaining non-consensus items listed in Section IV above, FRA is proposing regulatory text in this NPRM. FRA is also proposing other miscellaneous revisions to the existing RWP rule that were not addressed by the Working Group; some of which codify existing guidance and interpretations and some of which are intended to merely clean-up or clarify existing requirements. FRA's rationale for these proposed revisions is contained in the relevant section-by-section analysis below. Upon issuance of a final rule in this proceeding, FRA intends to supplant, as appropriate, technical bulletins concerning the existing RWP regulation.
On January 9, 2007, two Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) maintenance-of way employees were killed in an accident that occurred near Woburn, Massachusetts. The incident occurred when a passenger train struck a roadway maintenance machine that was on the track. The NTSB found the probable cause of that accident was “the failure of the train dispatcher to maintain blocking that provided signal protection for the track segment occupied by the maintenance-of-way work crew, and the failure of the work crew to apply a shunting device that would have provided redundant signal protection for their track segment.” (
The MBTA had a rule in effect at the time of the accident which required that roadway workers shunt track circuits in order to provide additional signal protections to prevent trains or other rolling equipment from entering working limits. The NTSB found that the roadway work group involved in the incident did not comply with that rule. The NTSB made several recommendations in response to that accident, including Recommendation R-08-06. That recommendation states FRA should “[r]equire redundant signal protection, such as shunting, for maintenance of way work crews who depend on the train dispatcher to provide signal protection.”
This incident occurred near the end of the Working Group's work in 2007, and the Working Group did not consider the use of shunting devices in conjunction with the applicable controlled track “working limits” requirements of the RWP regulation (exclusive track occupancy (§ 214.321), foul time (§ 214.323), or verbal protection (§ 214.324)). While the mandatory use of shunts as an additional measure of safety when establishing working limits had not previously been considered, FRA wishes to analyze available options for redundant forms of working limits protection. FRA understands that shunting procedures can be disruptive to signal systems, and, in some circumstances, might not be permissible under FRA's signal system regulations at 49 CFR part 236. However, if safe and cost-effective procedures can be implemented, FRA may add a provision in the final rule or proceed with an additional rulemaking in the future to require the use of redundant forms of protection. FRA specifically invites comment on this issue from the railroad industry and other interested parties, to include potential costs of implementing various redundant measures. The RWP regulation does not currently prescribe the use of every device or procedure that may be used by a railroad to supplement the establishment of working limits. However, FRA notes that roadway workers are already required by existing § 214.313(a) to follow all on-track safety rules and procedures of a railroad, including those such as the MBTA redundant protection requirement discussed above, even if such rules are not enumerated in Federal regulation.
FRA is requesting comment on several requirements or amendments for which regulatory text is not being proposed in this NPRM, but which FRA is considering adopting in a final rule in this proceeding. FRA specifically requests comment on these additional items, and also discusses some of them further in the section-by-section analysis below.
Under the existing roadway worker and blue signal protection requirements, any roadway workers performing work that involves fouling track within locomotive servicing track areas or car shop repair track areas (or performing work on structures within those areas that involves fouling a track) are required to utilize on-track safety procedures via the requirements of part 214. Any “workers”, as defined by § 218.5, performing work on, under, or between rolling equipment within such facilities are required to do so via the blue signal protection requirements of subpart B of part 218. Since the promulgation of the RWP regulation, there has been confusion in the railroad
Railroads have argued that FRA should exempt certain maintenance of way work within shop areas from the on-track safety requirements of part 214, as the employees within the limits of the shop areas may perform such work safely while utilizing the blue signal protections that they have been trained on the requirements of and are familiar with. Railroads have also argued that training shop personnel on two different protection regimes is costly, and is also confusing for employees that actually have to apply those two different types of protection, and, thus, detrimental to safety.
FRA is not proposing any specific rule text regarding this issue in this NPRM, but is contemplating amending the existing blue signal protection and/or roadway worker protection regulations in a final rule to make additional allowances for certain maintenance work performed within the limits of locomotive and car shops. FRA would only make such amendments if they provided for at least an equivalent level of employee safety to that which exists via the existing Federal regulations governing this issue. FRA is requesting comment on this issue, and specifically requests comment on how the issue of contractor employees would best be addressed, as contractor employees are subject to the requirements of part 214, but are not considered “workers” via existing part 218's blue signal protection requirements. As throughout the history of the blue signal regulation it has only governed work being performed on, under, or between rolling equipment, FRA also specifically requests comment on how an amendment to the existing regulations could best accommodate the protection of additional work activities within shop areas. Among other amendments, FRA anticipates existing § 218.29(a)(7) would be required to be amended to require that workers clear any shop track on which a locomotive is to be repositioned on. If in a final rule FRA decides to forego making any amendments to the current roadway worker and blue signal protection regulations within shop areas, FRA may utilize the comments received on this issue in a future rulemaking proceeding.
