[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19234-19237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10230]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 214
[FRA Docket No. RSOR 13, Notice No. 10]
RIN 2130-AA86
Roadway Worker Protection
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 16, 1996, FRA published its Final Rule on Roadway
Worker Protection (61 FR 65959), which was the product of the agency's
first regulatory negotiation. This rule promulgates standards to
protect roadway workers while working on or near railroad tracks. In
this document, FRA responds to concerns raised by two parties in
petitions for reconsideration of the final rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Bridge
Engineer, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 8326,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-632-3340); Grady Cothen, Deputy
Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development,
FRA, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-
632-3309); or Cynthia Walters, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,
FRA, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 8201, Washington, D.C. 20590
(telephone 202-632-3188).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 16, 1996, FRA published its
final rule on Roadway Worker Protection which established standards for
the protection of roadway workers who are working on or about railroad
track. This rule represents the efforts of an Advisory Committee
chartered to conduct FRA's first negotiated rulemaking. On January 6,
1997, the Association of American Railroads filed a petition for
reconsideration of the final rule. The AAR's petition specifically
alleges:
Section 214.337 of the final rule imposes significant
additional costs on the railroad industry without commensurate safety
gains;
The Advisory Committee did not participate in the economic
evaluation of the final rule; and
FRA has failed to provide a reasoned response to a
significant concern raised on the record by AAR and its members.
[[Page 19235]]
On February 11, 1997, the American Public Transit Association also
filed a petition for reconsideration of the final rule. APTA's petition
specifically alleges:
APTA's commuter rail members will not be able to comply
with the regulations by the March 15, compliance date and urges FRA to
extend the date to September 15 for commuter railroads.
APTA urges FRA to reconsider the use of restricted speed
in yards and interlockings as a form of on track safety protection; and
APTA urges FRA to reconsider section 214.337 by allowing
lone workers to perform visual inspections within interlockings and
control point limits when trains are operating at restricted speed.
A. Procedural Issues
Petitions for reconsideration to the Administrator must be filed in
accordance with 49 CFR 211.29(a), which requires:
Except for good cause shown, such a petition must be submitted
not later than 60 days after publication of the rule in the Federal
Register, or 10 days prior to the effective date of the rule,
whichever is the earlier. (49 CFR 211.29(a)).
The effective date for this rule was January 15, 1997, making the
appropriate filing deadline January 5, 1997, 10 days prior to the
effective date. Since the filing deadline fell on a weekend, all
petitions were to be filed by the next business day, Monday, January 6.
APTA's petition, was filed on February 11, more than 30 days after the
appropriate filing deadline. In accordance with the regulation, late
filers are expected to show good cause. APTA's petition, however, fails
to set forth an argument for such good cause. Despite APTA's untimely
filing and lack of good cause shown, FRA is addressing the substance of
the petition in this response.
B. The AAR's Concerns
The petition submitted by the AAR addressed 3 major concerns which
require reconsideration of one provision, Sec. 214.337, On Track Safety
Procedures for Lone Workers. The AAR asserts the following:
1. The Final Rule Imposes Significant Additional Costs on the Railroad
Industry Without Commensurate Safety Gains
This allegation is in reference to Sec. 214.337's prohibition on
the use of individual train detection as protection for lone workers in
interlockings, controlled points, and remotely controlled hump yards.
The AAR contends that the final rule should be modified to allow lone
workers to perform inspections and minor correction work within
controlled points, manual interlockings or remotely controlled hump
yards while using individual train detection at locations where sight
distance, background noise and adjacent track constraints pose no
threat to safety. The AAR's argument essentially reiterates the
argument set forth by Norfolk Southern Railway (Norfolk Southern) in
its comment to the docket. This comment was addressed during the
Advisory Committee's final meeting which was dedicated to the
discussion of comments to the NPRM. During that meeting, the Advisory
Committee could not reach consensus to reopen this issue despite
Norfolk Southern's explanation of its concern.
The AAR acknowledges sending an August 23rd letter to the docket,
after the committee met. In that letter, the AAR articulated the same
arguments that it now presents in its petition. The AAR maintains that
this prohibition will create situations where roadway workers will
simply forgo inspection. The AAR also contends that this prohibition is
unnecessary, since lone workers have a right to get more restrictive
protection when they believe it is necessary. The AAR also argues that
any railroad is generally free to adopt more restrictive measures
making it unnecessary and excessive to include such measures in the
final rule. Finally, the AAR contends that there are no fatality data
involving a lone worker, trained in roadway worker protection,
inspecting in a controlled point, manual interlocking or remotely
controlled hump yard.
