Interim Statement of Agency Policy and Interpretation on the Hours of Service Laws as Amended; Proposed Interpretation; Request for Public Comment, 30665-30677 [E9-15026]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
land at Pocahontas Municipal Airport
under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C.
47153(c).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 27, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this
application may be mailed or delivered
to the FAA at the following address: Mr.
Edward N. Agnew, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, Airports Division, Arkansas/
Oklahoma Airports Development Office,
ASW–630, 2601 Meacham Boulevard,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
In addition, one copy of any
comments submitted to the FAA must
be mailed or delivered to The Honorable
Gary Crocker, Mayor of Pocahontas, at
the following address: City of
Pocahontas, 410 North Marr,
Pocahontas, AR 72455.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Paul Burns, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports Development
Office, ASW–630, 2601 Meacham
Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
The request to release property may
be reviewed in person at this same
location.
The FAA
invites public comment on the request
to release property at the Pocahontas
Municipal Airport.
On June 18, 2009, the FAA
determined that the request to release
property at Pocahontas Municipal
Airport submitted by the City of
Pocahontas met the procedural
requirements of the Federal Aviation
Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may
approve the request, in whole or in part,
no later than July 30, 2009.
The following is a brief overview of
the request:
The City of Pocahontas requests the
release of 5.1 acres of airport property.
The release of property will allow
Pinnacle Frames, a local manufacturing
facility, to improve its existing facilities
which are on lands previously released
by the Federal Aviation Administration.
The release will also allow the airport
to receive, in exchange for the 5.1-acres
tract, a cash payment in the amount of
$25,000.00, which the City will use for
a 2010 capital improvement project to
construct 1-hangars at Pocahontas
Municipal Airport.
Any person may inspect the request
in person at the FAA office listed above
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
In addition, any person may, upon
request, inspect the application, notice
and other documents germane to the
application in person at the Pocahontas
Municipal Airport.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on June 19,
2009.
Lacey D. Spriggs,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. E9–15130 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Docket No. 2009–0057, Notice No. 1]
Interim Statement of Agency Policy
and Interpretation on the Hours of
Service Laws as Amended; Proposed
Interpretation; Request for Public
Comment
AGENCY: Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Interim statement of agency
policy and interpretation; request for
public comment.
SUMMARY: In this document FRA
informs the public at large of the
agency’s interim position on certain
interpretive questions arising out of the
complex and important amendments
enacted in 2008 to the Federal railroad
safety laws that govern such matters as
how long an employee in a certain
category may remain on duty and how
long the employee must be given off
duty before the employee may go on
duty again. In addition, FRA proposes
an interpretation of one very significant
provision of those amended laws that
differs from FRA’s existing
interpretation of the laws before the
2008 amendments. Finally, FRA
requests public comment on both the
interim interpretations and the
proposed interpretation.
DATES: This document is effective on
July 16, 2009. Comments on the interim
interpretations are due by July 27, 2009.
Comments on the proposed
interpretation are due by October 26,
2009. Late-filed comments will be
considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the interim interpretations set forth
in this document or the proposed
interpretation set forth in this
document, identified by the docket
number FRA–2009–0057, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30665
• 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 for this interim statement of
agency policy and interpretation and the
proposed interpretation. 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
II. Changes in the Old Hours of Service Laws
Made by Section 108 of the RSIA of 2008
A. Extending Hours of Service Protections
to Employees of Contractors and
Subcontractors to Railroads Who
Perform Certain Signal-Related
Functions
B. Changing Hours of Service
Requirements Related to Train
Employees
C. Changing Hours of Service
Requirements Related to Signal
Employees
III. Proposed Change in Interpretation of
Prohibition Against a Train or Signal
Employee Being on Duty Without Having
Had a Minimum Number of Hours Off
Duty During the Prior 24 Hours;
Proposed Interpretation of That
Prohibition in Context of New
Prohibition Against Communication
With Train and Signal Employees; and
Request for Comments
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
30666
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
A. Questions Presented and Short Answers
1. Must the Full 10–Hour Period of
Uninterrupted Rest Fall Wholly Within
the 24-Hour Period During Which
Covered Service May Be Performed?
2. Is the 10-Hour Period of Undisturbed
Rest for Train Employees and Signal
Employees Required To Be Provided
Immediately after the Employee Goes Off
Duty—Meaning That if the Off-Duty
Period Continues beyond 10 Hours, the
Railroad May Communicate with the
Employee after the First 10 Hours Off
Duty?
B. The Old 8-Hour Rest Requirement and
the Treatment of Calls To Report for
Duty
1. The Old Statutory Language Establishing
the 8-Hour Rest Requirement
2. FRA’s Existing, Previously Published
Interpretation of the 8-Hour Requirement
3. Discussion of FRA’s Current
Interpretation of the 8-Hour Rest
Provision and Calls To Report to Duty
C. The New 10-Hour Rest Provision and
the Prohibition on Communication
During That Rest
1. Overview
2. The Statutory Language of the New 10Hour Rest Provision
3. Discussion of Proposed Interpretation of
New 10-Hour Rest Provision
IV. FRA’s Interim Policies and Interpretations
of the Hours of Service Laws as
Amended by the RSIA of 2008
A. Other Questions Related to the
Prohibition on Communication With
Train Employees and Signal Employees
1. Does the Prohibition on Communication
With Train Employees and Signal
Employees Apply to Every Statutory OffDuty Period No Matter How Long the
Employee Worked?
2. Is the Additional Rest for a Train
Employee When On-Duty Time Plus
Limbo Time Exceeds 12 Hours
Mandatory, or May the Employee
Decline It?
3. If an Employee is Called to Report for
Duty, but Then Receives a Call Canceling
the Call to Report Before He or She
Leaves the Place of Rest, is a New Period
of 10 Uninterrupted Hours Off Duty
Required?
4. What if the Call Is Cancelled Just One
Minute Before Report-for-Duty Time?
5. What if the Employee Was Told Before
Going Off Duty To Report at the End of
Required Rest (Either 10 Hours or 48 or
72 Hours after Working 6 or 7 Days), and
Is Released From That Call Prior to the
Report-for-Duty Time?
6. Are Text Messages or E-Mail Permitted
During the Rest Period?
7. May the Railroad Return an Employee’s
Call During the Rest Period Without
Violating the Prohibition on
Communication?
8. May the Railroad Call To Alert an
Employee to a Delay (Set Back) or
Displacement?
9. If the Railroad Violates the Requirement
of Undisturbed Rest, Is the Undisturbed
Rest Period Restarted From the
Beginning?
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
10. Should any Violation of Undisturbed
Rest Be Documented by an Electronic
Record?
11. Is the Additional Rest Required When
On-Duty Time Plus Limbo Time Exceeds
12 Hours (During Which Communication
With an Employee Is Prohibited) To Be
Measured Only in Whole Hours, So That
the Additional Rest Requirement Is Not
a Factor Until the Total Reaches 13
Hours?
B. Questions Related to the Requirements
Applicable To Train Employees for 48 or
72 Hours Off at the Home Terminal
1. Is a ‘‘Day’’ a Calendar Day or a 24-Hour
Period for the Purposes of This
Provision?
2. If an Employee Is Called for Duty but
Does Not Work, Has the Employee
Initiated an On-Duty Period? Is There a
Call and Release? What if the Employee
Has Reported?
3. Does Deadheading From a Duty
Assignment to the Home Terminal for
Final Release on the 6th Or 7th Day
Count as a Day that Triggers the 48-Hour
or 72-Hour Rest Period Requirement?
4. Does Attendance at a Mandatory Rules
Class or Other Mandatory Activity That
is Not Covered Service but is NonCovered Service, Count as Initiating an
On-Duty Period on a Day?
5. If an Employee Is Marked Up on an Extra
Board for 6 Days but Only Works 2 Days
Out of the 6, Is the 48-Hour Rest
Requirement Triggered?
6. If an Employee Initiates an On-Duty
Period on 6 Consecutive Days, Ending at
an Away-from-Home Terminal and Then
Has 28 Hours Off at an Away-FromHome Terminal, May the Employee
Work Back to the Home Terminal? The
Statute Says That After Initiating an OnDuty Period On 6 Consecutive Days the
Employee May Work Back to the Home
Terminal on the 7th Day and Then Must
Get 72 Hours Off, but What if the
Employee Had a Day Off at the Awayfrom-Home Terminal after the 6th Day?
7. May an Employee Who Works 6
Consecutive Days Vacation Relief at a
‘‘Temporary Home Terminal’’ Work Back
to the Regular Home Terminal on the 7th
Day?
8. Employees Are Not Allowed To Perform
‘‘Any Service for Any Railroad Carrier’’
During these Required 48-Hour or 72Hour Rest Periods. This Language Is Not
Applied to Rest Periods elsewhere in the
Statute. Does this Mean That if an
Employee Is Employed by More than
One Railroad, then Employing Railroad
A Must Aggregate the Time the
Employee Spends Working for Any
Other Railroad With the Time the
Employee Works for Railroad A?
C. Questions Related to the 276-Hour
Monthly Maximum for Train Employees
of Time on Duty, Waiting for or Being in
Transportation to Final Release, and in
Other Mandatory Service for the Carrier
1. If an Employee Reaches or Exceeds 276
Hours for the Calendar Month During a
Trip that Ends at the Employee’s Awayfrom-Home Terminal, May the Railroad
Deadhead the Employee Home During
That Month?
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2. How Will FRA Apply the 276-Hour Cap
to Employees Who Only Occasionally
Perform Covered Service as a Train
Employee, but Whose Hours, When
Combined With Their Regular Shifts in
Non-Covered Service, Would Exceed 276
Hours?
3. Does the 276-Hour Count Reset at
Midnight on the First Day of a New
Month?
4. May an Employee Accept a Call To
Report for Duty When He or She Knows
There Are Not Enough Hours Remaining
in the Employee’s 276-Hour Monthly
Limitation to Complete the Assignment
or the Duty Tour, and It Is Not the Last
Day of the Month, So the Entire Duty
Tour Will Be Counted Toward the Total
for the Current Month?
5. What Activities Constitute ‘‘Other
Mandatory Service for the Carrier,’’
Which Counts Towards the 276-Hour
Monthly Limitation?
6. Does Time Spent Documenting Transfer
of Hazardous Materials (Transportation
Security Administration Requirement)
Count against the 276-Hour Monthly
Maximum?
D. Other Interpretive Questions Related to
Section 108 of the RSIA of 2008
1. Do the 40-Hour and 30-Hour Monthly
Maximum Limitations on Time Awaiting
and in Deadhead Transportation to Final
Release Only Apply to Time Awaiting
and in Deadhead Transportation After 12
Consecutive Hours on Duty?
2. Did the RSIA of 2008 Affect Whether a
Railroad May Obtain a Waiver of the
Provisions of the New Hours of Service
Laws?
I. Background
On October 16, 2008, the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA of
2008) was enacted. See Public Law 110–
432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848. Section 108,
Hours-of- service reform, of the RSIA of
2008 made important changes to 49
U.S.C. ch. 211, Hours of service, as
amended through October 15, 2008 (the
old hours of service laws). See 122 Stat.
4860–4866. Some of these changes
became effective immediately on the
date of enactment, and others became
effective nine months later, on July 16,
2009. In particular, under section 108(g)
of the RSIA of 2008, subsections (d), (e),
(f), and (g) of the section became
effective on the date of enactment of the
RSIA of 2008, and subsections (a), (b),
and (c) of the section become effective
nine months later, on July 16, 2009.