The existing sections in part 214 that govern the training and qualification requirements for additional roadway worker qualifications (§§ 214.347 (lone worker), 214.349 (watchman/lookout), 214.351 (flagman), 214.353 (roadway worker in charge), and 214.255 (roadway maintenance machine operator)) do not expressly specify an interval for refresher training and qualification. Those existing sections currently only state that “[i]nitial and periodic qualification of [additional roadway worker qualification] shall be evidenced by” either demonstrated proficiency or a recorded examination, depending on section. The Working Group made the consensus recommendation that FRA propose regulatory text expressly requiring initial training and qualification before a roadway worker is assigned to perform duties involving that qualification, and also recommended requiring refresher training annually and qualification every 24-months. The requirement that initial training and qualification must be provided before assigning a roadway worker duties involving an additional qualification is required by the current regulation. The consensus recommendation would only more clearly state such if adopted in a final rule.
With regard to the refresher training and qualification consensus recommendations, however, in the time period that has passed since the Working Group proposed consensus text for this section, RSIA 2008 mandated that FRA undertake a rulemaking to set minimum training standards for “each class and craft of safety-related employee,” to include training standards for roadway workers. That rulemaking was undertaken by the RSAC and FRA recently published an NPRM proposing such minimum training standards. 77 FR 6412. The training standards NPRM contains an extensive proposal for refresher training and qualification requirements for roadway workers, and would require such refresher training and qualification every three years, to include for the additional roadway worker qualifications in part 214.
As the consensus recommendation made by the RWP Working Group and those proposed by the minimum training standards rulemaking do not parallel one another with regard to frequency of refresher qualification and training, FRA is requesting comment on the best manner to proceed in setting refresher qualification and training intervals for the additional roadway worker qualifications in a final rule. FRA specifically requests comment on the costs and/or potential benefits of the two different approaches.
FRA notes that the existing RWP regulation requires that each roadway worker be trained each calendar year on the items listed in § 214.345, and on the on-track safety rules and procedures they are required to follow via § 214.343. FRA is not proposing to amend those existing annual basic roadway worker training requirements. Rather, FRA is only seeking comment on the appropriate interval of refresher qualification and training requirements for additional roadway worker qualifications found in existing §§ 214.347, 214.349, 214.351, 214.353, and 214.255. FRA would also apply the interval adopted in a final rule to proposed § 214.352.
Existing § 214.353 governs qualification and training for roadway workers in charge that provide for on-track safety, and paragraph (a)(4) of that section requires that such training include the “relevant physical characteristics of the territory of the railroad upon which the roadway worker is qualified.” However, such a qualification is absent from existing § 214.347, which governs training for lone workers, and also from existing § 214.349, which governs training for watchmen/lookouts. FRA is currently considering amending §§ 214.347 and 214.349 to include a requirement for such training.
Existing § 214.349(a)(3) requires that watchmen/lookouts receive training and qualification on the “[d]etermination of the distance along the track at which trains must be visible in order to provide the prescribed warning time.” FRA believes that requiring qualification on the physical characteristics could potentially aid a watchman/lookout in making the safe distance determination to identify an appropriate location to give train
To clarify, FRA does not believe that a watchman/lookout or a lone worker would need to be versed in the physical characteristics of an entire territory in the same manner as a roadway worker in charge, and is aware of the challenges such a broad requirement could present to system-wide roadway work gangs on larger railroads. However, FRA seeks comment on its potential inclusion of a provision in a final rule that would require an abbreviated physical characteristics qualification at a particular location where train approach warning is to be given by a watchman/lookout, or at a particular location where a lone worker is to perform work. FRA is considering the inclusion of such a requirement in the final rule issued in this rulemaking. FRA also specifically requests comment on the potential costs that could be associated with this requirement, and the factual basis of any such costs.
Some railroad tunnels have niches or clearing bays built into their sidewalls that permit roadway workers to occupy a place of safety while performing work in tunnels (typically inspection work). However, some of these niches that are outside the clearance envelope may, by design, be slightly less than four feet from the field side of the rail. Technically, the use of such niches as a place of safety would be a violation of the existing RWP regulation, as a roadway worker occupying such a niche could be “fouling a track” per the existing definition for that term in § 214.7. The Working Group discussed this issue at length, but no consensus solution was reached. The Working Group did, however, decide against modifying the definition of “fouling a track” to accommodate such niches or bays. Working Group discussions indicated that such niches that were outside the clearance envelope but less than four feet from the field side of the rail existed on a small number of railroads, and were located primarily in the Eastern United States. Amtrak indicated that its tunnel niches have been used for 100 years, and are essential to protecting roadway workers in high traffic areas. The BMWED indicated during Working Group discussions that its membership largely did not utilize clearing bays, but rather primarily obtained working limits while fouling track within tunnels.
