Hours of Service of Railroad Employees; Amended Recordkeeping and Reporting Regulations, 25330-25352 [E9-12059]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 27, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25330-25352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12059]



[[Page 25329]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Railroad Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



49 CFR Part 228



Hours of Service of Railroad Employees; Amended Recordkeeping and 
Reporting Regulations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 27, 2009 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 25330]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 228

[Docket No. 2006-26176, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AB85


Hours of Service of Railroad Employees; Amended Recordkeeping and 
Reporting Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is amending its hours of service recordkeeping and 
reporting regulations to ensure the creation of records that support 
compliance with the hours of service laws as amended by the Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA of 2008). This regulation will also 
provide for electronic recordkeeping and reporting, and will require 
training of employees and supervisors of those employees, who are 
required to complete hours of service records, or are responsible for 
making determinations as to excess service and the reporting of excess 
service to FRA as required by the regulation. This regulation is 
required by Section 108(f) of the RSIA of 2008.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 16, 2009. Petitions for 
reconsideration must be received on or before July 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration: Any petitions for 
reconsideration related to Docket No. FRA-2006-26176, may be submitted 
by any of the following methods:
     Web site: The Federal eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web site's online instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the 
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. Note that all petitions received will be posted without 
change to https://www.regulations.gov including any personal 
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information 
related to any submitted petitions, comments, or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140 
on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Norris, Operating Practices 
Specialist, Operating Practices Division, Office of Safety Assurance 
and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., RRS-11, Mail Stop 25, 
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6242); or Colleen A. Brennan, 
Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., RCC-12, Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6028 
or 202-493-6052).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Background and History
    A. Statutory History
    B. History of Hours of Service Recordkeeping
II. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008
    A. Substantive Changes to the HSL
    B. Rulemaking Mandate
III. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Process
    1. Multiple-Train Reporting
    2. Pre-Population of Data
    3. Tie-up Procedures for Signal Employees
    4. Tracking Cumulative Totals Toward the 276-Hour Monthly 
Maximum Limitation
    5. Multiple Reporting Points
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Statutory Authority
    B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures
    C. Executive Order 13132
    D. Executive Order 13175
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    I. Environmental Assessment

I. Background and History

A. Statutory History

    Federal laws governing railroad employees' hours of service date 
back to 1907. See Public Law 59-274, 34 Stat. 1415 (1907). These laws, 
codified at 49 U.S.C. 21101 et seq. are intended to promote safe 
railroad operations by limiting the hours of service of certain 
railroad employees and ensuring that they receive adequate 
opportunities for rest in the course of performing their duties. The 
Secretary of Transportation (``Secretary'') is charged with the 
administration of those laws, 49 U.S.C. 103(a), now collectively 
referred to as the HSL. These functions have been delegated to the FRA 
Administrator. 49 U.S.C. 103(c); 49 CFR 1.49(d).
    Congress substantially amended the HSL on two previous occasions. 
The first significant amendments occurred in 1969. Public Law 91-169, 
83 Stat. 463. The 1969 amendments reduced the maximum time on duty for 
train employees from 16 hours to 14 hours effective immediately, with a 
further reduction to 12 hours automatically taking effect two years 
later. Congress also established provisions for determining, in the 
case of a train employee, whether a period of time is to be counted as 
time on duty. 49 U.S.C. 21103(b). In so doing, Congress also addressed 
the issue of deadhead transportation time, providing that ``[t]ime 
spent in deadhead transportation to a duty assignment'' is counted as 
time on duty. (Emphasis added). Although time spent in deadhead 
transportation from a duty assignment is not included within any of the 
categories of time on duty, Congress further provided that it shall be 
counted as neither time on duty nor time off duty. 49 U.S.C. 
21103(b)(4). This provision effectively created a third category of 
time, known commonly as ``limbo time.''
    In 1976, Congress again amended the hours of service laws in 
several important respects. Most significantly, Congress expanded the 
coverage of the laws, by including hostlers within the definition of a 
train employee, and adding the section providing hours of service 
requirements for signal employees, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 21104. 
Congress also added a provision that prohibited a railroad from 
providing sleeping quarters that are not free from interruptions of 
rest caused by noise under the control of the railroad, and that are 
not clean, safe, and sanitary, and prohibited the construction or 
reconstruction of sleeping quarters in an area or in the immediate 
vicinity of a rail yard in which humping or switching operations are 
performed. See Public Law 94-348, 90 Stat. 818 (1976).

B. History of Hours of Service Recordkeeping

    With the formation of DOT and its regulatory agencies in 1966, the 
oversight and enforcement of the HSL was transferred from the 
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to the newly established FRA. 
Prior to this transfer the ICC had enforced reporting requirements 
based on its May 2, 1921

[[Page 25331]]

