Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry, 42713-42716 [06-6501]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Notices
authorized users in the field to request,
be granted, or release on-track authority.
To facilitate the implementation of this
technology, UP is requesting that FRA
suspend compliance with certain rules
in accordance with the provisions
contained in 49 CFR 211.51.
The Remote Authority is a web-based
application that will permit authorized
users to request, be granted, or release
Foul Time, Track Permit, Track & Time
or Track Warrant authority to occupy a
main track or other controlled track. The
central office component consists of one
or more Remote Authority servers that
will receive requests from authorized
users for on-track authority or requests
to release on-track authority. If the user
is authorized to request or release ontrack authority, and the request meets
established criteria, the request is
forwarded to the Union Pacific’s
Computer Aided Dispatching system for
further processing. Requests that do not
meet established criteria are rejected at
this point in the process, and the user
is provided the opportunity to change or
cancel the request.
Requests for on-track authority are
received by the dispatching system and
must meet established criteria to be
eligible for issuance by the dispatching
system without dispatcher intervention.
If the established criteria are not
satisfied, the request is placed in the
appropriate authority request queue,
and the train dispatcher is notified.
In this regard, the UP requests relief
to permit the dispatching system to
grant or release on-track authority in
response to a valid request from an
authorized user without intervention on
the part of the train dispatcher or
control operator who controls train
movements on that track. The UP
hereby seeks relief from 49 CFR
214.321(a)(1), which requires a track
occupancy authority for working limits
to be issued to the roadway worker in
charge by the train dispatcher or control
operator who controls train movements
on that track.
Access to the Remote Authority
application within the UP network
requires the user to present valid
credentials consisting of standard user
identification and secret password. For
off-network access, a Virtual Private
Network (VPN) connection must be
established by the employee before
presenting valid credentials. Within the
Remote Authority application,
individual users are further restricted in
the functions they may perform.
Interested parties are invited to
participate in this proceeding by
submitting written views, data, or
comments. Although FRA does not
anticipate scheduling a public hearing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
in connection with this proceeding, if
any interested party desires an
opportunity for oral comment, they
should notify FRA in writing before the
end of the comment period and specify
the basis for their request.
All communications concerning this
proceeding should identify the
appropriate docket number (FRA–2006–
24840) and may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
• Web site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001.
• Hand Delivery: Docket Management
Facility, Room PL–401 on the Plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
Communications received within 45
days of the date of this notice will be
considered by FRA before final action is
taken. Comments received after that
date will be considered as far as
practicable. All written communications
concerning these proceedings are
available for examination during regular
business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the
above facility. All documents in the
public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet
at the docket facility’s Web site at https://
dms.dot.gov.
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000, (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). The
statement may also be found at https://
dms.dot.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20,
2006.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety
Standards and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E6–11964 Filed 7–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42713
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No.
1]
Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: FRA announces its intent to
conduct a series of open meetings
throughout the United States, in
cooperation with appropriate State
agencies, to consider issues related to
the safety of private highway-rail grade
crossings. At each open meeting, FRA
intends to solicit oral statements from
private crossing owners, railroads and
other interested parties on issues related
to the safety of private highway-rail
grade crossings, which will include, but
not be limited to, current practices
concerning responsibility for safety at
private grade crossings, the adequacy of
warning devices at private crossings,
and the relative merits of a more
uniform approach to improving safety at
private crossings. FRA has also opened
a public docket on these issues, so that
interested parties may submit written
comments for public review and
consideration.
The initial public meeting will
be held in Fort Snelling, Minnesota on
August 30, 2006 at the Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building. Persons
wishing to participate are requested to
provide their names, organizational
affiliation and contact information to
Michelle Silva, Docket Clerk, FRA, 1120
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20590 (telephone 202–493–6030) by
July 31, 2006. Persons needing sign
language interpretation or other
reasonable accommodation for disability
are also encouraged to contact Michelle
Silva, FRA Docket Clerk, at (202) 493–
6030 by July 31, 2006. Additional public
meetings will be announced over the
next three months.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron
Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20590 (telephone 202–493–6299);
Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, FRA,
1120 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–
493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of
Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202–493–6038).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There are
currently over 94,000 private highwayDATES:
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
rail grade crossings (private crossings)
in the United States. Each year, about
400 accidents and between 30–40
fatalities occur at these crossings. In
most years, the number of deaths
occurring at private crossings exceeded
the number of on-duty deaths among
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
railroad employees in all rail operations.