Because of the significance of the
amendments to the old hours of service
laws made by section 108 of the RSIA
of 2008, FRA is publishing this interim
statement of agency policy and
interpretation to address questions of
statutory interpretation that have arisen
since their enactment.
Currently, FRA is not addressing the
amendments to the old hours of service
laws made by section 420 of the RSIA
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
of 2008, which changed 49 U.S.C.
21106, Limitations on employee
sleeping quarters, effective October 16,
2008. Nor is FRA presently revising
either appendix A of 49 CFR part 228,
which contains FRA’s previously
published interpretations of the old
hours of service laws, known until the
1994 recodification as the Hours of
Service Act (see Pub. L. 103–272), nor
FRA’s previously published
interpretations concerning the
limitations on hours of service of
individuals engaged in installing,
repairing or maintaining signal systems,
an interim statement of agency policy
and interpretation at 42 FR 4464 (Jan.
25, 1977). FRA is also not interpreting
its recently issued regulations revising
its hours of service recordkeeping
requirements, published in the Federal
Register on May 27, 2009 (74 FR 25330).
FRA seeks comment on this interim
statement and the proposed
interpretation and has sought informal
input on many of the interpretive issues
addressed in this document through the
agency’s Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC). On May 27, 2009,
FRA published a regulation, mandated
by section 108(f) of the RSIA of 2008,
revising the hours of service
recordkeeping requirements to support
compliance with the hours of service
laws as amended by the RSIA of 2008
(the new hours of service laws); 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. 74 FR
25330, 25345 (May 27, 2009). FRA
utilized the RSAC and an RSAC
working group (Working Group) in the
development of this regulation, and
while the task of the Working Group
was officially limited to developing the
regulatory text related to hours of
service recordkeeping, FRA sought the
input of the members of the Working
Group on the interpretive issues it was
considering. FRA also shared with the
Working Group its preliminary thoughts
on some of the interpretive questions,
and FRA’s interpretations have been
made in consideration of the feedback
from the Working Group.
It is FRA’s intention that the
interpretations provided in this interim
statement of agency policy and
interpretation will go into effect on July
16, 2009, the effective date of some of
the most important substantive changes
to the old hours of service laws resulting
from the RSIA of 2008. FRA will
consider comments received in response
to these interim interpretations of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
new hours of service laws, and may
modify these interpretations based on
comments or if experience with the new
statutory requirements indicates that a
change in interpretation is needed.
However, FRA is specifically seeking
comment with regard to one issue to be
discussed in this document related to
the limitation on hours of both train
employees and signal employees,
specifically, the beginning of the 24hour period in which the maximum
allowed time on duty and minimum
required time off duty are calculated. As
will be explained below, FRA proposes
to interpret the 24-hour period within
which an employee must have had the
minimum statutory off-duty period as
lying within the 24-hour period during
which not more than 12 hours of
covered and commingled service may
accrue. FRA believes that this new
approach, which may be described as
‘‘continuous lookback,’’ conforms to the
plain meaning of the law, which by its
terms prohibits an employee from going
or remaining on duty unless the
employee has received 10 hours of rest
in the prior 24 hours. This would be a
significant change from FRA’s
previously published interpretation.
While FRA believes its proposed
interpretation is consistent with the
statutory language, it is seeking
comment as to the effect that this
proposed change of interpretation
would have on the industry, and, if
adopted by FRA, this change in
interpretation would not go into effect
until FRA has had the opportunity to
consider any comments received.
II. Changes in the Old Hours of Service
Laws Made by Section 108 of the RSIA
of 2008
A. Extending Hours of Service
Protections to Employees of Contractors
and Subcontractors to Railroads Who
Perform Certain Signal-Related
Functions
Effective July 16, 2009, section 108(a)
of the RSIA of 2008 (Section 108(a))
amends the definition of ‘‘signal
employee’’, to eliminate the words
‘‘employed by a railroad carrier’’. To be
codified at 49 U.S.C. 21101(4). With this
amendment, employees of contractors or
subcontractors to a railroad who are
engaged in installing, repairing, or
maintaining signal systems (the
functions within the definition of signal
employee in the old hours of service
laws) will be covered by the new hours
of service laws, because a signal
employee under the new hours of
service laws is no longer by definition
only a railroad employee.
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30667
It should be noted that an employee
of a contractor or subcontractor to a
railroad who is ‘‘engaged in or
connected with the movement of a
train’’ was considered a ‘‘train
employee’’ under the old hours of
service laws and continues to be
considered a train employee under the
new hours of service laws. 49 U.S.C.
21101(5). Likewise, an employee of a
contractor or subcontractor to a railroad
who ‘‘by the use of an electrical or
mechanical device dispatches, reports,
transmits, receives, or delivers orders
related to or affecting train movements’’
was considered a ‘‘dispatching service
employee’’ under the old hours of
service laws and continues to be
considered a ‘‘dispatching service
employee’’ under the new hours of
service laws. 49 U.S.C. 21101(2).
B. Changing Hours of Service
Requirements Related to Train
Employees
Section 108(b) of the RSIA of 2008
(Section 108(b)) amends the old hours of
service requirements for train
employees in many ways, all of which
amendments are effective July 16, 2009,
except with respect to train employees
providing commuter or intercity
passenger rail service, whom section
108(d) of the RSIA of 2008 makes
subject initially to the old hours of
service laws and then to regulations if
issued timely and, if not, to the new
hours of service laws. To be codified at
49 U.S.C. 21103 and 21102,
respectively. (See further discussion of
the exception in this II.B, below.)
Section 108(b) 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. To be
codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(1). 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. To be codified
at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(2), (3).
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
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
30668
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
which time the employee is unavailable
for any service for any railroad. To be
codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4).
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 new hours of
service laws. To be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(4).
Section 108(b) also provides that the
Secretary may waive the requirements
of 48 and 72 consecutive hours off duty
if the procedures of 49 U.S.C. 20103 are
followed, if a collective bargaining
agreement provides a different
arrangement that the Secretary
determines is in the public interest and
consistent with safety. Id.
Section 108(b) also significantly
changes the old 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. To be codified
at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(1). In particular, 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 from the July 16, 2009
effective date of the provision through
October 15, 2009,1 with that number
decreasing to 30 hours per employee per
month beginning October 16, 2009,
except in certain situations. These
monthly limits do not apply if the train
carrying the employee is directly
delayed by casualty, accident, act of
God, derailment, major equipment
failure that keeps the train from moving
forward, or other delay from
unforeseeable cause. To be codified at
49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(2). Railroads are
required to report to the Secretary all
instances in which these limitations are
exceeded. To be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21103(c)(3). 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. To be
codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(4).
1 The language of Section 108(b) must be read in
conjunction with the language of Section 108(g),
which provides that Section 108(b) becomes
effective on July 16, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
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. To be
codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(e). 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. Id.
However, as was alluded to earlier,
section 108(d) of the RSIA of 2008
(Section 108(d)), which became effective
on October 16, 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. 49 U.S.C. 21102(c). Section
108(d) 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. 49 U.S.C. 21109(b). Section
108(d) further provides that these train
employees who provide commuter or
intercity passenger rail service will
continue to be governed by the old
hours of service laws (as they existed
immediately prior to the enactment of
the RSIA of 2008) until the effective
date of regulations promulgated by the
Secretary. 49 U.S.C. 21102(c). 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. Id.
C. Changing Hours of Service
Requirements Related to Signal
Employees
Section 108(c) of the RSIA of 2008
(Section 108(c)) amends the hours of
service requirements for signal
employees in a number of ways,
effective July 16, 2009. To be codified at
49 U.S.C. 21104. As was noted above, by
amending the definition of ‘‘signal
employee,’’ Section 108(a) extends the
reach of the substantive requirements of
Section 108(c) to a contractor or
subcontractor to a railroad carrier and
its officers and agents. To be codified at
49 U.S.C. 21101(4). 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 hours consecutive hours during
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the prior 24-hour period. To be codified
at 49 U.S.C. 21104(a)(1), (2). Further,
Section 108(c) deletes the prohibition in
the old hours of service laws at 49
U.S.C. 21104(a)(2)(C) against requiring
or allowing a signal employee to remain
or go on duty ‘‘after that employee has
been on duty a total of 12 hours during
a 24-hour period, or after the end of that
24-hour period, whichever occurs first,
until that employee has had at least 8
consecutive hours off duty.’’
Section 108(c) also eliminates
language in the old hours of service
laws stating that last hour of signal
employee’s return from final trouble call
is time off duty, and defines ‘‘emergency
situations’’ in which the new hours of
service laws permits signal employees
to work additional hours not to include
routine repairs, maintenance, or
inspection. To be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21104(b), (c).
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. To
be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21104(d).
Finally, Section 108(c) provides that
the hours of service, duty hours, and
rest periods of signal employees are
governed exclusively by the new hours
of service laws, and that signal
employees operating motor vehicles are
not subject to other hours of service,
duty hours, or rest period rules besides
FRA’s. To be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21104(e).
The requirements of the old hours of
service laws for dispatching service
employees (49 U.S.C. 21105) were not
modified by the RSIA of 2008.
III. Proposed Change in Interpretation
of Prohibition Against a Train or Signal
Employee Being on Duty Without
Having Had a Minimum Number of
Hours Off Duty During the Prior 24
Hours; Proposed Interpretation of That
Prohibition in Context of New
Prohibition Against Communication
With Train and Signal Employees; and
Request for Comments
A. Questions Presented and Short
Answers
1. Must the Full 10-Hour Period of
Uninterrupted Rest Fall Wholly Within
the 24-Hour Period During Which
Covered Service May Be Performed?
Short Answer: No, if FRA applies to
the new 10-hour statutory provision the
agency’s longstanding interpretation of
the old 8-hour statutory provision, the
10-hour uninterrupted rest period
would not diminish the 24-hour period
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
during which covered service may be
performed.
Yes, if FRA adopts its proposed
interpretation of the new 10-hour
statutory provision, which would
require that the full 10-hour
undisturbed off-duty period occupy 10
hours of the 24-hour period during
which covered service may be
performed.
2. Is the 10-Hour Period of Undisturbed
Rest for Train Employees and Signal
Employees Required To Be Provided
Immediately After the Employee Goes
Off Duty—Meaning That if the Off-Duty
Period Continues Beyond 10 Hours, the
Railroad May Communicate With the
Employee After the First 10 Hours Off
Duty?
Short Answer: Yes, if FRA applies to
the new 10-hour statutory provision the
agency’s longstanding interpretation of
the old 8-hour statutory provision, then
the 10-hour period of undisturbed rest
may be given immediately after the
employee goes off duty, and the railroad
may communicate with the employee
after the first 10 hours off duty.
Not necessarily, if FRA adopts its
proposed interpretation of the 10-hour
statutory provision, because for the
railroad to maximize the work window
during which a train or signal employee
may be on duty to a 14-hour period, the
railroad must give notice of the
employee’s next reporting time before
the employee begins the 10-hour rest
period.
B. The Old 8-Hour Rest Requirement
and the Treatment of Calls To Report for
Duty
1. The Old Statutory Language
Establishing the 8-Hour Rest
Requirement
Section 21103(a)(1) of title 49, U.S.C.,
in effect through July 15, 2009, reads as
follows: ‘‘Except as provided in
subsection (c) of this section [pertaining
to emergencies], a railroad carrier and
its officers and agents may not require
or allow a train employee to remain or
go on duty * * * unless that employee
has had at least 8 consecutive hours off
duty during the prior 24 hours.’’