order that established the records required to be maintained by 
carriers relating to the time on duty of employees who were involved in 
either the movement of trains (referred to in the current HSL as 
``train employees'') or the issuance of movement authority (referred to 
in the current HSL as ``dispatching service employees''). The ICC Order 
mandated both the content and the format of the hours of service record 
for train employees and dispatching service employees.
    The records required by the ICC Order included one titled ``Time 
Return and Delay Report of Engine and Train Employees.'' The format and 
required fields mandated for this record formed the basis for all train 
employee hours of service recordkeeping and reporting, and for the 
reporting requirements initially established by FRA for hours of 
service recordkeeping by railroad employees in 49 CFR part 228, and 
specifically Sec.  228.11.
    The ICC Order also mandated the format for a form titled ``Details 
of Service'', which was a required part of the train employee's hours 
of service record. This segment of the employee's record required the 
railroads to report operational data that included train number, engine 
number, the departure station, the time that the employee went on duty, 
the time the train departed, the arrival station, the time the train 
arrived, the time the employee went off duty, and the kind of service 
in which the employee was working, i.e., passenger, freight, work 
train, or deadhead. The Details of Service form contained entries for 
each train with which an employee was associated during a duty tour.
    As was discussed above, the 1969 amendments to the HSL addressed 
the issue of time spent by train employees in deadhead transportation 
from a duty assignment to the point of final release, establishing that 
such time is neither time on duty nor time off duty, which created a 
new category of time that has come to be known as ``limbo time.'' 
Following the 1969 amendments, the railroads continued to use the ICC 
recordkeeping formats. The ``Time Return'' portion of the recordkeeping 
document only provided a place to enter on-duty time and off-duty time, 
and could not accommodate the separate entry of limbo time. However, 
the railroads also continued to use the ``Details of Service'' portion, 
and this form became critical to proper recordkeeping. The ``Details of 
Service'' required train arrival and departure times, usually included 
comments as to when the crew had finished securing the train and 
therefore was relieved from covered service, and indicated the 
departure and arrival times of the deadhead vehicle and final release 
from service. With this information, it was possible to differentiate 
an employee's time spent on duty in covered service from time that was 
spent awaiting deadhead transportation and in deadhead transportation 
to the point of final release, which was limbo time.
    The 1921 ICC Order also required records and provided recordkeeping 
formats for dispatching service employees, including records of 
dispatchers' time on duty, and records documenting train operation over 
the territory controlled by each dispatcher. The required records for 
dispatching service employees included the ``Daily Time Report of 
Dispatchers,'' the ``Dispatchers Record of Movement of Trains'', and 
for those dispatching service employees known as operators, in addition 
to the ``Daily Time Report of Dispatchers,'' a ``Station Record of 
Train Movements,'' a form that identified the operators by shift, and 
required the operator to list the train or engine number, along with 
the arrival and departure times for each train passing the specific 
station where the operator was located. Following the transfer of 
responsibilities, FRA adopted the ICC's established reporting 
requirements for dispatching service employees, but did not require its 
specific format. However, the formats and data fields are still used, 
even currently, by virtually all railroads that employ dispatching 
service employees.
    As was discussed above, the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization 
Act of 1976 expanded coverage of the HSL to signal employees. Congress 
defined a signal employee as an individual employed by a railroad 
carrier who is engaged in installing, repairing, or maintaining signal 
systems. This, in effect, excluded contract signal employees from the 
coverage of the HSL. The statutory limitations for signal employees 
were very similar to those for train employees. Also, in both cases, 
the HSL treated the time these employees reported for duty as the time 
covered service began, irrespective of whether or not a covered 
function was actually performed. In addition, both train employees and 
signal employees had periods of time spent in travel to and from a duty 
location, some of which the HSL treated as limbo time. Also, in both 
cases, the HSL treated the time that one of these employees ``reports 
for duty'' as the time that time on duty began. Because of the 
similarities in their statutory provisions, the recordkeeping 
requirements for these two functions were also quite similar, and FRA 
did not need to revise its reporting requirements to establish distinct 
recordkeeping provisions for signal employees.
    The 1921 ICC Order also stated, in part, that ``each carrier may at 
its option, and with the approval of the Commission, add to such 
records appropriate blanks for any additional information desired by 
it.'' Over time, railroads came to record information for employee pay 
claims, railroad operations and crew management on the same form that 
was used for hours of service recordkeeping. The combination of pay and 
hours of service information on the same document facilitated employee 
hours of service reporting practices that were greatly influenced by 
collective bargaining agreements and pay considerations, where 
differences existed between the activities for which a collective 
bargaining agreement required an employee to be paid, and those 
activities required to be reported for the purposes of the HSL. For 
example, an employee might report that he or she went off duty at the 
time that his or her paid activities ended. This would not be accurate 
reporting for the purposes of the HSL, if the duty tour included 
deadhead transportation to the point of final release. Regardless of 
whether an employee received additional pay for the deadhead 
transportation, the HSL required the time to be recorded, and the 
employee would not be off duty for the purposes of the HSL until after 
the completion of the deadhead transportation.
    As technology expanded in the rail industry, some railroads in the 
1980s became interested in electronically recording and reporting 
employee hours of service data. By the mid to late 1980s, the CSX 
Transportation, Inc. (CSX) had developed an automated program generated 
from its crew management system. CSX began using the program to 
generate and maintain hours of service records for its train employees. 
The program produced paper copies of the recorded entries for the 
employee's signature. Then, in 1991, CSX and the Union Pacific Railroad 
Company jointly presented a proposal to use an electronic record, 
without a signature, as the railroad's official train employee hours of 
service record. Section 228.9 of the existing hours of service 
recordkeeping regulations required that the hours of service record be 
signed. Therefore, it was necessary for FRA to waive the signature 
requirement, to allow for the development of a program that would allow 
the railroad and its train employees to electronically record and store 
hours of service information, with the employee electronically 
certifying the accuracy of the entered

[[Page 25332]]