While accidents and injuries at public
highway-rail grade crossings have
declined by between one-third and onehalf in the past decade, accidents at
private crossings have declined by only
10 percent, and the number of injuries
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
in private crossing accidents has
actually increased by 1 percent. Figures
1 and 2 show the accident, fatality, and
injury trends occurring at private and
public grade crossings, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
EN27JY06.000</GPH>
42714
Private highway-rail grade crossing
safety has therefore been a matter of
concern to the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
FRA hosted an open meeting to initiate
industry-wide discussions concerning
private highway-rail grade crossing
safety on July 15, 1993. In its 1994 RailHighway Crossing Safety Action Plan,
the United States Department of
Transportation proposed to ‘‘develop
and provide national, minimum safety
standards for private crossings, and to
eliminate the potential impediment to
high speed rail operations posed by
private crossings.’’ In its 1997 study on
Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, the
National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) highlighted the need for some
system to improve safety at private
highway-railroad grade crossings,
recommending that the DOT, in
conjunction with the States, should
determine governmental oversight
responsibility for safety at private
highway-rail grade crossings. In 1999,
the NTSB weighed in again on the issue
of safety at private crossings in its report
on a private grade crossing accident in
Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB
recommended that the U.S. Department
of Transportation ‘‘eliminate any
differences between private and public
highway-rail grade crossings with regard
to providing funding for, or requiring
the implementation of, safety
improvements.’’ In 2004, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
Department of Transportation published
an updated Highway-Rail Crossing
Safety and Trespass Prevention Action
Plan (https://www.fra.dot.gov/
downloads/safety/
action_plan_2004.pdf) (Secretary’s
Action Plan). In this plan the FRA has
committed to lead an effort to define
responsibility for safety at private
highway-rail grade crossings. This effort
is intended to include a determination
of minimum criteria for signage, and
also to identify safety needs.
Private crossings present a safety
challenge precisely because their nonpublic character can influence their
design and maintenance. The 94,000
private crossings that remain on the
national rail system serve the needs of
a very large and disparate population of
individuals, small businesses and large
corporations that are holders of the right
or privilege to traverse the railroad.
Their circumstances differ in many
ways:
1. Degree of need for private crossings
and their use. The policy of the U.S.
Department of Transportation seeks
elimination of unnecessary and
particularly hazardous highway-rail
grade crossings, whether public or
private. Secretary’s Action Plan at 41.
Some private crossings are essential for
access to the holder’s property and
failure to provide access would render
the property much less valuable. Other
private crossings are situated along
roads that could easily provide access
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42715
via other public or private crossings.
Some private crossings are heavily used,
while others are used only seasonally
(e.g., certain agricultural crossings used
only for movement of agricultural
equipment such as tractors and
combines). Some crossings are used
only for routine personal use or
occasional use by business guests (e.g.,
personal residences). Other private
crossings are used extensively for
private business purposes, and motor
vehicle operators are typically
employees, contractors, and suppliers
(e.g., access to industries, rock quarries,
etc.) In still other cases, private
crossings may be used very heavily by
the public to enter commercial facilities.
2. Engineering. Some private crossings
providing access to commercial
properties have well-maintained
surfaces and excellent signage
comparable to that contemplated by the
Manual for Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. According to the National
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, active
warning devices are provided at 1,078
private crossings. More typically, many
private crossings are marked only by
crossbuck signs without advance
warning signs, or not at all; and surface
may be irregular. Sight distances at
private crossings without active warning
devices vary widely. Neither the Federal
Government nor the States, with
extremely few exceptions, provide
financial assistance for engineering
improvements at private crossings. In
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
EN27JY06.001</GPH>
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Notices
42716
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Notices
these few instances, funding for private
crossings may be provided for specific
corridor projects, most commonly the
high speed rail corridors.
3. Legal status. Private crossing rights
vary from ownership of the fee simple
(outright ownership of the underlying
property), to documented easements, to
prescriptive easements (where
recognized), to documented licenses
under contract, to verbal licenses
subject to revocation without notice.