Section 21104(a)(2)(A) of title 49,
U.S.C., in effect through July 15, 2009,
provides the identical requirement for
signal employees.2
2 In addition, section 21104(a)(2)(C) of title 49,
U.S.C., provides that a railroad carrier, its officers
and agents may not require or allow a signal
employee to remain or go on duty ‘‘after that
employee has been on duty a total of 12 hours
during a 24-hour period, or after the end of that 24hour period, whichever occurs first, until that
employee has had at least 8 consecutive hours off
duty.’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
2. FRA’s Existing, Previously Published
Interpretation of the 8-Hour
Requirement
The existing interpretation of the
equivalent provision for train employees
in the Hours of Service Act 3 reads as
follows:
Limitations on Hours. The Act establishes
two limitations on hours of service. First, no
employee engaged in train or engine service
may be required or permitted to work in
excess of twelve consecutive hours. After
working a full twelve consecutive hours, an
employee must be given at least ten
consecutive hours off duty before being
permitted to return to work.
Second, no employee engaged in train or
engine service may be required or permitted
to continue on duty or go on duty unless he
has had at least eight consecutive hours off
duty within the preceding twenty-four hours.
This latter limitation, when read in
conjunction with the requirements with
respect to computation of duty time
(discussed below) results in several
conclusions:
(1) When an employee’s work tour is
broken or interrupted by a valid period of
interim release (4 hours or more at a
designated terminal), he may return to duty
for the balance of the total 12-hour work tour
during a 24-hour period.
(2) After completing the 12 hours of broken
duty, or at the end of the 24-hour period,
whichever occurs first, the employee may not
be required or permitted to continue on duty
or to go on duty until he has had at least 8
consecutive hours off duty.
(3) The 24-hour period referred to in
paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall begin upon
the commencement of a work tour by the
employee immediately after his having
received a statutory off-duty period of 8 or 10
hours as appropriate.
[Emphasis supplied.]
FRA’s existing interpretation of the
language related to signal employees
reads as follows:
LIMITATIONS ON HOURS
No individual employed by a common
carrier in installing, repairing or maintaining
signal systems may be required or permitted
to work in excess of twelve continuous
hours, After working twelve continuous
hours, an individual must be given at least
ten consecutive hours off duty before being
permitted to return to work.
3 Section 2(a) of the Hours of Service Act
provided:
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier, its
officers or agents, subject to this Act—
‘‘(1) To require or permit an employee, in case
such employee shall have been continuously on
duty for fourteen hours, to continue on duty or to
go on duty until he has had at least ten consecutive
hours off duty, except that, effective upon the
expiration of the two-year period beginning on the
effective date of this paragraph, such fourteen-hour
duty period shall be reduced to twelve hours; or
‘‘(2) To require or permit an employee to continue
on duty or to go on duty when he has not had at
least eight consecutive hours off duty during the
preceding twenty-four hours.
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30669
No individual engaged in covered work
may be required or permitted to continue on
duty or go on duty unless he has had ‘‘at least
eight consecutive hours off duty within the
preceding twenty-four hours.’’ The clear
spirit and intent of the quoted language lead
to the conclusions that:
(1) When the time on duty is broken or
interrupted by off-duty periods of less than
8 consecutive hours, the individual may be
on duty up to a maximum of 12 hours during
a 24 hour period, so long as such individual
has had a statutory off-duty period of at least
8 or 10 consecutive hours immediately prior
to reporting for work.
(2) After completing the 12 hours of broken
duty, or at the end of, the 24 hour period,
whichever occurs first, the employee may not
be required or permitted to continue on duty
or to go on duty until he has had at least 8
consecutive hours off duty.
(3) The 24-hour period referred to in
paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall begin when
an employee reports for work immediately
after his having had a statutory off-duty
period of 8 or 10 hours.
42 FR 4464, 4466 (Jan. 25, 1977).
3. Discussion of FRA’s Current
Interpretation of the 8–Hour Rest
Provision and Calls To Report to Duty
Under the old hours of service laws,
and the current FRA interpretations, as
cited above, a 24-hour period begins
when an employee reports for duty. At
the instant that the employee reports for
duty, FRA looks back at the 24-hour
period before the employee reported for
duty to see that the employee had at
least 8 consecutive hours off (or 10
consecutive hours off if the employee
worked 12 consecutive hours) following
the prior duty assignment. If so, then the
employee has a maximum of 12 hours
to work in the next 24 hours, and must
get 8 or 10 hours off either after working
that 12 hours or at the end of the 24hour period, whichever occurs first,
before going on duty again. After the
employee receives a statutory off-duty
period (i.e., at least 8 or consecutive 10
hours, whichever is applicable), when
the employee next reports for duty, a
new 24-hour period begins for the
purpose of calculating time on duty, and
the requirement of the statutory off-duty
period.
Therefore, an employee who works in
broken service (e.g., 8 hours on, then 4
hours off, then 4 hours on) just has to
get the 8 or 10 hours off somewhere
within the 24-hour period before the
employee begins the tour of duty. FRA
has not required the 8 or 10 hours to be
any particular set of hours in the 24hour period before commencing the
current duty tour. If the employee
continues off duty after having received
at least the minimum statutory off-duty
period, the railroad may call the
employee repeatedly before the
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
30670
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
employee comes on duty. While these
contacts would break the continuity of
the off-duty period, and might
commingle with the next duty tour if
the employee does not receive a
statutory off-duty period, the calls
themselves would not violate the law,
once the minimum statutory off-duty
period is completed.
Further, a settled FRA interpretation
adopted shortly after the 1969
amendments to the Hours of Service
Act, with encouragement from the
industry parties, has permitted the
railroad to address one call to an
employee during the rest period for the
purpose of advising the employee
concerning the place and time that the
employee is to appear for the next
assignment, without that call being
considered an interruption of the
required 8- or 10-hour statutory release.
(This interpretation is emphatically
extinguished for train employees in
freight service, beginning on July 16, as
result of enactment of a provision in
Section 108(b) to be codified at 49
U.S.C. 21103(e). FRA proposes to
continue it in effect for train employees
in passenger service to maintain the
status quo pending further rulemaking,
as the Congress intended in enacting,
effective October 16, 2008, 49 U.S.C.
21102(c).)
The purpose and effect of FRA’s
interpretation regarding the issue of 8
consecutive hours off duty within the
prior 24 hours were to ease planning by
permitting railroads to look forward
from the time that the employee
reported for work. The interpretation
assumed that 8 or 10 hours of rest
immediately preceded the time that the
employee went on duty, which was
ordinarily the case (there having been a
single call for the assignment, which by
interpretation did not interrupt the
period of rest). Where there were
multiple calls outside the basic period
of rest, they were commingled with
subsequent service, so in fact the
commencement of the duty tour
immediately followed the statutory rest.
As a practical matter, the prior
interpretation had little effect on hours
worked, since as a practical matter only
a highly unusual pattern of broken
service (e.g., 4 on, 6 off, 4 on, 6 off, 4
on) could result in work occurring in
defiance of the literal language of the
law, as the employee would have
worked 12 hours in the 24-hour period
without ever having 8 hours off duty in
the prior 24 hours. This seldom if ever
has occurred, and at no time since
publication of interpretations in
appendix A to 49 CFR part 228 in 1977
has FRA had occasion to question the
wisdom of this approach.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
C. The New 10–Hour Rest Provision and
the Prohibition on Communication
During That Rest
1. Overview
Under the hours of service laws as
amended by the RSIA of 2008, the
minimum statutory off-duty period for
train employees and signal employees,
for purposes of what will be codified at
49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(3) and 49 U.S.C.
21104(a)(2) is 10 hours, regardless of
how many hours are worked and
whether service is consecutive or
broken, and any interruption of a rest
period before its desired duration has
been achieved (10 hours for full rest, 4
hours for a train employee’s interim
release, etc.) restarts the clock for the
minimum full rest period because of the
new prohibition to be codified at 49
U.S.C. 21103(e) and 21104(d).4
2. The Statutory Language of the New
10-Hour Rest Provision
Effective July 16, 2009, the RSIA of
2008 amends 49 U.S.C. 21103(a) to
provide, inter alia, that ‘‘[e]xcept as
provided in subsection (d) of this
section, a railroad carrier and its officers
and agents may not require or allow a
train employee to * * * (3) remain or go
on duty unless that employee has had
at least 10 consecutive hours off duty
during the prior 24 hours * * *’’ The
predecessor provision is 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(1). The changes made to this
predecessor provision are fairly minor:
redesignating subsection (c), regarding
4 Effective July 16, 2009, section 21103(e) of title
49 U.S.C. will provide as follows:
‘‘Communication During Time Off Duty.—During
a train employee’s minimum off-duty period of 10
consecutive hours, as provided under subsection (a)
or during an interim period of at least 4 consecutive
hours available for rest under subsection (b)(7) or
during additional off-duty hours under subsection
(c)(4), a railroad carrier, and its officers and agents,
shall not communicate with the train employee by
telephone, by pager, or in any other manner that
could reasonably be expected to disrupt the
employee’s rest. Nothing in this subsection shall
prohibit communication necessary to notify an
employee of an emergency situation, as defined by
the Secretary. The Secretary may waive the
requirements of this paragraph for commuter or
intercity passenger railroads if the Secretary
determines that such a waiver will not reduce safety
and is necessary to maintain such railroads’
efficient operations and on-time performance of its
trains.’’
Effective July 16, 2009, section 21104(d) of title
49 U.S.C. will provide as follows:
‘‘Communication During Time Off Duty.—During
a signal employee’s minimum off-duty period of 10
consecutive hours, as provided under subsection
(a), a railroad carrier or a contractor or
subcontractor to a railroad carrier, and its officers
and agents, shall not communicate with the signal
employee by telephone, by pager, or in any other
manner that could reasonably be expected to
disrupt the employee’s rest. Nothing in this
subsection shall prohibit communication necessary
to notify an employee of an emergency situation, as
defined by the Secretary.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
emergencies, as subsection (d);
transferring the phrase ‘‘remain or go on
duty’’ in the introductory text of the
subsection (a) to the beginning of
subsection (a)(3); transferring all the
language in subsection (a)(1) (‘‘unless
that employee has had at least 8
consecutive hours off duty during the
prior 24 hours’’) to subsection (a)(3);
and then changing ‘‘8’’ to ‘‘10’’ in the
minimum off-duty period.
Effective July 16, 2009, the RSIA of
2008 also amends 49 U.S.C. 21104(a) to
provide that ‘‘[e]xcept as provided in
subsection (c) of this section, a railroad
carrier and its officers and agents may
not require or allow its signal employees
to remain or go on duty and a contractor
or subcontractor to a railroad carrier and
its officers and agents may not require
or allow its signal employees to remain
or go on duty * * * (2) unless that
employee has had at least 10
consecutive hours off duty during the
prior 24 hours.’’ For purposes of this
discussion, the changes are minor, the
most salient of which are to change ‘‘8’’
to ‘‘10’’ as the minimum off-duty period.
3. Discussion of Proposed Interpretation
of New 10-Hour Rest Provision
FRA is concerned that, as applied to
the revised laws, the existing, ‘‘fresh
start’’ interpretation conflicts with the
plain meaning of laws by excluding the
10-hour period from the ‘‘prior 24
hours’’ to which the revised statute
refers. Although the ‘‘fresh start’’
approach may have had some merit to
simplify planning under the old hours
of service laws, it does not appear to
track the purpose or intent of the new,
more stringent statute. Accordingly,
FRA proposes to enforce the plain
meaning of the revised statute, i.e., no
train employee or signal employee may
be required or permitted to go or remain
on duty unless that employee had
received at least 10 consecutive hours of
rest within any of the 24-hour periods
prior to any of the moments in question
(i.e., any instant that the employee goes
or remains on duty during the duty
tour), rather than the one 24- hour
period prior to the one moment that the
employee commences the duty tour.