data, so that this record would become the official hours of service 
record, in lieu of a signed paper record. As CSX worked to develop an 
electronic program for which FRA would grant a waiver, a number of 
issues became apparent. These issues had to be resolved to ensure that 
the system would have sufficient data fields to allow the employee to 
record the different events that occurred in his or her duty tour, to 
capture all of the data necessary for FRA to determine compliance with 
the HSL.
    The concept of electronic recordkeeping presented a significant 
change in how employees were used to reporting their hours of service 
information. Data entry moved from a dynamic manual reporting method, 
in which a record was continually updated by the reporting employee 
during the course of his or her duty tour, to an automated end-of-trip 
report where all reporting related to a particular duty tour was made 
in after-the-fact entries into the railroad's computer system, after 
the completion of the duty tour. In addition, manual records afforded 
the employee flexibility to provide information about any activities 
that occurred during the duty tour, as well as any comments that might 
be necessary to understand any apparent anomalies in reported 
information. However, an electronic record would be limited to the data 
fields provided by the recordkeeping program, so it was essential that 
the programs were designed to provide sufficient data fields to 
accommodate the variety of reporting scenarios that an employee might 
encounter, so that the employee had the opportunity to record all 
relevant data for the events that occurred in his or her duty tour.
    CSX's first attempt to develop an electronic recordkeeping system 
resulted in a program that functioned in much the same manner as a 
paper record, but without the comprehensive information provided by the 
``Details of Service'' portion of the employee's record. It was on this 
portion of their record that employees recorded a number of items that 
were necessary for determining compliance with the HSL, including 
deadhead transportation either to or from a duty assignment, multiple 
covered service assignments, other activities performed for the carrier 
that constituted commingled service if not separated from covered 
service by a statutory off-duty period, and the distinct times that an 
employee was relieved from covered service, and then subsequently 
released from all service to begin a statutory off-duty period, which 
would not be the same times when limbo time was present at the end of 
the duty tour. In addition, the first attempt at an electronic 
recordkeeping system also had not considered the features of the system 
itself, that were necessary for ensuring the accuracy of the data and 
the ability of FRA to use the data to determine compliance with the 
HSL. These features included program logic that was necessary, for 
example, to calculate total time on duty from the appropriate data 
entered in the record, to require explanation when the total time on 
duty exceeded the statutory maximum, and to use program edits to 
identify obvious employee input errors. The mechanism for providing FRA 
with the ability to access the electronic records was also an issue 
that needed to be resolved. Because part 228, as drafted in 1972, did 
not contemplate the existence of electronic recordkeeping, it provided 
no framework for addressing these issues.
    However, FRA and CSX pledged to work together through a ``test 
waiver'' process to develop a program with logic, edits, and access 
that would accommodate FRA oversight and enforcement of the current HSL 
provisions, and ultimately allow FRA to grant a waiver of the signature 
requirement, thereby allowing hours of service data to be both reported 
and recorded electronically. The FRA and CSX partnership eventually 
resulted in the development of a system containing sufficient data 
entry fields and system features to resolve many of the issues facing 
movement to electronic recordkeeping.
    Another significant issue that arose in the development of 
electronic recordkeeping systems was providing sufficient data fields 
to differentiate limbo time from time spent performing covered service, 
which distinction was necessary to correctly determine an employee's 
total time on duty. The electronic programs that were initially devised 
required the employee to report only an on-duty time and an off-duty 
time, and the beginning and ending times of periods spent in 
transportation. The records did not include the features of the delay 
report that had been a part of the paper records, on which employees 
included their beginning and ending location, date, and time for 
periods spent in covered service assignments, and noted, for example, 
that the ending time was the time at which the employee secured the 
train, which completed his or her covered service on that train.
    The railroads viewed this information as not being required by Part 
228, but this information was regularly used by FRA in reviewing 
records for compliance with the HSL, and it was essential that the 
information continue to be captured in electronic records. Without an 
indication of the time that the employee stopped performing covered 
service, there was no way to determine when the employee stopped 
accumulating time on duty and when he or she began limbo time. Once the 
employee stopped performing covered service, limbo time began, as the 
time that the employee spent awaiting transportation to the point of 
final release, like the transportation itself, was limbo time. However, 
if the employee's record showed only the time that the employee 
reported for duty, the time spent in transportation, and the off-duty 
time, all of the time between reporting for duty and beginning deadhead 
to the point of final release would necessarily be calculated as time 
on duty, which could result in a record that incorrectly showed a total 
time on duty in excess of the statutory maximum, because limbo time was 
not properly reflected.
    To resolve these complex issues, FRA developed a 3x3 matrix, in 
which an employee entered the location, date, and time for each time 
that he or she went on duty in covered service, the location, date, and 
time for each time that he or she was relieved from a covered service 
assignment, and the location, date, and time for each time that he or 
she was released from an assignment, to begin another assignment or 
activity, or to be released from all service to begin a period of off-
duty time. This 3x3 matrix was eventually incorporated in all of the 
waiver-approved electronic programs.
    However, deadhead transportation, and activities that constitute 
other service for the carrier (which may commingle with covered 
service) do not have relieved and released times in the activity. These 
activities have only a beginning and an ending time for each event. 
Thus, FRA also developed a second section of data entry, in which the 
employee reported the location, date, and time for the beginning and 
the ending of all non-covered service activities that are part of the 
employee's duty tour, but may or may not be calculated in the 
employee's total time on duty.
    FRA and CSX continued to work together until these early issues 
were sufficiently resolved, and eventually, CSX was granted a waiver of 
the signature requirement in Sec.  228.9. As a result, CSX was allowed 
to utilize an electronic recordkeeping program, in which its train 
employees reported their hours of service at the end of each duty tour, 
and those electronic records constituted the official hours of service

[[Page 25333]]