The entities enjoying rights under these
arrangements may be referred to as
‘‘holders’’ of the right to cross.
Increasingly over the past 15 years,
railroads have sought to establish
maximum control over these intermodal
intersections by requiring crossing
holders to purchase insurance or
provide other protection in the event a
holder, railroad or a third party
experiences a loss due to a collision.
Contracts or other legal instruments may
further define responsibilities (e.g., for
maintenance of the crossing surface or
providing notifications under stated
conditions).
4. Extent of regulation. In general,
private crossings are not subject to
regulation at the State or Federal level.
FRA’s requirements for inspection, test
and maintenance of active warning
devices (49 CFR part 234) apply to the
railroad where active warning has been
installed; but there is no Federal
mandate for providing such warning.1 A
handful of States require that railroads
place crossbucks or special signage (in
some cases a stop sign and a crossbuck
on the same post) at private crossings.
The subject of private crossings is
otherwise largely unregulated.
Accordingly, such recognized
responsibilities as exist with respect to
the safety of private crossings are
generally the product of contracts and
common law. (For a general description
of responsibilities related to crossing
safety, see Safety Advisory 2005–03;
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety (70
FR 22750; May 2, 2005)).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Request for Comments
While FRA solicits discussion and
comments on all areas of safety at
private highway-rail grade crossings, we
particularly encourage comments on the
following topics:
• At-grade highway-rail crossings
present inherent risks to users,
including the railroad and its
employees, and to other persons in the
1 Other FRA regulations applicable to the railroad
are intended to address safety at private crossings,
as well as public crossings, particularly
requirements for alerting lights (49 CFR 219.125)
and reflectorization of rail rolling stock (49 CFR
part 224) to make trains more conspicuous.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Jul 26, 2006
Jkt 208001
vicinity should a train derail into an
occupied area or release hazardous
materials. When passenger trains are
involved, the risks are heightened. From
the standpoint of public policy, how do
we determine whether creation or
continuation of a private crossing is
justified?
• Is the current assignment of
responsibility for safety at private
crossings effective? To what extent do
risk management practices associated
with insurance arrangements result in
‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private
crossings?
• How should improvement and/or
maintenance costs associated with
private crossing be allocated?
• Is there a need for alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms to
handle disputes that may arise between
private crossing owners and the
railroads?
• Should the State or Federal
government assume greater
responsibility for safety at private
crossings?
• Should there be Nationwide
standards for warning devices at private
crossings, or for intersection design of
new private grade crossings?
• How do we determine when a
private crossing has a ‘public purpose’
and is subject to public use?
• Should some crossings be
categorized as ‘commercial crossings’,
rather than as ‘private crossings’?
• Are there innovative traffic control
treatments that could improve safety at
private crossings on major rail corridors,
including those on which passenger
service is provided?
• Should the Department of
Transportation request enactment of
legislation to address private crossings?
If so, what should it include?
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20,
2006.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06–6501 Filed 7–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket No. MARAD–2006–25457]
Information Collection Available for
Public Comments and
Recommendations
Notice and request for
comments.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Maritime
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Administration’s (MARAD’s) intention
to request extension of approval for
three years of a currently approved
information collection.
DATES: Comments should be submitted
on or before September 25, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Franklin, Maritime
Administration, (MAR–610), 400
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: 202–366–2628, fax:
202–366–3954; or e-mail:
michael.franklin@dot.gov. Copies of this
collection can also be obtained from that
office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Automated
Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue
System (AMVER).
Type of Request: Extension of
currently approved information
collection.
OMB Control Number: 2133–0025.
Form Numbers: None.
Expiration Date of Approval: Three
years from date of approval by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Summary of Collection of
Information. This collection of
information is used to gather
information regarding the location of
U.S.-flag vessels and certain other U.S.
citizen-owned vessels for the purpose of
search and rescue in the saving of lives
at sea and for the marshalling of ships
for national defense and safety
purposes.
Need and Use of the Information:
This information collection is necessary
for maintaining a current plot of U.S.flag and U.S.-owned vessels.
Description of Respondents:
Respondents are U.S.-flag and U.S.
citizen-owned vessels.
Annual Responses: 29,280 responses.
Annual Burden: 2,342 hours.