This new approach, which may be
described as ‘‘continuous lookback,’’
conforms to the plain meaning of the
law, which by its terms prohibits an
employee from going or remaining on
duty unless the employee has received
10 hours of rest in the prior 24 hours.5
5 Indeed, FRA acknowledged this when issuing
its current interpretation, providing, ‘‘A very literal
reading of the statute would require that the
required 8-hour release period be within the
‘‘preceding twenty-four hours’’ described in section
2(a)(2) of the statute * * * in every instance. That
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
It appears that this interpretation would
also best address the acute fatigue of
employees working at different times of
day and night, by ensuring that their
best opportunity for rest, free from
interruptions by the railroad, comes just
prior to their going back on duty, so that
they are well rested when they go to
work, and better able to remain
reasonably so throughout the duty tour.
There would be practical challenges
associated with the continuous lookback
approach, and the utilization of
employees could be constrained. First, it
would be particularly important that
crews be scheduled precisely in order to
obtain best use of their available time,
particularly for extended assignments
(i.e., those approaching the maximum
12 hours on duty, or exceeding 12 hours
total time on duty when on-duty time is
combined with time spent waiting for
deadhead transportation or in deadhead
transportation to the place of final
release). For typical over-the-road
assignments, railroads might either have
to notify the employee of the time to
report 10 or more hours before the time
the employee is wanted, so that the last
10 or more hours would be
uninterrupted,6 or else have to call
immediately at the conclusion of a
known period of rest, providing notice
of the next assignment within a short
time prior to its beginning. A typical
maximum pattern might be a ‘‘2-hour’’
call (i.e., a call from the railroad
notifying the employee to report for
duty 2 hours later), followed by an onduty period of 12 consecutive hours.
This approach would effectively
eliminate the possibility of 12 hours of
broken service, because the interim
period of release would also occur
within the 24-hour period. (For
example, with a 2-hour call, 8 hours of
work, and 4 hours off, any resumption
of work would be barred because
following the aggregate period of 14
hours (2+8+4) any ‘‘look back’’ to find
a continuous 10-hour period of release
within the prior 24 hours would be
futile.) By contrast, lesser periods of
aggregate service might be plausible
(e.g., a call prior to the 10-hour rest
period, 5 hours on duty, 4 hours off
duty, 5 hours on duty, allowing a total
of 10 hours of on-duty time before the
24-hour duty period would have to end,
would mean that broken service would have to be
distributed within the remaining 16 hours in every
instance. (For instance, 4 hours on duty, 4 hours off
duty—the minimum permitted and 4 hours on
duty.).’’ 42 FR 27594, 27595 (May 31, 1977).
6 More than 10 hours uninterrupted rest would be
required for a train employee if additional rest is
required as a result of time spent awaiting or in
deadhead transportation after 12 hours on duty. To
be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(4).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
because an instant later the prior 24hour period would not include a period
of 10 consecutive hours off).
Clearly the means by which ‘‘pool
crews’’ and ‘‘extra board’’ assignments
are managed would need to be altered
if the railroad wished to get full use of
the employee’s allowed 12 hours. To
accomplish this, among the options
available to the railroad would be to tell
the employee when to come back before
the employee is released from the
previous duty tour, or to notify the
employee when he or she is about 10
hours out from the next call. If the
projected time is later set back, the
railroad would need to notify the
employee of the setback up to 10 hours
before the new time that the employee
would need to report, because those
next 10 hours would be the
uninterrupted rest.
FRA has identified the following
positive aspects of the proposed
interpretation:
• Appears most faithful to the literal
language of the statute.
• The legislative history of the RSIA
of 2008 reiterates the statutory language,
which has not significantly changed, the
literal meaning of which FRA has
always believed supports the proposed
interpretation.
• Best ensures that meaningful rest
closely precedes the period of work,
supporting the safety purpose of the
laws.
• Creates a strong incentive for
employers to plan their operations in
such a way that employees can
effectively plan their rest.
• Prevents periods of aggregate
service potentially extending for up to
24 hours without substantial rest.
FRA has identified the following
negative aspects of the proposed
interpretation:
• Departs from a settled
interpretation, which could require
significant training and adjustment in
expectations regarding the operation of
the law.
• During periods of stress on rail
operations, could limit availability of
employees and efficiency of operations.
• To the extent that employers notify
employees of assignments precisely 10
hours prior to the time for reporting, the
rest period could be compromised by
the requirement to accomplish travel to
the report-for-duty location within the
10 hours.
• Might not produce uniformly
positive outcomes in terms of safety
(e.g., to the extent that an employee is
released from service in the late evening
hours, the best time for rest could be
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30671
immediately, rather than just before the
onset of the duty tour).7
FRA requests comments on this
proposed change in interpretation,
including the options for adapting to the
interpretation if adopted, the
operational difficulties presented by the
proposed interpretation, and the
circumstances most likely to present
such difficulty. FRA asks that those
objecting to the proposed interpretation
provide their views as to the better
interpretation that would satisfy the
language and the intent of the statute.
FRA wishes to note that, even under
the present interpretation, railroads
would not be free to simply provide 10
interrupted hours of rest and then
repeatedly set back calls over a long
period of time. The current
interpretation is that the beginning of
the duty tour following statutory rest
starts the clock. Statutory rest will now
clearly be uninterrupted rest, and so
even one call ‘‘busting’’ or ‘‘setting
back’’ an assignment will be
commingled with the subsequent
service unless a new 10-hour period of
rest ensues. Whichever interpretation is
finally adopted, railroads will need to
do a better job of planning crew
utilization.
IV. FRA’s Interim Policies and
Interpretations of the Hours of Service
Laws as Amended by the RSIA of 2008
A. Other Questions Related to the
Prohibition on Communication With
Train Employees and Signal Employees
These questions apply to sections
108(b)(3) and (c)(4) of the RSIA of 2008,
which amend sections 49 U.S.C. 21103
and 49 U.S.C. 21104 effective July 16,
2009, to provide that a railroad carrier
or a contractor or subcontractor to a
railroad carrier, and its officers and
agents, are prohibited from
communicating with a train employee
or a signal employee by telephone,
pager, or in any other manner that could
reasonably be expected to disrupt the
employee’s rest. To be codified at 49
U.S.C. 21103(e) and 21104(d). This
prohibition applies during—
• A train employee’s or a signal
employee’s minimum off-duty period of
10 consecutive hours;
• A train employee’s period of
interim release of at least 4 hours that
is available for rest; and
• A train employee’s required
additional rest, in the amount by which
7 This is a formal concern, but FRA is not
persuaded that it is a practical concern, as the
employer will have little reason to contact the
employee until next assignment is approaching, and
the employee’s circadian pattern will tend to
support quality sleep during the nighttime hours.
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
30672
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
the sum of on-duty and limbo time
exceeds 12 hours.
The section does not prohibit
communication necessary to notify an
employee of an emergency situation,
and the provision may be waived as to
train employees of commuter or
intercity passenger railroads if the
Secretary determines a waiver will not
reduce safety and is necessary to
maintain such railroads’ efficient
operation and on-time performance.
5. What If the Employee Was Told
Before Going Off Duty To Report at the
End of Required Rest (Either 10 Hours
or 48 or 72 Hours After Working 6 or 7
Days), and Is Released From That Call
Prior to the Report-for-Duty Time?
1. Does the Prohibition on
Communication With Train Employees
and Signal Employees Apply to Every
Statutory Off-Duty Period No Matter
How Long the Employee Worked?
The employee may not be required to
receive any communication of any sort,
or to access information of any kind.
However, FRA encourages provision of
information that can be accessed at the
employee’s option, especially in the
case of unscheduled or uncertain
assignments, so that the employee can
plan rest. The alerts provided by most
devices when an e-mail or text message
is received might reasonably be
expected to disturb an employee who
may be trying to obtain rest. However,
an employee might be reluctant to turn
the devices off, because that would also
prevent their receiving personal
messages that they would want to
receive even during rest. One solution
may be railroad-provided
communication devices that can be
turned off, so that the employee will not
be disturbed, but can access the
messages at other times, and will not
interfere with personal communication.
However, there must be no expectation
of a response during the uninterrupted
rest period.
Yes, except for the 48- or 72-hour rest
requirement. This prohibition on
communication applies to every offduty period of at least 10 hours under
49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(3) or 21104(a)(2) and
to any additional rest required for a
train employee when the sum of onduty time and limbo time exceeds 12
hours. For train employees it also
applies to every lesser off-duty period
that qualifies as an interim release.
2. Is the Additional Rest for a Train
Employee When On-Duty Time Plus
Limbo Time Exceeds 12 Hours
Mandatory, or May the Employee
Decline It?
The additional rest is mandatory and
may not be declined. Alternate
proposed versions of the legislation gave
the employee the option, but the statute
(i.e., the legislation as passed), makes
the additional rest mandatory.
3. If an Employee Is Called To Report for
Duty, But Then Receives a Call
Canceling the Call To Report Before He
or She Leaves the Place of Rest, Is a New
Period of 10 Uninterrupted Hours Off
Duty Required?
If the employee has not left the place
of rest, the employee has not accrued
on-duty time, and would still be offduty, with the exception that the time
spent in the call could commingle with
a future duty tour. However, if FRA
adopts the proposed interpretation
discussed in section III, above, the
railroad’s options might be more
limited, because the beginning of the
uninterrupted rest of 10 hours would
continue to serve as the beginning of the
24-hour period within which the
employee may be utilized.
4. What If the Call Is Cancelled Just One
Minute Before Report-for-Duty Time?
The answer to this scenario is the
same as the answer to the preceding
question.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
The answer to this scenario is the
same as the answer to the preceding
question.
6. Are Text Messages or E-Mail
Permitted During the Rest Period?
7. May the Railroad Return an
Employee’s Call During the Rest Period
Without Violating the Prohibition on
Communication?
Yes. If the employee initiated the
contact, then the railroad’s receipt of the
communication from the railroad is
voluntary on the part of the employee,
and a railroad will not be penalized for
responding to an employee’s request.
However, the content of the
communication must be limited to the
issue about which the employee called.
A call from an employee about one issue
does not open the door to unlimited
communication on other matters that
would otherwise be prohibited.
Railroads may also push data to an
employee at a particular time of day
selected by the employee, or in a
specific situations requested by the
employee, such as if an employee
requested, for example, to receive
information when he or she is a certain
number of crews out from being called,
provided that (1) the receipt of the
information is voluntarily chosen by the
employee and is purely for the
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
employee’s convenience and (2) the
railroad does not require the employee
to access this information or respond to
it within the period of required
uninterrupted rest.
8. May the Railroad Call To Alert an
Employee to a Delay (Set Back) or
Displacement?
No. The railroad may not call the
employee for these purposes during the
employee’s 10 hours of uninterrupted
rest, without violating the prohibition
on communicating with the employees.
However, the railroad may make the
information available by some means by
which the employee may voluntarily
access it, or would have it available at
the conclusion of the uninterrupted rest.
The ideal situation would be that if the
setback provides sufficient time before
the employee would now need to report
for duty, the railroad would make the
call, and then provide 10 hours of
uninterrupted rest before the employee
is to report for duty at the new time.
9. If the Railroad Violates the
Requirement of Undisturbed Rest, Is the
Undisturbed Rest Period Restarted From
the Beginning?
Yes.
10. Should Any Violation of
Undisturbed Rest Be Documented by an
Electronic Record?