record for CSX train employees. As the use of electronic information 
systems further expanded in the industry, other railroads began 
developing, with assistance from FRA, electronic hours of service 
recordkeeping programs patterned somewhat after the original CSX 
program. During the development of the later programs, as well as 
audits of the CSX program after it was fully functioning, other issues 
began to surface, some of which remained topics of discussion during 
this rulemaking. Among those issues were the reporting of multiple 
covered service assignments in a duty tour, and administrative duties 
performed after the twelfth hour on duty.
    Multiple-train duty tours have occurred in the railroad industry 
for decades. As was discussed above, employees used the ``Details of 
Service'' section of the paper hours of service record to provide the 
times spent in covered service on each train to which the employee was 
assigned, and on each train on which the employee may have been in 
deadhead transportation, whether that deadhead transportation was 
transportation to the first covered service assignment of a duty tour, 
transportation from one covered service assignment to another within a 
duty tour, or transportation to the point of final release at the end 
of a duty tour. For many years, employees diligently reported each 
train to which they were assigned or on which they deadheaded, because 
employees were paid for a minimum 100-mile day for each such train. 
However, as collective bargaining agreements evolved, and employees 
were instead paid on the basis of actual miles run, it became more 
common to use a single crew to handle multiple trains.
    In the development of electronic programs, FRA was concerned that 
the programs initially lacked the ability to segment the employee's 
record by train, for data entry and program logic purposes, as well as 
for inspection and enforcement purposes. If an employee did not report 
individually the locations, dates, and times that he or she went on 
duty, was relieved, and was released for each covered service 
assignment in a multiple-train duty tour, the program read the data as 
if the employee had worked on one train with a lengthy and continuous 
period of time on duty, often in excess of the statutory 12-hour limit 
when a statutory interim release was present. In addition, FRA 
inspections yielded records that did not present all crew members 
assigned to a particular train, or in which trains appeared to 
disappear at one point on line-of-road and reappear at another point, 
suggesting that a record was missing in the database.
    Because all of the existing and developing programs were tied to 
the railroad's crew management, FRA proposed that railroad crew 
management initiate a separate call for each assignment, so that each 
would have a data entry screen created to differentiate between 
multiple covered service assignments in a duty tour. The railroads 
resisted this proposal because the additional calls would increase the 
level of work for crew dispatchers. The railroads also expressed 
concerns about collective bargaining issues regarding pay claims for 
each call. FRA noted, however, that there was past historical precedent 
for employees completing a separate report for each assignment, 
although there were pay-related reasons for doing so which were not now 
always present. However, this dispute led to a solution which would not 
require additional crew dispatcher involvement. Programs were designed 
to allow the employee to use a function key to access additional 
reporting screens for reporting multiple trains or non-covered service 
activities. This feature of the programs mimicked the manner in which 
employees previously added additional forms to reflect multiple 
assignments prior to electronic recordkeeping. Once the crew dispatcher 
has called a crew to duty on one train or job and has established the 
employee's initial reporting screens, the employee may work multiple 
assignments at the discretion of the railroad and report the activities 
involved in each train without the crew dispatcher having to take any 
further action to create another call to establish the necessary 
additional reporting screens. This feature not only allows the employee 
to report the actual events of his or her duty tour, but also allows 
the program's FRA Inspection System to identify and present records 
based on train identification.
    As was noted above, one of the many ways in which electronic 
recordkeeping represents a significant change in the way that employees 
report their time is that with electronic recordkeeping programs, all 
reporting is accomplished at time of tie-up, just prior to the 
employee's being released from all service to the carrier to begin a 
statutory off-duty period, the electronic record thereby becoming an 
``end-of-trip report.'' In contrast, manual records maintained by the 
reporting employee allowed the employee to periodically add information 
to the record while continuing with the activities of his or her duty 
tour. Then, when the reporting employee reached his or her point of 
final release, he or she would complete the reporting, sign the record, 
and place it in the appropriate collection receptacle. Also, any other 
reporting or recording activities, including payroll, or other data 
beyond hours of service for the benefit of either the railroad or the 
employee, were completed at this time. As long as the reporting 
employee had not reached the statutory limits for the duty tour, he or 
she was allowed to take as long as necessary to complete any reporting, 
recording, and other administrative duties. However, in the event that 
the reporting employee was at or beyond his or her statutory limits, 
FRA had a long standing policy of exercising prosecutorial discretion 
to allow a few minutes for the reporting employee to complete his or 
her administrative duties.
    However, as railroads moved to electronic recordkeeping, the 
reporting employee could not begin reporting any of his or her train 
operation, pay and hours of service data in an electronic program prior 
to arrival at his or her final terminal, so the time involved in 
completing the necessary reporting might exceed a few minutes, 
especially if a large amount of work order reporting or other 
documentation beyond hours of service was required. Railroad labor 
organizations challenged FRA's practice of allowing a few minutes in 
excess of the 12-hour statutory maximum time on duty to complete 
administrative duties. FRA recognized the validity of these concerns, 
but also recognized the need for certain information at the conclusion 
of the duty tour to ensure compliance with the HSL. The railroad must 
know both the time that an employee is relieved from covered service, 
and the time that the employee is released from all duties, in order to 
determine the minimum off-duty period that the employee required under 
the HSL, when to start the statutory off-duty period, and at what time 
the employee would have completed the minimum required rest to remain 
in compliance with the HSL. Because the employee is the one with first-
hand knowledge of these times as applied to his or her own duty tour, 
FRA believed that the employee was best suited to certify the accuracy 
of these times.
    FRA convened a Technical Resolution Committee (TRC) in 1996 to 
resolve this issue. Initially, the TRC leaned toward limiting the 
employee initiated tie-up to just a relieved time and a released time. 
Ultimately, however, two additional items were included, which were 
necessary to both the railroads and the employees from an operational 
perspective. Because many collective

[[Page 25334]]