Comments: Comments should refer to
the docket number that appears at the
top of this document. Written comments
may be submitted to the Docket Clerk,
U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Comments may also be
submitted by electronic means via the
Internet at https://dmses.dot.gov/submit.
Specifically address whether this
information collection is necessary for
proper performance of the functions of
the agency and will have practical
utility, accuracy of the burden
estimates, ways to minimize this
burden, and ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected. All
comments received will be available for
examination at the above address
between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. EDT (or
EST), Monday through Friday, except
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 144 (Thursday, July 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42713-42716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6501]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Docket No. FRA-2005-23281, Notice No. 1]
Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety
Inquiry
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA announces its intent to conduct a series of open meetings
throughout the United States, in cooperation with appropriate State
agencies, to consider issues related to the safety of private highway-
rail grade crossings. At each open meeting, FRA intends to solicit oral
statements from private crossing owners, railroads and other interested
parties on issues related to the safety of private highway-rail grade
crossings, which will include, but not be limited to, current practices
concerning responsibility for safety at private grade crossings, the
adequacy of warning devices at private crossings, and the relative
merits of a more uniform approach to improving safety at private
crossings. FRA has also opened a public docket on these issues, so that
interested parties may submit written comments for public review and
consideration.
DATES: The initial public meeting will be held in Fort Snelling,
Minnesota on August 30, 2006 at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal
Building. Persons wishing to participate are requested to provide their
names, organizational affiliation and contact information to Michelle
Silva, Docket Clerk, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20590 (telephone 202-493-6030) by July 31, 2006. Persons needing sign
language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for
disability are also encouraged to contact Michelle Silva, FRA Docket
Clerk, at (202) 493-6030 by July 31, 2006. Additional public meetings
will be announced over the next three months.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6299);
Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6299); or Kathryn Shelton,
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20590 (telephone 202-493-6038).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There are currently over 94,000 private
highway-
[[Page 42714]]
rail grade crossings (private crossings) in the United States. Each
year, about 400 accidents and between 30-40 fatalities occur at these
crossings. In most years, the number of deaths occurring at private
crossings exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad
employees in all rail operations. While accidents and injuries at
public highway-rail grade crossings have declined by between one-third
and one-half in the past decade, accidents at private crossings have
declined by only 10 percent, and the number of injuries in private
crossing accidents has actually increased by 1 percent. Figures 1 and 2
show the accident, fatality, and injury trends occurring at private and
public grade crossings, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JY06.000
[[Page 42715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27JY06.001
Private highway-rail grade crossing safety has therefore been a
matter of concern to the U.S. Department of Transportation and the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). FRA hosted an open meeting
to initiate industry-wide discussions concerning private highway-rail
grade crossing safety on July 15, 1993. In its 1994 Rail-Highway
Crossing Safety Action Plan, the United States Department of
Transportation proposed to ``develop and provide national, minimum
safety standards for private crossings, and to eliminate the potential
impediment to high speed rail operations posed by private crossings.''
In its 1997 study on Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) highlighted the need for some system
to improve safety at private highway-railroad grade crossings,
recommending that the DOT, in conjunction with the States, should
determine governmental oversight responsibility for safety at private
highway-rail grade crossings. In 1999, the NTSB weighed in again on the
issue of safety at private crossings in its report on a private grade
crossing accident in Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB
recommended that the U.S. Department of Transportation ``eliminate any
differences between private and public highway-rail grade crossings
with regard to providing funding for, or requiring the implementation
of, safety improvements.'' In 2004, the Department of Transportation
published an updated Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass
Prevention Action Plan (https://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/
action_plan_2004.pdf) (Secretary's Action Plan). In this plan the FRA
has committed to lead an effort to define responsibility for safety at
private highway-rail grade crossings. This effort is intended to
include a determination of minimum criteria for signage, and also to
identify safety needs.
Private crossings present a safety challenge precisely because
their non-public character can influence their design and maintenance.