Yes. The communication and the time
involved in it must be recorded as an
activity on the employee’s hours of
service record, as required by 49 CFR
228.11(b)(9) for train employees and 49
CFR 228.11(e)(9) for signal employees,
which provisions become effective on
July 16, 2009. For those railroads not
participating in electronic
recordkeeping, this activity must be
captured on their paper records.
11. Is the Additional Rest Required
When On-Duty Time Plus Limbo Time
Exceeds 12 Hours (During Which
Communication With An Employee Is
Prohibited) To Be Measured Only in
Whole Hours, So That the Additional
Rest Requirement Is Not a Factor Until
the Total Reaches 13 Hours?
No. Section 108(b)(2) of the RSIA of
2008 requires that when the employees
total time on duty, awaiting deadhead
transportation, and in deadhead
transportation exceeds 12 consecutive
hours, the railroad shall provide the
employee with additional time off duty
‘‘equal to the number of hours by which
such sum exceeds 12 hours.’’ FRA
believes that it is consistent with the
Congressional intent of this provision to
interpret a fraction of an hour as a
‘‘number of hours.’’ Therefore, the
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
additional undisturbed time off that an
employee must receive includes any
fraction of an hour that is in excess of
12 hours.
B. Questions Related to the
Requirements Applicable to Train
Employees for 48 or 72 Hours Off at the
Home Terminal
In particular, these questions involve
the requirements that train employees
receive—
(1) 48 hours off at their home terminal
after initiating an on-duty period on 6
consecutive days,
(2) 72 hours off at their home terminal
after initiating an on-duty period on 7
consecutive days, and
(3) 72 hours off at their home terminal
after initiating an on-duty period on 6
consecutive days, completing their onduty time at other than the home
terminal, and then working the 7th
consecutive day.
Section 108(b)(1) and (g) of the RSIA
of 2008, amend 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4)
effective on July 16, 2009, to provide
that—
• In general, a railroad carrier and its
officers and agents may not require or
allow a train employee to remain or go
on duty after the employee has initiated
an on-duty period each day for 6
consecutive days unless the employee
has had at least 48 consecutive hours
(48 hours) off duty at the employee’s
home terminal during which the
employee is unavailable for service for
any railroad carrier.
• However, an employee may work a
seventh consecutive day if the employee
ends the sixth consecutive day at a
location other than the employee’s
home terminal. After that, the employee
must be given 72 consecutive hours (72
hours) off duty at the home terminal.
• An employee may also work 7
consecutive days if a collective
bargaining agreement or pilot project
allows such a schedule.
• If an employee initiates an on-duty
period each day for 7 consecutive days,
the employee must receive 72 hours off
duty at the employee’s home terminal,
during which the employee is
unavailable for service for any railroad
carrier.
FRA may waive both the 6consecutive-day and 7-consecutive-day
provisions if a collective bargaining
agreement provides for a different
arrangement and that arrangement is in
the public interest and consistent with
railroad safety.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
1. Is a ‘‘Day’’ a Calendar Day or a 24Hour Period for the Purposes of This
Provision?
Although arguments could be made
for either interpretation of this language,
FRA interprets this provision as related
to initiating an on-duty period on 6 or
7 consecutive calendar days. This
interpretation should promote
administrative simplicity, and is
consistent with what has seemed to be
the understanding of the industry.
2. If an Employee is Called for Duty But
Does Not Work, Has the Employee
Initiated an On-Duty Period? Is There a
Call and Release? What if the Employee
Has Reported?
If an employee is called to report for
duty at a particular time, but is notified
of his or her release from that call prior
to the time the employee is scheduled
to report for duty, then the employee
has not accrued any time on duty, and
has the full time remaining to work
without having to receive another
statutory off-duty period. The employee
has not initiated an on-duty period. This
is true whether or not the employee has
yet arrived at the location at which he
or she was to report for duty, so long as
the employee is notified of the release
prior to the time he or she was to report.
However, if the employee reports for
duty at the time that he or she is
scheduled to report, and then is released
at a time after that, the period from the
report time until the release time is time
on duty, by which amount of time the
time remaining for that employee to
work before a statutory off-duty period
is required must be reduced, and the
employee has initiated an on-duty
period for the purpose of the 6- or 7-day
limitation.
3. Does Deadheading From a Duty
Assignment to the Home Terminal for
Final Release on the 6th or 7th Day
Count as a Day That Triggers the 48Hour or 72-Hour Rest Period
Requirement?
Scenario 1: An employee initiates an
on-duty period for five consecutive
days. On the next day the employee
deadheads from a duty assignment to
the place of final release that is the
employee’s home terminal. Does the
deadheading on the 6th day count as
initiating an on-duty period so that
afterwards the employee is entitled to a
minimum of 48 hours off duty?
Analysis of Scenario 1
Deadheading from a duty assignment
to a place of final release is neither time
on duty, nor time off duty. Therefore,
such a deadhead could not itself
constitute initiating an additional on-
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30673
duty period, separate from the one from
which the employee was deadheaded.
Similarly, if the deadhead was
unconnected to a duty tour, meaning
that the employee had received at least
a statutory off-duty period before being
deadheaded back to the home terminal,
the deadhead would still be neither time
on duty nor time off duty, and would
not constitute initiating an on-duty
period.
Therefore, if an employee is
deadheaded back to the home terminal
on the 6th day, the 48-hour rest
requirement would not be triggered by
the deadhead transportation, because
the employee would not have initiated
an on-duty period on 6 consecutive
days.
However, if an employee is
deadheaded to the home terminal and
then performs covered service without
having received at least a statutory offduty period, then the deadhead would
be a deadhead to duty, which is time on
duty under the statute, and would
constitute initiating an on-duty period.
In addition, if, after being deadheaded
to the home terminal, the employee
receives a statutory off-duty period, and
then initiates an on-duty period in the
same calendar day, the employee will
have initiated an on-duty period on a
6th consecutive day.
Scenario 2: An employee initiates an
on-duty period for six consecutive days
and completes his or her final period of
on-duty time at a terminal other than
the employee’s home terminal. On the
next day the employee deadheads from
a duty assignment to the place of final
release that is the employee’s home
terminal. Does the deadheading on the
7th day count as initiating an on-duty
period or working so that afterwards the
employee is entitled to a minimum of 72
hours off duty?
Analysis of Scenario 2
Deadheading from a duty assignment
to a place of final release, or
deadheading unconnected to the
previous duty tour would remain
neither time on duty nor time off duty
as described in Scenario 1 above.
However, the statute provides that an
employee may ‘‘work’’ a 7th consecutive
day, and then receive 72 hours off duty
at the home terminal, rather than
‘‘initiate an on-duty period’’ on a 7th
day, if the 6th day ends at a terminal
other than the employee’s home
terminal. Deadheading is still service for
the carrier, so FRA believes it is
reasonable to say that the employee
‘‘worked’’ a 7th consecutive day back to
the home terminal, whether the
employee is deadheaded on that day or
actually operates a train. An employee
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
30674
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
who works a 7th consecutive day to get
back to the home terminal must receive
at least 72 consecutive hours off duty.
4. Does Attendance at a Mandatory
Rules Class or Other Mandatory Activity
That Is Not Covered Service But Is NonCovered Service, Count as Initiating an
On-Duty Period on a Day?
No. As in the previous question, the
rules class or other mandatory activity
is other service for the carrier (noncovered service) that is not time on duty
and would not constitute initiating an
on-duty period if it is preceded and
followed by a statutory off-duty period.
Likewise, if the rules class or other
mandatory activity commingled with
covered service during either the
previous duty tour or the next duty tour
after the rules class (because there was
not a statutory off-duty period between
them), the rules class or other
mandatory activity would not itself
constitute initiating a separate on-duty
period, but would be part of the same
on-duty period with which it is
commingled.
Therefore, if an employee attends a
rules class or performs other service for
the carrier that is not covered service
and does not count as time on duty, but
does not initiate an on-duty period in
that calendar day, this breaks the string
of consecutive days of initiating an onduty period for the purposes of this
provision.
5. If an Employee Is Marked Up on an
Extra Board for 6 Days But Only Works
2 Days Out of the 6, Is the 48-Hour Rest
Requirement Triggered?
No. The employee must actually
initiate an on-duty period. Being
marked up does not accomplish this
unless the employee actually reports for
duty.
6. If an Employee Initiates an On-Duty
Period on 6 Consecutive Days, Ending at
an Away-From-Home Terminal and
Then Has 28 Hours Off at an AwayFrom-Home Terminal, May the
Employee Work Back to the Home
Terminal? The Statute Says That After
Initiating an On-Duty Period on 6
Consecutive Days the Employee May
Work Back to the Home Terminal on the
7th Day and Then Must Get 72 Hours
Off, But What if the Employee Had a
Day Off at the Away-From-Home
Terminal After the 6th Day?
The answer to this question would
depend on whether the 28 hours off
resulted in a full calendar day in which
the employee did not initiate an on-duty
period, before the employee worked
back to the home terminal.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
The statute says that the employee
may work on the 7th day to get back to
the home terminal and then must get 72
hours off. If the employee first has at
least a full calendar day off at the awayfrom-home terminal, the
consecutiveness is broken, and the
employee has neither initiated an onduty period, nor otherwise worked 7
consecutive days and would not be
entitled to 72 hours off after getting back
to the home terminal. However, the time
off at the away-from-home terminal
would not count toward the 48 hours off
that the employee must receive after
getting back to the home terminal.
If the 28 hours off at the away from
home terminal did not result in a full
calendar day in which the employee
had not initiated an on-duty period,
then the consecutiveness would not be
broken and the work back to the home
terminal would count as a seventh
consecutive day, and would require the
employee to receive 72 hours off duty at
the home terminal. For example, if an
employee initiates an on-duty period at
1 a.m., and is released from duty at the
away-from-home terminal at 11 a.m., the
employee would not have broken the
consecutiveness until the next calendar
day had ended and the employee had
not initiated an on-duty period. That
period, in this example, would be 37
hours. If the employee initiated an onduty period to work back to his or her
home terminal after 28 hours off duty,
or at 3 p.m. the next day, the employee
has not had a complete calendar day in
which he or she has not initiated an onduty period.
7. May an Employee Who Works 6
Consecutive Days Vacation Relief at a
‘‘Temporary Home Terminal’’ Work
Back to the Regular Home Terminal on
the 7th Day?
Yes, the employee may work the
seventh day and then receive 72 hours
off at the home terminal. FRA believes
this is consistent with the statutory
purpose of allowing the employee to
have the extended rest period at home.
To that end, although the statute refers
to the home terminal, FRA expects that
in areas in which large terminals
include many different reporting points
at which employees go on and off duty,
the railroad would make every effort to
return an employee to his or her regular
reporting point, so that the rest period
is spent at home.
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8. Employees Are Not Allowed To
Perform ‘‘Any Service for Any Railroad
Carrier’’ During These Required 48-Hour
or 72-Hour Rest Periods. This Language
Is Not Applied to Rest Periods
Elsewhere in the Statute. Does This
Mean That If an Employee Is Employed
by More Than One Railroad, Then
Employing Railroad A Must Aggregate
the Time the Employee Spends Working
for Any Other Railroad With the Time
the Employee Works for Railroad A?
It will be the responsibility of the
railroad to require employees to report
any service for another railroad. It will
be the responsibility of the employee to
report to inform each railroad for which
the employee works of its service for
another railroad.
The employee will be required to
record service for Railroad A on the
hours of service record for Railroad B,
and vice versa. Service for any railroad
other than the railroad whose record is
being completed would be recorded as
other mandatory service, which
occurred between periods of covered
service, and would alter the ‘‘prior time
off’’ indicated on the record. However,
FRA will only consider enforcement
action where service for another carrier
is performed during the required 48 or
72 hours off duty that an employee must
receive after initiating an on-duty period
for six or 7 consecutive days, because
the new hours of service laws do not
address service for another carrier
during the other required off-duty
periods.