bargaining agreements contained provisions for how and when an employee 
would be placed back in a pool or on an extra board following tie-up, 
both the railroad and the employee needed to be aware of the employee's 
placement time before the employee began the statutory off-duty period. 
Finally, FRA allowed the employee to enter information to provide a 
contact number, if different from the number on record, to ensure that 
the railroad could contact the employee regarding his or her next 
assignment.
    With these four items (a relieved time, a released time, a board 
placement time, and a contact number, if different from that of 
record), FRA believed that the railroad would have sufficient 
information to know when the employee could legally next be called to 
duty. Although the HSL does not authorize performance of any 
administrative duties in the period beyond the employee's statutory 
maximum, FRA announced a policy that allowed an employee who was being 
released from a duty tour to begin a statutory off-duty period after 
more than 12 hours of total time on duty (including limbo time) to 
complete a ``quick tie-up'' limited to entering and certifying these 
four items. The quick tie-up was not intended for use when the employee 
had time remaining within the statutory limits to complete a full 
record at the end of the duty tour. The intention was to require the 
employee whose duty tour had reached or exceeded the statutory limits 
to perform only the minimum administrative duties necessary to 
determine when the employee would next be available to be called for 
duty. If the railroad did not require the employee to perform any other 
administrative duties in addition to the quick tie-up, FRA would 
exercise its prosecutorial discretion and not prosecute the railroad 
for requiring the employee to perform administrative duties beyond the 
employee's statutory limits. FRA allowed the completion of any record 
in which only quick tie-up information had been entered prior to the 
statutory off-duty period, when the employee returned to duty. FRA 
announced this policy in a Technical Bulletin OP No. 96-03 (since 
renumbered as OP 04-27). After this policy was announced, railroads 
developed data entry screens that allowed employees to enter and 
certify only the quick tie-up information when appropriate, allowing 
the completion of the record when the employee next reported for duty. 
Electronic recordkeeping systems were also designed to require 
completion of the full record before it could be certified if the 
employee had not reached the maximum statutory limit for the duty tour.
    In addition to the many issues related to ensuring that the 
developing electronic recordkeeping systems allowed the employees to 
enter sufficient data to determine compliance with the HSL, there were 
also issues to be resolved as to how FRA would access the system and 
the records that it created. The initial proposal from CSX provided 
that an officer would log into the railroad's network using his or her 
identification number (ID) and password and access the employees' entry 
screens. The officer would then turn over the computer to the FRA 
Inspector, who would directly review all of the data entered by the 
employee. This procedure presented a security issue that FRA wanted to 
avoid. Instead, CSX developed an inspection system that was available 
only to FRA inspectors through the use of unique FRA IDs and passwords 
that allowed FRA inspectors to access and retrieve only hours of 
service records, using a combination of selection criteria to retrieve 
a specific record or group of records. Selection criteria for records 
searches were: By employee name or ID; by train or job; and by location 
(which could include a yard, a subdivision or division (service unit) 
or other railroad area), combined with a date or date range. Another 
option for the FRA or participating State inspector is to search for 
records reporting in excess of 12 hours total time on duty, combining 
this with a date or date range, and possibly other selection criteria. 
Combinations of the ``optional'' fields can narrow a selection to a 
precise time frame. This method of access allowed FRA to ensure that 
the hours of service records were protected from alteration and 
unauthorized access, which would not be possible if the same method of 
access allowed access to other railroad data, which FRA could not 
restrict.
    The unique FRA IDs and passwords are not permanently assigned to a 
specific FRA Inspector, but are given out upon the request of an 
inspector prior to an inspection. Passwords are temporary, and expire 
in seven days or less. Upon arrival at the rail facility, the FRA 
Inspector contacts the local railroad officer and presents his or her 
credentials for verification. The inspector is then provided the 
necessary ID and password and assigned a computer terminal with printer 
capabilities for use during his or her inspection.
    Using the selection criteria, FRA could retrieve records in a 
manner that was crew based and duty tour oriented, even if employees 
each reported individually. This meant that the records for all members 
of a requested train or job were displayed together. In addition, if a 
duty tour involved multiple covered service assignments, the whole crew 
would be displayed for each train or job ID, and all records for a 
given duty tour would be displayed together, with total time on duty 
for the entire duty tour displayed on the last record of a multiple 
covered service assignment duty tour.
    In the early stages of program development with CSX, FRA began to 
develop a guide for electronic recordkeeping, which has been used for 
several years to assist railroads in developing electronic 
recordkeeping programs for which FRA might likely grant waiver 
approval. The guide has been used successfully for approximately 15 
years. The requirements for electronic recordkeeping systems imposed by 
this regulation are largely based on the guide and the resulting 
waiver-approved programs currently in existence.
    At present, four Class I carriers (CSX, Norfolk Southern Railway 
Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Canadian National Railway) 
have waiver authority to use their existing electronic hours of service 
recordkeeping programs to record and report the official hours of 
service records for their train employees. There are no waiver-approved 
electronic recordkeeping programs for the records of signal employees 
or dispatching service employees, although there has been interest in 
moving to electronic recordkeeping for these employees, and there are 
some programs in various stages of development.

II. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

    Section 108 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 
110-432), substantively amends the HSL in a number of ways. It also 
provides the statutory mandate for this rulemaking, because it requires 
that FRA revise its hours of service recordkeeping requirements to take 
into account these substantive changes, as well as to provide for 
electronic recordkeeping and to require training.

A. Substantive Amendments to the HSL

    Effective July 16, 2009, section 108(a) amends the definition of 
``signal employee'', to eliminate the words ``employed by a railroad 
carrier.'' With this amendment, employees of contractors or 
subcontractors to a

[[Page 25335]]