The 94,000 private crossings that remain on the national rail system
serve the needs of a very large and disparate population of
individuals, small businesses and large corporations that are holders
of the right or privilege to traverse the railroad. Their circumstances
differ in many ways:
1. Degree of need for private crossings and their use. The policy
of the U.S. Department of Transportation seeks elimination of
unnecessary and particularly hazardous highway-rail grade crossings,
whether public or private. Secretary's Action Plan at 41. Some private
crossings are essential for access to the holder's property and failure
to provide access would render the property much less valuable. Other
private crossings are situated along roads that could easily provide
access via other public or private crossings. Some private crossings
are heavily used, while others are used only seasonally (e.g., certain
agricultural crossings used only for movement of agricultural equipment
such as tractors and combines). Some crossings are used only for
routine personal use or occasional use by business guests (e.g.,
personal residences). Other private crossings are used extensively for
private business purposes, and motor vehicle operators are typically
employees, contractors, and suppliers (e.g., access to industries, rock
quarries, etc.) In still other cases, private crossings may be used
very heavily by the public to enter commercial facilities.
2. Engineering. Some private crossings providing access to
commercial properties have well-maintained surfaces and excellent
signage comparable to that contemplated by the Manual for Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. According to the National Highway-Rail
Crossing Inventory, active warning devices are provided at 1,078
private crossings. More typically, many private crossings are marked
only by crossbuck signs without advance warning signs, or not at all;
and surface may be irregular. Sight distances at private crossings
without active warning devices vary widely. Neither the Federal
Government nor the States, with extremely few exceptions, provide
financial assistance for engineering improvements at private crossings.
In
[[Page 42716]]
these few instances, funding for private crossings may be provided for
specific corridor projects, most commonly the high speed rail
corridors.
3. Legal status. Private crossing rights vary from ownership of the
fee simple (outright ownership of the underlying property), to
documented easements, to prescriptive easements (where recognized), to
documented licenses under contract, to verbal licenses subject to
revocation without notice. The entities enjoying rights under these
arrangements may be referred to as ``holders'' of the right to cross.
Increasingly over the past 15 years, railroads have sought to establish
maximum control over these intermodal intersections by requiring
crossing holders to purchase insurance or provide other protection in
the event a holder, railroad or a third party experiences a loss due to
a collision. Contracts or other legal instruments may further define
responsibilities (e.g., for maintenance of the crossing surface or
providing notifications under stated conditions).
4. Extent of regulation. In general, private crossings are not
subject to regulation at the State or Federal level. FRA's requirements
for inspection, test and maintenance of active warning devices (49 CFR
part 234) apply to the railroad where active warning has been
installed; but there is no Federal mandate for providing such
warning.\1\ A handful of States require that railroads place crossbucks
or special signage (in some cases a stop sign and a crossbuck on the
same post) at private crossings. The subject of private crossings is
otherwise largely unregulated. Accordingly, such recognized
responsibilities as exist with respect to the safety of private
crossings are generally the product of contracts and common law. (For a
general description of responsibilities related to crossing safety, see
Safety Advisory 2005-03; Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety (70 FR
22750; May 2, 2005)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Other FRA regulations applicable to the railroad are
intended to address safety at private crossings, as well as public
crossings, particularly requirements for alerting lights (49 CFR
219.125) and reflectorization of rail rolling stock (49 CFR part
224) to make trains more conspicuous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Comments
While FRA solicits discussion and comments on all areas of safety
at private highway-rail grade crossings, we particularly encourage
comments on the following topics:
At-grade highway-rail crossings present inherent risks to
users, including the railroad and its employees, and to other persons
in the vicinity should a train derail into an occupied area or release
hazardous materials. When passenger trains are involved, the risks are
heightened. From the standpoint of public policy, how do we determine
whether creation or continuation of a private crossing is justified?
Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at
private crossings effective? To what extent do risk management
practices associated with insurance arrangements result in
``regulation'' of safety at private crossings?
How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated
with private crossing be allocated?
Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms to handle disputes that may arise between private crossing
owners and the railroads?
Should the State or Federal government assume greater
responsibility for safety at private crossings?
Should there be Nationwide standards for warning devices
at private crossings, or for intersection design of new private grade
crossings?
How do we determine when a private crossing has a `public
purpose' and is subject to public use?
Should some crossings be categorized as `commercial
crossings', rather than as `private crossings'?
Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could
improve safety at private crossings on major rail corridors, including
those on which passenger service is provided?
Should the Department of Transportation request enactment
of legislation to address private crossings? If so, what should it
include?
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2006.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-6501 Filed 7-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