FRA independently analyzed the claims presented by the AAR in that
letter and the cost data used to support them. FRA agreed with the
Advisory Committee, which reached consensus after much debate that
there are sound safety reasons to restrict a lone worker's use of
individual train detection, and articulated that reasoning in the
preamble to the final rule. Since individual train detection does not
ensure that a train will not operate over the track, FRA has limited
the use of this method of on-track safety to instances where the risks
associated with the roadway work environment are minimal. FRA provided
data indicating that manual interlockings, controlled points and remote
controlled hump yards are not locations of low risk for roadway
workers. Eleven (11) fatalities occurred between 1989 and 1995, in
these locations and in situations virtually analogous to lone workers
utilizing individual train detection. Although these workers were
technically members of a work group, they were performing tasks by
themselves and responsible for protecting themselves. Many of these
roadway workers had recently undergone rules training and had the
option to request additional forms of protection. Despite recent
training and the option for more protection, 11 roadway workers were
killed. The AAR is simply mistaken when it contends that there are no
safety gains flowing from this restriction.
The AAR further contends that due to the burdensome nature of these
restrictions, the frequency of inspections will decrease in
interlockings and controlled points. It is important to note that there
are Federal regulations requiring both track and signal inspections.
These regulations establish minimum inspection frequencies and safety
standards for track and signal.
In addition to Federal standards, railroads often have their own
internal mandates requiring certain track and signal inspections. FRA
believes that the new roadway worker protection standards will have no
impact on these inspections, since they are required by either Federal
regulation or railroad rule in order to maintain a minimum level of
safety. However, as always, FRA will not hesitate to employ enforcement
measures for any of its regulations, if non-compliance is discovered.
Finally, the AAR's petition included a cost analysis asserting that
this provision is far too expensive. FRA did not find this assertion
persuasive. First, the AAR did not provide critical assumptions used in
conducting its analysis, making it difficult to provide a reasoned
response to the AAR's contentions. For example, FRA's calculations used
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis pertained to additional cost burdens.
In many instances, railroads are already providing some sort of
protection. It is not clear that the AAR has calculated only costs
associated with providing additional on-track safety protection. The
enormity of the number the AAR used in connection with lone workers
would seem to indicate that the figure represents the cost of total man
hours to provide on-track safety for lone workers at interlockings,
controlled points and remotely controlled hump yards, not the
additional cost of man hours for providing on-track safety for lone
workers at interlockings and controlled points. The AAR's petition did
not specify which method of protection was
[[Page 19236]]
used for their cost estimate. It appears that the AAR calculated their
costs by using more expensive methods of on-track safety protection
than FRA used. Perhaps the most puzzling portion of this cost analysis
is the sparse detail offered to explain how the cost of this provision
increased from $2,847,586 for one railroad to $12,000,000 for the
industry. Given the AAR's cost estimate, one railroad represents 24
percent of the industry's costs. This figure defies FRA's understanding
of the industry, since no railroad represents such a significant share.
After careful consideration and for the reasons set forth above, FRA
has decided not to modify this provision.
2. The Advisory Committee Did Not Participate in the Economic
Evaluation of the Final Rule
FRA finds puzzling the AAR's desire to have its economic concern
addressed in a petition for reconsideration to the final rule. The AAR
seems to take issue with the conclusions reached in the analysis. The
AAR concludes that the rule is based fully or partially on false
premises. The AAR expresses the belief that had they participated in
the development, methodology, or assumptions used in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis, the resulting document would have been more accurate.
FRA contends that the Regulatory Impact Analysis was never intended
to be part of this Regulatory Negotiation. FRA's Notice proposing the
formation of a negotiated rulemaking committee discussed ``key issues
for negotiation.'' (59 FR 42203) FRA did not anticipate the Regulatory
Impact Analysis itself being a topic for negotiation. Nor did FRA
receive any comments to the initial notice suggesting that the analysis
be considered a key issue for negotiation.
Most important, FRA stands firmly behind the methodology and
conclusions reached in its analysis. The methodology used is
consistently employed by this agency and renders accurate results. In
addition, Advisory Committee members were included in surveys providing
information which formed the basis of significant portions of the
analysis. FRA also used data that are routinely provided to the agency
by the various railroads themselves.