railroad who are engaged in installing, repairing, or maintaining 
signal systems (the functions within the definition of signal employee 
in the HSL) will be covered by the HSL, because a signal employee under 
the HSL is no longer by definition only a railroad employee.
    Section 108(b) amends the hours of service requirements for train 
employees in many ways, all of which are effective July 16, 2009. The 
provision limits train employees to 276 hours of time on-duty, awaiting 
or in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment to the place of 
final release, or in any other mandatory service for the carrier per 
calendar month. The provision retains the existing maximum of 12 
consecutive hours on duty, but increases the minimum off-duty period to 
10 hours consecutive hours during the prior 24-hour period.
    Section 108(b) also requires that after an employee initiates an 
on-duty period each day for six consecutive days, the employee must 
receive at least 48 consecutive hours off duty at the employee's home 
terminal, during which the employee is unavailable for any service for 
any railroad; except that if the sixth on-duty period ends at a 
location other than the home terminal, the employee may initiate an on-
duty period for a seventh consecutive day, but must then receive at 
least 72 consecutive hours off duty at the employee's home terminal, 
during which time the employee is unavailable for any service for any 
railroad.
    Section 108(b) further provides that employees may also initiate an 
on-duty period for a seventh consecutive day and receive 72 consecutive 
hours off duty if such schedules are provided for in existing 
collective bargaining agreements for a period of 18 months, or after 18 
months by collective bargaining agreements entered into during that 
period, or a pilot program that is either authorized by collective 
bargaining agreement, or related to work rest cycles under section 
21108 of the HSL.
    Section 108(b) also provides that the Secretary may waive the 
requirements of 48 and 72 consecutive hours off duty if a collective 
bargaining agreement provides a different arrangement that the 
Secretary determines is in the public interest and consistent with 
safety.
    The RSIA of 2008 also significantly changes the hours of service 
requirements for train employees by establishing for the first time a 
limitation on the amount of time an employee may spend awaiting and in 
deadhead transportation. These new requirements, also found in section 
108(b), provide that a railroad may not require or allow an employee to 
exceed 40 hours per month awaiting or in deadhead transportation from 
duty that is neither time on duty nor time off duty in the first year 
after the date of enactment, with that number decreasing to 30 hours 
per employee per month after the first year, except in situations 
involving casualty, accident, track obstruction, act of God including 
weather causing delay, derailment, equipment failure, or other delay 
from unforeseeable cause. Railroads are required to report to the 
Secretary all instances in which these limitations are exceeded. In 
addition, the railroad is required to provide the train employee with 
additional time off duty equal to the amount that combined on-duty time 
and time awaiting or in transportation to final release exceeds 12 
hours.
    Finally, section 108(b) restricts communication with train 
employees except in case of emergency during the minimum off-duty 
period, statutory periods of interim release, and periods of additional 
rest required equal to the amount that combined on-duty time and time 
awaiting or in transportation to final release exceeds 12 hours. 
However, the Secretary may waive this provision for train employees of 
commuter or intercity passenger railroads if the Secretary determines 
that a waiver would not reduce safety and is necessary to efficiency 
and on time performance.
    However, section 108(d) of the RSIA of 2008 provides that the 
requirements described above for train employees will not go into 
effect on July 16, 2009 for train employees of commuter and intercity 
passenger railroads. This section provides the Secretary with the 
authority to issue hours of service rules and orders applicable to 
these train employees, which may be different than the statute applied 
to other train employees. It further provides that these train 
employees will continue to be governed by the HSL as it existed prior 
to the RSIA of 2008 until the effective date of regulations promulgated 
by the Secretary. However, if no new regulations have been promulgated 
before October 16, 2011, the provisions of section 108(b) would be 
extended to these employees at that time.
    Section 108(c) of the RSIA of 2008 amends the hours of service 
requirements for signal employees in a number of ways, effective July 
16, 2009. As was noted above, by amending the definition of ``signal 
employee,'' it extends the reach of the substantive requirements to a 
contractor or subcontractor to a railroad carrier and its officers and 
agents. In addition, as section 108(b) does for train employees, 
section 108(c) retains for signal employees the existing maximum of 12 
consecutive hours on duty, but increases the minimum off-duty period to 
10 consecutive hours during the prior 24-hour period.
    Section 108(c) also eliminates language in the HSL stating that 
last hour of signal employee's return from final trouble call is time 
off duty, and defines ``emergency situations'' in which the HSL permits 
signal employees to work additional hours not to include routine 
repairs, maintenance, or inspection.
    Section 108(c) also contains language virtually identical to that 
in section 108(b) for train employees, prohibiting railroad 
communication with signal employees during off-duty periods except for 
in an emergency situation.
    Finally, section 108(c) provides that the hours of service, duty 
hours, and rest periods of signal employees are governed exclusively by 
the HSL, and that signal employees operating motor vehicles are not 
subject to other hours of service, duty hours, or rest period rules 
besides FRA's.
    Section 108(e) specifically provides FRA a statutory mandate to 
issue hours of service regulations for train employees of commuter and 
intercity passenger railroads. It also provides FRA additional 
regulatory authority not relevant to the present rulemaking, and 
requires FRA to complete at least two pilot projects.

B. Rulemaking Mandate

    Section 108(f) requires the Secretary to prescribe a regulation 
revising the requirements for recordkeeping and reporting for Hours of 
Service of Railroad Employees contained in part 228 of title 49, Code 
of Federal Regulations to adjust recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements to support compliance with chapter 211 of title 49, United 
States Code, as amended by the RSIA of 2008; to authorize electronic 
recordkeeping, and reporting of excess service, consistent with 
appropriate considerations for user interface; and to require training 
of affected employees and supervisors, including training of employees 
in the entry of hours of service data.
    Section 108(f) further provides that the regulation must be issued 
not later than 180 days after October 16, 2008, and that in lieu of 
issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking as contemplated by 5 U.S.C. 
553, the Secretary may utilize the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee 
(RSAC) to assist in development of the regulation.

[[Page 25336]]

III. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Process

A. Overview of the RSAC

    In March 1996, FRA established RSAC, which provides a forum for 
developing consensus recommendations to FRA's Administrator on 
rulemakings and other safety program issues. The Committee includes 
representation from all of the agency's major customer groups, 
including railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and manufacturers, 
and other interested parties. A list of member groups 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;
     Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM);
     Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET);
     Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division 
(BMWED);
     Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
     Chlorine Institute;
     Federal Railroad Administration (FRA);
     Federal Transit Administration (FTA)*;
     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 RSAC, and after 
consideration and debate, RSAC may accept or reject the task. If the 
task is accepted, RSAC establishes a working group that possesses the 
appropriate expertise and representation of interests to develop 
recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These recommendations 
are developed by consensus. A working group may establish one or more 
task forces to develop facts and options on a particular aspect of a 
given task. The individual task force then provides that information to 
the working group for consideration. If a working group comes to 
unanimous consensus on recommendations for action, the package is 
presented to the full RSAC for a vote. If the proposal is accepted by a 
simple majority of RSAC, the proposal is formally recommended to FRA. 
FRA then determines what action to take on the recommendation. Because 
FRA staff play an active role at the working group level in discussing 
the issues and options and in drafting the language of the consensus 
proposal, FRA is often favorably inclined toward the RSAC 
recommendation. However, FRA is in no way bound to follow the 
recommendation, and the agency exercises its independent judgment on 
whether the recommended rule achieves the agency's regulatory goal, is 
soundly supported, and is in accordance with policy and legal 
requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects from the RSAC 
recommendation in developing the actual regulatory proposal or final 
rule. Any such variations would be noted and explained in the 
rulemaking document issued by FRA. If the working group or RSAC is 
unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for action, FRA moves 
ahead to resolve the issue through traditional rulemaking proceedings.