Hours of service recordkeeping
programs will need to flag prior time off
of less than the required 48 or 72 hours
off duty when records show the
initiation of an on-duty period for 6 or
7 consecutive days.
C. Questions Related to the 276–Hour
Monthly Maximum for Train Employees
of Time on Duty, Waiting for or Being
in Transportation to Final Release, and
in Other Mandatory Service for the
Carrier
Section 108(b)(1) of the RSIA of 2008
amends 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(1) effective
July 16, 2009 to provide that a railroad
carrier and its officers and agents may
not require or allow a train employee
to—
• Remain or go on duty;
• Wait for deadhead transportation;
• Be in deadhead to final release; or
• Be in any other mandatory service
for the carrier—
in any calendar month in which the
employee has spent a total of 276
hours—
• On duty;
• Waiting for deadhead or in
deadhead from duty to final release; or
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
• In any other mandatory service for
the carrier.
1. If an Employee Reaches or Exceeds
276 Hours for the Calendar Month
During a Trip That Ends at the
Employee’s Away-From-Home
Terminal, May the Railroad Deadhead
the Employee Home During That
Month?
The literal language of the statute
might seem to prohibit deadheading an
employee who has already reached or
exceeded the 276-hour monthly
maximum, because time spent in
deadhead transportation to final release
is part of the time to be calculated
toward the 276-hour maximum, and one
of the activities not allowed after the
employee reaches 276 hours. However,
the intent of the statute seems to favor
providing extended periods of rest at the
home terminal. Therefore, in most cases,
FRA would allow the railroad to
deadhead the employee home in this
circumstance, rather than requiring the
employee to remain at an away-fromhome terminal until the end of the
month.
FRA expects the railroad to make
every effort to plan an employee’s work
so that this situation would not
regularly arise, and FRA reserves the
right to take enforcement action if a
pattern of abuse is apparent.
2. How Will FRA Apply the 276-Hour
Cap to Employees Who Only
Occasionally Perform Covered Service
as a Train Employee, But Whose Hours,
When Combined With Their Regular
Shifts in Non-Covered Service, Would
Exceed 276 Hours?
This provision in the RSIA of 2008
does not specifically provide any
flexibility for employees who only
occasionally perform covered service as
a train employee. Such employees
would still be required, as they are now,
to complete an hours of service record
for every 24-hour period in which the
employee performed covered service,
and the employee’s hours will continue
to be limited as required by the statute
for that 24-hour period. See 74 FR
25330, 25348 (May 27, 2009), to be
codified at 49 CFR 228.11(a), effective
July 16, 2009.
FRA will likely exercise some
discretion in enforcing the 276-hour
monthly limitation with regard to
employees whose primary job is not to
perform covered service as a train
employee, as most of the hours for such
employees would be comprised of the
hours spent in the employee’s regular
‘‘non-covered service’’ position, which
hours are not otherwise subject to the
limitations of the statute. However, FRA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
will enforce the 276-hour limitation
with regard to such employees if there
is a perception that a railroad is abusing
it.
3. Does the 276–Hour Count Reset at
Midnight on the First Day of a New
Month?
Yes. The statute refers to a calendar
month, so when the month changes, the
count resets immediately, as in the
following example:
Employee goes on duty at 6 PM on the last
day of the month, having previously
accumulated 270 hours for that calendar
month. By midnight, when the month
changes, he has worked an additional 6
hours, for a total of 276 hours. The remaining
hours of this duty tour occur in the new
month and begin the count toward the 276hour maximum for that month, so the
railroad is not in violation for allowing the
employee to continue to work.
4. May an Employee Accept a Call To
Report for Duty When He or She Knows
There Are Not Enough Hours Remaining
in the Employee’s 276-Hour Monthly
Limitation To Complete the Assignment
or the Duty Tour, and It Is Not the Last
Day of the Month, so the Entire Duty
Tour Will Be Counted Toward the Total
for the Current Month?
It is the responsibility of the railroad
to track the hours, so the employee
would generally not be in trouble with
FRA for accepting the call, absent
evidence that the employee deliberately
misrepresented his or her availability.
The railroad will be in violation of the
new hours of service laws if an
employee’s cumulative monthly total
exceeds 276 hours. However, it could be
a mitigating factor in some situations if
the railroad reasonably believed the
employee might be able to complete the
assignment before reaching the 276-hour
limitation.
• Scenario 1: Employee is called for
duty with 275 hours already
accumulated. It is only the 27th day of
the month, so the entire period will be
in the current month. It was probably
not reasonable to assume that any
assignment could be completed in the
remaining time.
• Scenario 2: Again the 27th day of
the month. This time the employee has
only accumulated 264 hours toward the
276-hour monthly limitation. In this
instance, the railroad may have
expected that the employee could
complete the covered service and
deadhead to the home terminal within
the remaining time. If that does not
happen, the railroad is in violation, but
enforcement discretion or mitigation of
any penalties assessed will be
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30675
considered if the railroad made a
reasonable decision.
5. What Activities Constitute ‘‘Other
Mandatory Service for the Carrier,’’
Which Counts Towards the 276-Hour
Monthly Limitation?
FRA recognizes that if every activity
in which an employee participates as
part of his or her position with the
railroad is counted toward the 276-hour
monthly maximum, it could
significantly limit the ability of both the
railroad to use the employee, and the
employee to be available for
assignments that he or she would wish
to take, especially in the final days of a
month. This has been raised as a matter
of concern since enactment of the RSIA
of 2008.
In particular, there are activities that
may indirectly benefit a railroad but that
are in the first instance necessary for an
employee to maintain the status of
prepared and qualified to do the work
in question. In some cases these
activities are compensated in some way,
and in some cases not. These activities
tend not to be weekly or monthly
requirements, but rather activities that
occur periodically such as audiograms,
vision tests, optional rules refresher
classes, and acquisition of security
access cards for hazardous materials
facilities. Most of these activities can be
planned by employees within broad
windows to avoid conflicts with work
assignments and maintain alertness.
Railroads are most often not aware of
when the employee will accomplish the
activity.
Therefore, for the purposes of this
provision, FRA will require that
railroads and employees count toward
the monthly maximum those activities
that the railroad not only requires the
employee to perform but also requires
the employee to complete immediately
or to report at an assigned time and
place to complete, without any
discretion in scheduling on the part of
the employee.
Those activities over which the
employee has some discretion and
flexibility of scheduling would not be
counted for the purposes of the 276hour provision, because the employee
would be able to schedule them when
he or she is appropriately rested. FRA
expects that railroads will work with
their employees as necessary so that
they can schedule such activities and
still obtain adequate rest before their
next assignment.
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
30676
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
6. Does Time Spent Documenting
Transfer of Hazardous Materials
(Transportation Security Administration
Requirement) Count Against the 276Hour Monthly Maximum?
Yes. This example is a specific
application of the previous question and
response concerning ‘‘other mandatory
service for the carrier.’’ The activity of
documenting the transfer of a hazardous
material pursuant to a Transportation
Security Administration requirement is
mandatory service for the carrier, and a
mandatory requirement of the position
for employees whose jobs involve this
function. Although the requirement is
Federal, compliance with it is a normal
part of an employee’s duty tour, which
must be completed as part of the duty
tour, and the employee does not have
discretion in when and where to
complete this requirement. Time spent
in fulfilling this requirement is part of
the maximum allowed toward the 276hour monthly maximum.
D. Other Interpretive Questions Related
to Section 108 of the RSIA of 2008
1. Do the 40-Hour and 30-Hour Monthly
Maximum Limitations on Time
Awaiting and in Deadhead
Transportation to Final Release Only
Apply to Time Awaiting and in
Deadhead Transportation After 12
Consecutive Hours on Duty?
Section 108(b) provides that a railroad
may not require or allow an employee
to exceed 40 hours per month from July
16, 2009, to October 15, 2009, and 30
hours per month on or after October 16,
2009,—
(1) Awaiting deadhead transportation;
or
(2) In deadhead transportation from a
duty assignment to a place of final
release
‘‘following a period of 12 consecutive
hours on duty. * * * ’’ To be codified
at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(1).
The intent of this provision is to
prevent situations in which employees
are left waiting on trains for extended
periods of time awaiting deadhead
transportation, and then in the
deadhead transportation. This purpose
would be frustrated if none of the limbo
time is counted toward the limitation
unless the on-duty time for the duty
tour is already at or exceeding 12 hours,
as an employee who has accumulated
11 hours and 59 minutes in his or her
duty tour could be subjected to limitless
time awaiting and in deadhead
transportation.
FRA will interpret this provision to
include all time spent awaiting or in
deadhead transportation to a place of
final release that occurs more than 12
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
hours after the beginning of the duty
tour, excluding statutory interim
periods of release. For example, if an
employee is on duty for 11 hours 30
minutes, and then spends an additional
3 hours awaiting and in deadhead
transportation to the point of final
release, for a total duty tour of 14 hours
and 30 minutes, 2 hours and 30 minutes
of the time spent awaiting or in
deadhead transportation will be counted
toward the 30- or 40-hour monthly
limit.
2. Did the RSIA of 2008 Affect Whether
a Railroad May Obtain a Waiver of the
Provisions of the New Hours of Service
Laws?
Yes, but FRA’s authority, delegated
from the Secretary, to waive provisions
of the hours of service laws as amended
by the RSIA remains extremely limited.
49 CFR 1.49.
The RSIA of 2008 left intact the
longstanding, though limited, waiver
authority at 49 U.S.C. 21102(b), which
authorizes the exemption of railroads
‘‘having not more than 15 employees
covered by’’ the hours of service laws:
After a full hearing, for good cause shown,
and on deciding that the exemption is in the
public interest and will not affect safety
adversely. The exemption shall be for a
specific period of time and is subject to
review at least annually. The exemption may
not authorize a carrier to require or allow its
employees to be on duty more than a total
of 16 hours in a 24-hour period.
The RSIA of 2008 amended the one
other, even narrower waiver provision
in the old hours of service laws and
added three more equally narrow new
waiver provisions. In particular, the
RSIA of 2008 revised 49 U.S.C. 21108,
Pilot projects, originally enacted in
1994, involving joint petitions for
waivers related to pilot projects under
49 U.S.C. 21108, primarily to provide
for waivers of the hours of service laws
both as in effect on the date of
enactment of the RSIA of 2008 and as
in effect nine months after the date of
enactment. Waivers under this section
are intended to enable the establishment
of one or more pilot projects to
demonstrate the possible benefits of
implementing alternatives to the strict
application of the requirements of the
hours of service laws, including
requirements concerning maximum onduty and minimum off-duty periods.
The Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for comment, approve such
waivers for a period not to exceed two
years, if the Secretary determines that
such a waiver is in the public interest
and is consistent with railroad safety.
Any such waiver, based on a new
petition, may be extended for additional
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
periods of up to two years, after notice
and opportunity for comment. An
explanation of any waiver granted under
this section shall be published in the
Federal Register.
The first of the three new waiver
provisions, 49 U.S.C. 21109(e)(2),
effective October 16, 2008, authorizes
temporary waivers of that section in
order ‘‘if necessary, to complete’’ a pilot
project mandated by that subsection.