FRA is not proposing specific text regarding this issue in the NPRM, but is contemplating whether to adopt regulatory text in a final rule that would permit the use of these structures as a place of safety by roadway workers, provided certain safety requirements are complied with. FRA requests further comment on this issue.
FRA anticipates that if the use of such tunnel niches and clearing bays were permitted, that railroads would be required to designate in their on-track safety programs which niches or clearing bays could be used as places of safety. In making such designations, railroads would have to take into account the time it may take an individual to move into such niches or bays when departing a track upon the approach of a train (to ensure that a roadway worker could occupy a designated niche as a place of safety at least 15 seconds before a train would pass the location of the bay, in accordance with the existing requirements of §§ 214.329(a) or 214.337(c)(4)). Requirements that such niches be free from any type of debris or supplies and also be of an adequate size to safely accommodate a roadway worker would also likely be necessary.
FRA is considering adding a requirement in a final rule in this proceeding to the proposed station platform snow removal and cleaning section (proposed § 214.338) that would require roadway workers performing duties under the procedures proposed in that section to wear highly visible protective equipment (vest or other outer garment) which would meet a standard of the American National Standards Institute/International Safety Equipment Association. The request for comment regarding this item is also discussed further in the section-by-section analysis below.
FRA is considering adopting a requirement in a final rule in this proceeding that would only permit the splitting of roadway worker in charge qualifications to occur in situations where a conductor or other railroad employee serves as a pilot to a roadway worker in charge who is not qualified on the physical characteristics of a particular territory. FRA is considering such, as every roadway work group is already required to have a roadway worker in charge, and if the proposed amendment to paragraph (a) of existing § 214.353 is adopted in a final rule in this proceeding, any employee acting as a roadway worker in charge would be required to be trained on the substantive requirements listed in § 214.353. This issue is detailed further in the section-by-section analysis for § 214.353 below, and FRA specifically requests comment on this issue.
FRA currently anticipates that the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding would be 180 days from the date of publication of the final rule in the
In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13563, this NPRM proposes to modify the existing RWP requirements, in part, based on what has been learned from FRA's retrospective review of the existing regulation.
FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM. Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR part 214 (Part 214).
FRA proposes to amend the existing definitions section for Part 214 by both adding new definitions and amending existing definitions. FRA proposes to add new definitions for the following terms: controlled point; interlocking, manual; maximum authorized speed; on-track safety manual; roadway worker in charge; station platform work coordinator; and verbal protection. FRA also proposes to amend Part 214's existing definitions for the terms effective securing device and watchman/lookout.
The proposed definition of the term “controlled point” was a consensus recommendation agreed to by the Working Group. This new definition is being proposed because existing § 214.337 prohibits the use of individual train detection by a lone worker inside the limits of a “controlled point.”
FRA is proposing to amend the definition for existing term “effective securing device” as recommended by the Working Group. The term “effective securing device” is intended to describe an appurtenance preventing the operation of mechanisms that make non-controlled track inaccessible. Since promulgation of the original RWP regulation, a number of interpretive questions have arisen about this definition. In response, FRA issued Technical Bulletin G-05-20 to provide clarity. This new proposed definition incorporates the contents of that technical bulletin in order to clarify what constitutes an “effective securing device.”
The proposed amendment would require that locks used to lock switches or derails for the purpose of providing on-track safety for roadway workers must be keyed to allow for removal by only the roadway workers for whom protection is being provided. In the absence of a lock, the definition would allow a spike to be driven into a switch tie to secure a switch, so long as the spike cannot be removed without the use of railroad track tools. Clamps and metal wedges (solidly driven on a derail securing it to the rail) without a lock would also be acceptable if they cannot be removed without the use of railroad track tools. For example, a clamp that could be removed with an ordinary adjustable wrench would need to be locked. This is to ensure that other employees, such as transportation employees who may attempt to access a track with rolling equipment, could not readily remove such on-track safety protections applied by roadway workers to establish on-track safety.
To clearly identify effective securing devices, and thus, to prevent railroad employees from being injured by attempts to operate a secured device, the throwing handle, hasp, or keeper of the switch or derail shall have a unique tag which is clearly displayed. The unique tag must clearly indicate to other railroad employees, such as trainmen, who may attempt to operate a switch that such switch is secured. If there is no throwing handle, this proposed definition would require that the securing device itself shall be tagged. Regardless of the type of securing device used, each tag must be clearly marked to indicate that it is securing an entrance into inaccessible track.
Members of the Working Group had the opportunity to make comments on a draft of the consensus lan