B. RSAC Proceedings in This Rulemaking

    Given the time constraints within which FRA was required to issue 
this regulation, FRA decided to request the assistance of the RSAC in 
developing it, in order to take advantage of the provisions of the 
statutory mandate which allowed FRA to proceed to a final rule, without 
having first issued a notice of proposed rulemaking. FRA proposed Task 
No. 08-06 to the RSAC on December 10, 2008. The RSAC accepted the task, 
and formed the Hours of Service Working Group (Working Group) for the 
purpose of developing the hours of service recordkeeping regulations 
required by section 108(f) of the RSIA of 2008.
    The Working Group was comprised of members from the following 
organizations:
     AASHTO
     Amtrak;
     APTA;
     ASLRRA;
     ATDA;
     AAR, including members from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), 
Canadian National Railway Company (CN), Canadian Pacific Railway, 
Limited (CP), CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), Iowa Interstate 
Railroad, Ltd. (IAIS), Kansas City Southern (KCS), Norfolk Southern 
Corporation (NS), and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP);
     BLET;
     BRS;
     Federal Railroad Administration (FRA);
     IBEW
     Long Island Rail Road (LIRR);
     Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (Metro-North);
     Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 
(SEPTA);
     Tourist Railway Association; and
     UTU.
    The Working Group completed its work after four meetings and two 
conference calls. The first meeting of the Working Group took place on 
January 22-23, 2009, in Washington, DC. Subsequent meetings were held 
on February 4-6, 2009, February 18-20, 2009, and March 23-24, 2009, 
each also in Washington, DC. Conference calls were held on March 30 and 
March 31, 2009. The Working Group achieved consensus on the rule text 
with the exception of one issue. The group's recommendation, including 
the one area of non-consensus, was presented to the full RSAC on April 
2, 2009, and the full RSAC accepted its recommendation. This regulation 
is consistent with the recommendation of the Working Group, with the 
exception of the issue on

[[Page 25337]]

which the group failed to reach consensus.
    Prior to the first meeting of the Working Group, FRA distributed 
draft rule text to provide a framework for the discussions. This 
enabled the group to focus its discussions on those issues with which 
the other members of the group disagreed or had concern. The issues 
that led to significant discussion and subsequent changes in the 
initial rule text can generally be characterized in one of four ways: 
(1) Disagreement of members of the Working Group with some aspects of 
FRA's current approach to electronic recordkeeping that had been 
mirrored in the draft rule text; (2) concern about making the 
requirements for electronic recordkeeping systems sufficiently flexible 
to accommodate the circumstances of those groups of employees who are 
not currently reporting and recording their hours of service 
electronically, but may do so in the future; (3) concern about the 
burden of some of the recordkeeping requirements on those railroads or 
contractors or subcontractors to a railroad who use paper records; and 
(4) concerns about FRA's interpretation of the substantive provisions 
of the HSL that have an effect on recordkeeping, including new issues 
arising from the RSIA of 2008, as well as other substantive 
interpretations that some members of the group wished to have clarified 
or urged FRA to change. The most significant of these issues will be 
discussed in this section. Other subjects of discussion within the 
working group will be discussed in the section-by-section analysis of 
the language to which they relate.
1. Multiple-Train Reporting
    As was discussed in section IB, above, of the preamble, FRA 
required that electronic recordkeeping programs for which it granted a 
waiver would require the employee to report each assignment in a duty 
tour. In brief, FRA's reason for this approach was that it allowed FRA 
to search for records by the job or assignment, and to retrieve the 
full records of each employee on that assignment, so that they could be 
cross-referenced against each other. This approach also allowed the 
system to link the records for each assignment in a duty tour, so that 
an employee's prior time off before an assignment would indicate 
whether it was preceded by another assignment, or was the first 
assignment following a statutory off-duty period. Thus, the full duty 
tour would be represented, without gaps in the data that would suggest 
a missing record. This approach was also consistent with the way that 
FRA had historically reviewed paper records, because this information 
was available on the ``Details of Service'' portion of the form, which 
the railroads had since stopped using because of changes in pay 
structures and other operational issues, and which they, therefore, 
resisted incorporating in electronic recordkeeping.
    AAR objected to the requirements initially included by FRA in Sec.  
228.11(b) of this rule, because FRA required the employee to report the 
beginning time, relieved time, and released time of each assignment in 
a duty tour, as it had in the waiver-approved electronic programs. AAR 
contended that FRA did not need this level of detail for each 
assignment because the time was all counted as time on duty, and also 
contended that the requirements were too burdensome because of the 
number of data fields that an employee would be required to enter, and 
the amount of time that this data entry could consume.
    During the working group proceedings, FRA made a number of 
concessions from its original language. FRA excluded from the 
requirement to list each assignment employees having several kinds of 
assignments likely to result in their handling a large number of trains 
in a single duty tour. Specifically, FRA excluded utility employees, 
employees assigned to yard jobs, and assignments established to shuttle 
trains into and out of a terminal that are identified by a unique job 
or train symbol as such an assignment. When AAR continued to object to 
these requirements, FRA limited them further, by requiring only that 
the employee record the first train and the last train to which he or 
she was assigned, and any train immediately preceding or immediately 
following a period of interim release. FRA reasoned that information 
was needed regarding assignments before and after a period of interim 
release, so that the interim release period, which would not count 
toward total time on duty, could be determined. FRA agreed that it 
would not require the recording of trains in the middle of a duty tour 
that were not associated with an interim release, agreeing in those 
limited circumstances to resort to other methods of piecing together 
the duty tour if necessary.
    Ultimately, however, AAR wanted FRA to require that the employee 
record only the beginning time of the first train and any train 
following a period of interim release, and only the relieved time and 
released time of any train preceding a period of interim release and 
the last train in a duty tour. The limited issue of the specific 
requirements to record the relieved time and released time for an 
employee for the first train in the employee's duty tour and for any 
train preceding a period of interim release by the employee, and the 
beginning time of the last train or any train following a period of 
interim release for the employee, was the only area of non-consensus 
during the working group proceedings and before the full RSAC.
    Following the RSAC vote, FRA decided to further modify the 
requirements of section 228.11(b). This paragraph now requires that an 
employee record only the beginning time of the first train and any 
train following a period of interim release, and only the relieved time 
and released time of any train preceding a period of interim release 
and the last train in a duty tour, as requested by AAR. It also 
requires, however, that employees report the train ID for each train 
required to be reported. Utility employees, employees assigned to yard 
jobs, and assignments established to shuttle trains into and out of a 
terminal that are identified by a unique job or train symbol as such an 
assignment, are excluded from the requirement to report separate train 
IDs. In addition, this paragraph requires employees to report periods 
spent in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment to a period of 
interim release, and from a period of interim release to a duty 
assignment.
2. Pre-Population of Data
    AAR proposed elimination of the concept of the quick tie-up. As was 
discussed above, the quick tie-up is a feature that allows an employee 
who is at or beyond the statutory maximum time on duty to report only 
the four items necessary for the employee and the railroad to determine 
the beginning of the statutory off-duty period and for the railroad to 
be allowed to call the employee for the next duty tour. The employee 
completes the remainder of the record for any duty tour ended with a 
quick tie-up when he or she next reports for duty. AAR suggested that 
the regulation instead limit those items required for a full tie-up, or 
a complete record, and allow those items that are required to be pre-
populated on the record by the railroad, so that the time required for 
a full tie-up would be decreased. FRA could not agree to limit the 
required data as AAR suggested. In addition, there are a number of 
items not related to hours of service (such as pay claims and details 
as to the cars in the train) that are normally a part of a full tie-up, 
but which FRA does not believe should be required of an employee who is 
at or near the statutory