The second new waiver provision, to be
codified at 49 U.S.C. 20103(a)(4),
effective July 16, 2009, provides limited
authority to grant a waiver of one
provision that it adds to the old hours
of service laws. That provision is the
requirement that an employee receive
48 hours off duty after initiating an onduty period on 6 consecutive days, 72
hours off duty after initiating an on-duty
period on 7 consecutive days, etc. This
provision was discussed in section IVB,
above. FRA may waive this provision if
a collective bargaining agreement
provides for a different arrangement and
that arrangement is in the public
interest and consistent with railroad
safety. A railroad or labor organization
should submit information regarding
schedules allowed under their collective
bargaining agreements that would not be
permitted under this provision, and
supporting evidence for the conclusion
that it is in the interest of safety. Of
course, a waiver is not needed for a
schedule that would not violate this
provision. For example, if a schedule
provides that an employee works 4
consecutive days and then has one day
off, the schedule would not violate the
new hours of service laws, because the
employee would not have initiated an
on-duty period on 6 consecutive days,
so 48 hours off duty would not be
required.
The third and last new waiver
provision authorizes waivers, effective
July 16, 2009, of the prohibition on
communication during off-duty periods
with respect to train employees of
commuter or intercity passenger
railroads if it is determined that a
waiver will not reduce safety and is
necessary to maintain such a railroad’s
efficient operation and on-time
performance. This waiver provision is to
be codified in the last sentence of 49
U.S.C. 20103(e). It should be noted that
petitions for this type of waiver are
unlikely because 49 U.S.C. 20102(c)
places train employees or commuter or
intercity passenger railroads under an
‘‘alternate hours of service regime’’
requiring compliance with 49 U.S.C.
20103 before its amendment by the
RSIA of 2008 pending timely
preparation of regulations, during which
time these employees are not subject to
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices
the prohibition on communication
during off-duty periods.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18,
2009.
Karen J. Rae,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–15026 Filed 6–23–09; 4:15 pm]
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
June 19, 2009.
The Department of the Treasury will
submit the following public information
collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 on or after the date
of publication of this notice. Copies of
the submission(s) may be obtained by
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Officer listed. Comments regarding this
information collection should be
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Treasury Department
Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 11000, 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before July 27, 2009 to be
assured of consideration.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau (TTB)
OMB Number: 1513–0087.
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: Labeling and Advertising
Requirements Under the Federal
Alcohol Administration Act.
Description: Bottlers and importers of
alcohol beverages must adhere to
numerous performance standards for
statements made on labels and in
advertisements of alcohol beverages.
These performance standards include
minimum mandatory labeling and
advertising statements.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 7,071
hours.
Clearance Officer: Frank Foote (202)
927–9347, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau, Room 200 East, 1310
G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed (202)
395–7873, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Celina Elphage,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–15029 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
June 19, 2009.
The Department of the Treasury will
submit the following public information
collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 on or after the date
of publication of this notice. Copies of
the submission(s) may be obtained by
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Officer listed. Comments regarding this
information collection should be
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Treasury Department
Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before July 27, 2009 to be
assured of consideration.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
OMB Number: 1545–1347.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: FI–7–94 and FI–36–92 (Final)
Arbitrage Restrictions on Tax-Exempt
Bonds.
Description: The Code limits the
ability of State and local government
issuers of tax-exempt bonds to earn and/
or keep arbitrage profits earned with
bond proceeds. This regulation requires
recordkeeping of certain interest rate
hedges so that the hedges are taken into
account in determining those profits.
Respondents: State, Local, and Tribal
Governments.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 42,050
hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1815.
Type of Review: Extension.
Form: 5498–ESA.
Title: Coverdell ESA Contribution
Information.
Description: Form 5498–ESA is used
by trustees and issuers of Coverdell
Education Savings accounts to report
contributions made to these accounts to
beneficiaries.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 18,000
hours.
OMB Number: 1545–0169.
Type of Review: Extension.
Form: 4461, 4461–A, 4461–B.
Title: Form 4461, Application for
Approval of Master or Prototype
Defined Contribution Plan; Form 4461–
A, Application for Approval of Master
or Prototype Defined Benefit Plan; Form
4461–B.
Description: The IRS uses these forms
to determine from the information
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30677
submitted whether the applicant plan
qualifies under section 401(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code for plan
approval. The application is also used to
determine if the related trust qualifies
for tax exempt status under Code
section 501(a).
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
109,125 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–0919.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Limitations on Percentage
Depletion in the Case of Oil and Gas
Wells (PS–105–75) Final.
Description: The regulations require
each partner to separately keep records
of his share of the adjusted basis of
partnership oil and gas property and
require each partnership, trusts, estate,
and operator to provide information
necessary to certain persons to compute
depletion with respect to oil and gas.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1
hour.
OMB Number: 1545–0202.
Type of Review: Extension.
Form: 5310, 6088.
Title: Form 5310, Application for
Determination for Terminating Plan;
Form 6088, Distributable Benefits from
Employee Pension Benefit Plans.
Description: Employers who have
qualified deferred compensation plans
can take an income tax deduction for
contributions to their plans. IRS uses
the data on Forms 5310 and 6088 to
determine whether a plan still qualifies
and whether there is any discrimination
in benefits.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
1,813,650 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1233.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Adjusted Current Earnings (IA–
14–91)(Final).
Description: This regulation affects
business and other for profit
institutions. This information is
required by the IRS to ensure the proper
application of section 1.56(g)–1 of the
regulation. It will be used to verify that
taxpayers have properly elected the
benefits of section 1.56(g)–1(r) of the
regulation.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,000
hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1120.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: CO–69–87 and CO–68–87
(Final) Final Regulations Under
E:\FR\FM\26JNN1.SGM
26JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30665-30677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15026]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Docket No. 2009-0057, Notice No. 1]
Interim Statement of Agency Policy and Interpretation on the
Hours of Service Laws as Amended; Proposed Interpretation; Request for
Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Interim statement of agency policy and interpretation; request
for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document FRA informs the public at large of the
agency's interim position on certain interpretive questions arising out
of the complex and important amendments enacted in 2008 to the Federal
railroad safety laws that govern such matters as how long an employee
in a certain category may remain on duty and how long the employee must
be given off duty before the employee may go on duty again. In
addition, FRA proposes an interpretation of one very significant
provision of those amended laws that differs from FRA's existing
interpretation of the laws before the 2008 amendments. Finally, FRA
requests public comment on both the interim interpretations and the
proposed interpretation.
DATES: This document is effective on July 16, 2009. Comments on the
interim interpretations are due by July 27, 2009. Comments on the
proposed interpretation are due by October 26, 2009. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the interim interpretations set
forth in this document or the proposed interpretation set forth in this
document, identified by the docket number FRA-2009-0057, 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 for this interim statement of agency policy and
interpretation and the proposed interpretation. 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
II. Changes in the Old Hours of Service Laws Made by Section 108 of
the RSIA of 2008
A. Extending Hours of Service Protections to Employees of
Contractors and Subcontractors to Railroads Who Perform Certain
Signal-Related Functions
B. Changing Hours of Service Requirements Related to Train
Employees
C. Changing Hours of Service Requirements Related to Signal
Employees
III. Proposed Change in Interpretation of Prohibition Against a
Train or Signal Employee Being on Duty Without Having Had a Minimum
Number of Hours Off Duty During the Prior 24 Hours; Proposed
Interpretation of That Prohibition in Context of New Prohibition
Against Communication With Train and Signal Employees; and Request
for Comments
[[Page 30666]]
A. Questions Presented and Short Answers
1. Must the Full 10-Hour Period of Uninterrupted Rest Fall
Wholly Within the 24-Hour Period During Which Covered Service May Be
Performed?
2. Is the 10-Hour Period of Undisturbed Rest for Train Employees
and Signal Employees Required To Be Provided Immediately after the
Employee Goes Off Duty--Meaning That if the Off-Duty Period
Continues beyond 10 Hours, the Railroad May Communicate with the
Employee after the First 10 Hours Off Duty?
B. The Old 8-Hour Rest Requirement and the Treatment of Calls To
Report for Duty
1. The Old Statutory Language Establishing the 8-Hour Rest
Requirement
2. FRA's Existing, Previously Published Interpretation of the 8-
Hour Requirement
3. Discussion of FRA's Current Interpretation of the 8-Hour Rest
Provision and Calls To Report to Duty
C. The New 10-Hour Rest Provision and the Prohibition on
Communication During That Rest
1. Overview
2. The Statutory Language of the New 10-Hour Rest Provision
3. Discussion of Proposed Interpretation of New 10-Hour Rest
Provision
IV. FRA's Interim Policies and Interpretations of the Hours of
Service Laws as Amended by the RSIA of 2008
A. Other Questions Related to the Prohibition on Communication
With Train Employees and Signal Employees
1. Does the Prohibition on Communication With Train Employees
and Signal Employees Apply to Every Statutory Off-Duty Period No
Matter How Long the Employee Worked?
2. Is the Additional Rest for a Train Employee When On-Duty Time
Plus Limbo Time Exceeds 12 Hours Mandatory, or May the Employee
Decline It?
3. If an Employee is Called to Report for Duty, but Then
Receives a Call Canceling the Call to Report Before He or She Leaves
the Place of Rest, is a New Period of 10 Uninterrupted Hours Off
Duty Required?
4. What if the Call Is Cancelled Just One Minute Before Report-
for-Duty Time?
5. What if the Employee Was Told Before Going Off Duty To Report
at the End of Required Rest (Either 10 Hours or 48 or 72 Hours after
Working 6 or 7 Days), and Is Released From That Call Prior to the
Report-for-Duty Time?
6. Are Text Messages or E-Mail Permitted During the Rest Period?
7. May the Railroad Return an Employee's Call During the Rest
Period Without Violating the Prohibition on Communication?
8. May the Railroad Call To Alert an Employee to a Delay (Set
Back) or Displacement?
9. If the Railroad Violates the Requirement of Undisturbed Rest,
Is the Undisturbed Rest Period Restarted From the Beginning?
10. Should any Violation of Undisturbed Rest Be Documented by an
Electronic Record?
11. Is the Additional Rest Required When On-Duty Time Plus Limbo
Time Exceeds 12 Hours (During Which Communication With an Employee
Is Prohibited) To Be Measured Only in Whole Hours, So That the
Additional Rest Requirement Is Not a Factor Until the Total Reaches
13 Hours?
B. Questions Related to the Requirements Applicable To Train
Employees for 48 or 72 Hours Off at the Home Terminal
1. Is a ``Day'' a Calendar Day or a 24-Hour Period for the
Purposes of This Provision?
2. If an Employee Is Called for Duty but Does Not Work, Has the
Employee Initiated an On-Duty Period? Is There a Call and Release?
What if the Employee Has Reported?
3. Does Deadheading From a Duty Assignment to the Home Terminal
for Final Release on the 6th Or 7th Day Count as a Day that Triggers
the 48-Hour or 72-Hour Rest Period Requirement?
4. Does Attendance at a Mandatory Rules Class or Other Mandatory
Activity That is Not Covered Service but is Non-Covered Service,
Count as Initiating an On-Duty Period on a Day?
5. If an Employee Is Marked Up on an Extra Board for 6 Days but
Only Works 2 Days Out of the 6, Is the 48-Hour Rest Requirement
Triggered?
6. If an Employee Initiates an On-Duty Period on 6 Consecutive
Days, Ending at an Away-from-Home Terminal and Then Has 28 Hours Off
at an Away-From-Home Terminal, May the Employee Work Back to the
Home Terminal? The Statute Says That After Initiating an On-Duty
Period On 6 Consecutive Days the Employee May Work Back to the Home
Terminal on the 7th Day and Then Must Get 72 Hours Off, but What if
the Employee Had a Day Off at the Away-from-Home Terminal after the
6th Day?