Lastly, FRA believes that each railroad is in the best position to
determine how proposed safety standards will affect them. Committee
members were expected to independently weigh the benefits and burdens
of proposed standards for the interests that they represent, during the
course of the negotiations. Participation in formulating FRA's
regulatory impact analysis should not have had a significant effect on
any party warranting reconsideration of the rule. Negotiated rulemaking
theory assumes that parties will examine the impact of rule provisions
on their interest as they negotiate and it assumes that given that
self-examination, no party would reach consensus on issues that have a
severe detrimental impact on them. The consensus reached at the NPRM
stage was not a consensus pending review of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis, but a solid consensus on recommended rule text for minimum
standards in the area of Roadway Worker Protection.
3. FRA has Failed To Provide a Reasoned Response to a Significant
Concern Raised on the Record by the AAR and its Members
FRA addressed all comments to the docket in the preamble to the
Final Rule. The AAR is mistaken when it asserts that FRA did not
provide a reasoned response to its concerns. There was an entire
section of the preamble dedicated to the issues of Restricted Speed and
Lone Workers. FRA considered the AAR's comment and did not find it
persuasive for safety reasons. FRA also determined that the provision
would not be modified in accordance with the AAR's suggestion. In
addition, a portion of the Regulatory Impact Analysis was devoted to
the economic concerns presented by the AAR. FRA has clearly provided a
reasoned response for its decision against incorporating changes
suggested by the AAR.
C. APTA's Concerns
APTA's petition addressed 3 major concerns also. APTA asserts the
following:
1. APTA Requests to Extend the Compliance Date for Commuter Railroads
to September 15
APTA expressed concern regarding meeting the March 15 compliance
date for commuter railroads. APTA's petition acknowledges full
participation in the regulatory negotiation process. APTA members had a
good understanding of the NPRM recommended by the Advisory Committee
and participated in the discussion regarding suggested changes that had
been submitted in the form of comments to the docket. In fact, APTA
members were fully aware that beginning last spring, many class 1
railroads had voluntarily implemented on-track safety measures similar
to those recommended in the NPRM. Despite full participation in the
process, and full knowledge of the standards that were likely to get
published, it appears as though these measures come unexpectedly to
some commuter railroads. FRA finds surprising the need for a 6-month
extension for a significant portion of the railroad industry on the
basis of training when at least portions of the on-track safety program
can be implemented with very little training. In addition, FRA has
received correspondence from at least one commuter railroad indicating
that it would be in full compliance by March 15. FRA believes that
issues regarding the compliance date are best handled through the
waiver process, since there is no compelling reason to change the
compliance date for all commuter railroads. At present, FRA has
received waiver petitions from several commuter railroads and is
committed to provide expedited service on these petitions. After
careful consideration and for the reasons set forth above, FRA has
decided not to extend the compliance date for all commuter railroads
and will address the individual requests for extension through the
waiver process.
2. APTA Requests that Restricted Speed be as a Form of On-Track Safety
Protection in Yards and Interlockings
The issue of whether the use of restricted speed, alone, would
constitute on-track safety surfaced during the regulatory negotiation.
The parties to the negotiation determined that restricted speed would
not constitute on-track safety protection. FRA articulated its belief
that unusual circumstances in certain locations where this measure or
others might be considered sufficient to constitute on-track safety
protection, would have to be addressed by the waiver process. FRA felt
that it would be necessary to consider the unique qualities of each
operation in order to determine the merits of a waiver petition
regarding whether restricted speed could be considered on-track safety
protection. After careful consideration and for the sound safety
reasons, FRA has also decided not to consider restricted speed a form
of on-track safety protection and to also address this issue through
the waiver process.
3. APTA Requests That Lone Workers Be Allowed to use Individual Train
Detection as a Form of Protection While Conducting Visual Inspections
Within Interlockings and Controlled Points When Trains are Operating at
Restricted Speed
APTA's concern regarding lone workers was discussed during the
regulatory negotiation and the comment period following publication of
the NPRM. FRA included a detailed
[[Page 19237]]
discussion of these comments in the preamble to the final rule. (61 FR
65062) APTA's request also pertains to Sec. 214.337, but is slightly
different than the AAR's, since trains in this instance will be
operating at restricted speed. Despite this difference, FRA's safety
reasoning is the same. FRA and the committee were not willing to carve
out an exception for lone workers using individual train detection at
interlockings and controlled points, even if trains are operating at
restricted speed. FRA continues to believe that sound safety principles
limit the use of individual train detection. APTA members have also
addressed this issue through waiver petitions, which is again the best
forum for such concerns. After careful consideration and for the
reasons set forth above, FRA has decided not to change Sec. 214.337's
prohibition on the use of individual train detection.
Issued this 15th day of April 1997.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-10230 Filed 4-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