[[Page 25338]]

maximum time on duty. Therefore, the group agreed not to eliminate the 
quick tie-up, but continued to discuss the concept of pre-population of 
the data on the hours of service record.
    FRA did not allow pre-population of data as electronic 
recordkeeping programs were developed during the waiver process, 
because when pre-population was attempted, records were pre-populated 
with data from sources not likely to be accurate reflections of the 
duty tour, such as payroll or other times related to collective 
bargaining. The Working Group spent substantial time discussing which 
data fields on the record might be pre-populated. However, the group 
could not agree on data fields that always may be pre-populated, or 
those that never should, as a wide variety of factors might affect 
whether pre-population of certain data is appropriate for a particular 
employee or assignment. It was generally agreed, however, that pre-
population could reduce the time and effort required for completion of 
the record if the data was reliable.
    The group reached a compromise, reflected in section 
228.203(a)(1)(i) of this regulation. This paragraph provides that a 
record may be pre-populated with data known to be factually accurate 
for a specific employee. Estimated, historical, or arbitrary data are 
not to be used to pre-populate data in a record. However, a railroad, 
or a contractor or subcontractor to a railroad, is not in violation of 
this requirement if it makes a good faith judgment as to the factual 
accuracy of data for a specific employee but the pre-populated data 
turns out to be incorrect. In addition, the employee must be able to 
make any necessary changes to pre-populated data by simply typing into 
the data field, without having to access another screen or obtain 
clearance from the railroad. Finally, this paragraph also provides that 
an electronic recordkeeping system may provide the ability for an 
employee to copy data from one field of a record to another where 
appropriate.
3. Tie-Up Procedures for Signal Employees
    Labor representatives in the Working Group, and particularly 
representatives of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, expressed 
concern that the requirements for electronic recordkeeping systems were 
not appropriate to the way that signal employees tie up at the end of a 
duty tour, and complete their records. Although there are currently no 
waiver-approved programs allowing electronic recordkeeping by signal 
employees, there are some systems currently under development, and 
railroads and signal employees are interested in moving to electronic 
recordkeeping. The requirements for electronic recordkeeping systems as 
originally drafted by FRA were based on the past experience of FRA and 
the industry with electronic recordkeeping, which was admittedly 
limited to train employees.
    During the Working Group discussions, it was pointed out that 
signal employees tie up differently, and some of the limitations on the 
system that are appropriate for train employees would not allow signal 
employees to complete their records. Unlike train employees, signal 
employees are not usually released from their duty tour at a location 
where there is likely to be a computer available to complete a record, 
because they often travel home from their duty location, and do not go 
by way of a railroad headquarters. In addition, signal employees may 
not tie-up on a daily basis, rather, they may complete a number of 
records at one time, on a day when they have time in their schedule to 
prepare this paperwork. Signal employees do not generally need to do a 
quick tie-up to know when they are eligible to return to duty, because 
they have a scheduled eight-hour shift. They do call into the trouble 
desk if they work beyond their scheduled hours, or after returning from 
a trouble call. Although the primary purpose of this call is to report 
the nature of the trouble that was found and what was done to fix it, 
the employee also reports the time that he or she completed the work, 
and this allows the railroad to determine if the employee has enough 
time remaining to respond to another trouble call, or if a late trouble 
call causes the employee not to be rested for the beginning of the next 
scheduled shift.
    FRA agrees that the regulation should es