7. May an Employee Who Works 6 Consecutive Days Vacation Relief
at a ``Temporary Home Terminal'' Work Back to the Regular Home
Terminal on the 7th Day?
8. Employees Are Not Allowed To Perform ``Any Service for Any
Railroad Carrier'' During these Required 48-Hour or 72-Hour Rest
Periods. This Language Is Not Applied to Rest Periods elsewhere in
the Statute. Does this Mean That if an Employee Is Employed by More
than One Railroad, then Employing Railroad A Must Aggregate the Time
the Employee Spends Working for Any Other Railroad With the Time the
Employee Works for Railroad A?
C. Questions Related to the 276-Hour Monthly Maximum for Train
Employees of Time on Duty, Waiting for or Being in Transportation to
Final Release, and in Other Mandatory Service for the Carrier
1. If an Employee Reaches or Exceeds 276 Hours for the Calendar
Month During a Trip that Ends at the Employee's Away-from-Home
Terminal, May the Railroad Deadhead the Employee Home During That
Month?
2. How Will FRA Apply the 276-Hour Cap to Employees Who Only
Occasionally Perform Covered Service as a Train Employee, but Whose
Hours, When Combined With Their Regular Shifts in Non-Covered
Service, Would Exceed 276 Hours?
3. Does the 276-Hour Count Reset at Midnight on the First Day of
a New Month?
4. May an Employee Accept a Call To Report for Duty When He or
She Knows There Are Not Enough Hours Remaining in the Employee's
276-Hour Monthly Limitation to Complete the Assignment or the Duty
Tour, and It Is Not the Last Day of the Month, So the Entire Duty
Tour Will Be Counted Toward the Total for the Current Month?
5. What Activities Constitute ``Other Mandatory Service for the
Carrier,'' Which Counts Towards the 276-Hour Monthly Limitation?
6. Does Time Spent Documenting Transfer of Hazardous Materials
(Transportation Security Administration Requirement) Count against
the 276-Hour Monthly Maximum?
D. Other Interpretive Questions Related to Section 108 of the
RSIA of 2008
1. Do the 40-Hour and 30-Hour Monthly Maximum Limitations on
Time Awaiting and in Deadhead Transportation to Final Release Only
Apply to Time Awaiting and in Deadhead Transportation After 12
Consecutive Hours on Duty?
2. Did the RSIA of 2008 Affect Whether a Railroad May Obtain a
Waiver of the Provisions of the New Hours of Service Laws?
I. Background
On October 16, 2008, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA
of 2008) was enacted. See Public Law 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848.
Section 108, Hours-of- service reform, of the RSIA of 2008 made
important changes to 49 U.S.C. ch. 211, Hours of service, as amended
through October 15, 2008 (the old hours of service laws). See 122 Stat.
4860-4866. Some of these changes became effective immediately on the
date of enactment, and others became effective nine months later, on
July 16, 2009. In particular, under section 108(g) of the RSIA of 2008,
subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) of the section became effective on
the date of enactment of the RSIA of 2008, and subsections (a), (b),
and (c) of the section become effective nine months later, on July 16,
2009. Because of the significance of the amendments to the old hours of
service laws made by section 108 of the RSIA of 2008, FRA is publishing
this interim statement of agency policy and interpretation to address
questions of statutory interpretation that have arisen since their
enactment.
Currently, FRA is not addressing the amendments to the old hours of
service laws made by section 420 of the RSIA
[[Page 30667]]
of 2008, which changed 49 U.S.C. 21106, Limitations on employee
sleeping quarters, effective October 16, 2008. Nor is FRA presently
revising either appendix A of 49 CFR part 228, which contains FRA's
previously published interpretations of the old hours of service laws,
known until the 1994 recodification as the Hours of Service Act (see
Pub. L. 103-272), nor FRA's previously published interpretations
concerning the limitations on hours of service of individuals engaged
in installing, repairing or maintaining signal systems, an interim
statement of agency policy and interpretation at 42 FR 4464 (Jan. 25,
1977). FRA is also not interpreting its recently issued regulations
revising its hours of service recordkeeping requirements, published in
the Federal Register on May 27, 2009 (74 FR 25330).
FRA seeks comment on this interim statement and the proposed
interpretation and has sought informal input on many of the
interpretive issues addressed in this document through the agency's
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). On May 27, 2009, FRA
published a regulation, mandated by section 108(f) of the RSIA of 2008,
revising the hours of service recordkeeping requirements to support
compliance with the hours of service laws as amended by the RSIA of
2008 (the new hours of service laws); 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. 74 FR 25330, 25345 (May 27,
2009). FRA utilized the RSAC and an RSAC working group (Working Group)
in the development of this regulation, and while the task of the
Working Group was officially limited to developing the regulatory text
related to hours of service recordkeeping, FRA sought the input of the
members of the Working Group on the interpretive issues it was
considering. FRA also shared with the Working Group its preliminary
thoughts on some of the interpretive questions, and FRA's
interpretations have been made in consideration of the feedback from
the Working Group.
It is FRA's intention that the interpretations provided in this
interim statement of agency policy and interpretation will go into
effect on July 16, 2009, the effective date of some of the most
important substantive changes to the old hours of service laws
resulting from the RSIA of 2008. FRA will consider comments received in
response to these interim interpretations of the new hours of service
laws, and may modify these interpretations based on comments or if
experience with the new statutory requirements indicates that a change
in interpretation is needed.
However, FRA is specifically seeking comment with regard to one
issue to be discussed in this document related to the limitation on
hours of both train employees and signal employees, specifically, the
beginning of the 24-hour period in which the maximum allowed time on
duty and minimum required time off duty are calculated. As will be
explained below, FRA proposes to interpret the 24-hour period within
which an employee must have had the minimum statutory off-duty period
as lying within the 24-hour period during which not more than 12 hours
of covered and commingled service may accrue. FRA believes that this
new approach, which may be described as ``continuous lookback,''
conforms to the plain meaning of the law, which by its terms prohibits
an employee from going or remaining on duty unless the employee has
received 10 hours of rest in the prior 24 hours. This would be a
significant change from FRA's previously published interpretation.
While FRA believes its proposed interpretation is consistent with the
statutory language, it is seeking comment as to the effect that this
proposed change of interpretation would have on the industry, and, if
adopted by FRA, this change in interpretation would not go into effect
until FRA has had the opportunity to consider any comments received.
II. Changes in the Old Hours of Service Laws Made by Section 108 of the
RSIA of 2008
A. Extending Hours of Service Protections to Employees of Contractors
and Subcontractors to Railroads Who Perform Certain Signal-Related
Functions
Effective July 16, 2009, section 108(a) of the RSIA of 2008
(Section 108(a)) amends the definition of ``signal employee'', to
eliminate the words ``employed by a railroad carrier''. To be codified
at 49 U.S.C. 21101(4). With this amendment, employees of contractors or
subcontractors to a railroad who are engaged in installing, repairing,
or maintaining signal systems (the functions within the definition of
signal employee in the old hours of service laws) will be covered by
the new hours of service laws, because a signal employee under the new
hours of service laws is no longer by definition only a railroad
employee.
It should be noted that an employee of a contractor or
subcontractor to a railroad who is ``engaged in or connected with the
movement of a train'' was considered a ``train employee'' under the old
hours of service laws and continues to be considered a train employee
under the new hours of service laws. 49 U.S.C. 21101(5). Likewise, an
employee of a contractor or subcontractor to a railroad who ``by the
use of an electrical or mechanical device dispatches, reports,
transmits, receives, or delivers orders related to or affecting train
movements'' was considered a ``dispatching service employee'' under the
old hours of service laws and continues to be considered a
``dispatching service employee'' under the new hours of service laws.
49 U.S.C. 21101(2).
B. Changing Hours of Service Requirements Related to Train Employees
Section 108(b) of the RSIA of 2008 (Section 108(b)) amends the old
hours of service requirements for train employees in many ways, all of
which amendments are effective July 16, 2009, except with respect to
train employees providing commuter or intercity passenger rail service,
whom section 108(d) of the RSIA of 2008 makes subject initially to the
old hours of service laws and then to regulations if issued timely and,
if not, to the new hours of service laws. To be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21103 and 21102, respectively. (See further discussion of the exception
in this II.B, below.) Section 108(b) 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. To be codified at
49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(1). 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. To be
codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(2), (3).
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
[[Page 30668]]
which time the employee is unavailable for any service for any
railroad. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4).
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 new hours of service laws. To be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(4).
Section 108(b) also provides that the Secretary may waive the
requirements of 48 and 72 consecutive hours off duty if the procedures
of 49 U.S.C. 20103 are followed, if a collective bargaining agreement
provides a different arrangement that the Secretary determines is in
the public interest and consistent with safety. Id.
Section 108(b) also significantly changes the old 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. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(1). In
particular, 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 from the July 16, 2009
effective date of the provision through October 15, 2009,\1\ with that
number decreasing to 30 hours per employee per month beginning October
16, 2009, except in certain situations. These monthly limits do not
apply if the train carrying the employee is directly delayed by
casualty, accident, act of God, derailment, major equipment failure
that keeps the train from moving forward, or other delay from
unforeseeable cause. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(2). Railroads
are required to report to the Secretary all instances in which these
limitations are exceeded. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(3). 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. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The language of Section 108(b) must be read in conjunction
with the language of Section 108(g), which provides that Section
108(b) becomes effective on July 16, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. To be
codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(e). 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. Id.
However, as was alluded to earlier, section 108(d) of the RSIA of
2008 (Section 108(d)), which became effective on October 16, 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. 49 U.S.C. 21102(c). Section 108(d)
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. 49 U.S.C.
21109(b). Section 108(d) further provides that these train employees
who provide commuter or intercity passenger rail service will continue
to be governed by the old hours of service laws (as they existed
immediately prior to the enactment of the RSIA of 2008) until the
effective date of regulations promulgated by the Secretary. 49 U.S.C.
21102(c). 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. Id.
C. Changing Hours of Service Requirements Related to Signal Employees
Section 108(c) of the RSIA of 2008 (Section 108(c)) amends the
hours of service requirements for signal employees in a number of ways,
effective July 16, 2009. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21104. As was
noted above, by amending the definition of ``signal employee,'' Section
108(a) extends the reach of the substantive requirements of Section
108(c) to a contractor or subcontractor to a railroad carrier and its
officers and agents. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21101(4). 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 hours consecutive hours
during the prior 24-hour period. To be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21104(a)(1), (2). Further, Section 108(c) deletes the prohibition in
the old hours of service laws at 49 U.S.C. 21104(a)(2)(C) against
requiring or allowing a signal employee to remain or go on duty ``after
that employee has been on duty a total of 12 hours during a 24-hour
period, or after the end of that 24-hour period, whichever occurs
first, until that employee has had at least 8 consecutive hours off
duty.''
Section 108(c) also eliminates language in the old hours of service
laws stating that last hour of signal employee's return from final
trouble call is time off duty, and defines ``emergency situations'' in
which the new hours of service laws permits signal employees to work
additional hours not to include routine repairs, maintenance, or
inspection. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21104(b), (c).
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. To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21104(d).
Finally, Section 108(c) provides that the hours of service, duty
hours, and rest periods of signal employees are governed exclusively by
the new hours of service laws, and that signal employees operating
motor vehicles are not subject to other hours of service, duty hours,
or rest period rules besides FRA's. To be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21104(e).
The requirements of the old hours of service laws for dispatching
service employees (49 U.S.C. 21105) were not modified by the RSIA of
2008.
III. Proposed Change in Interpretation of Prohibition Against a Train
or Signal Employee Being on Duty Without Having Had a Minimum Number of
Hours Off Duty During the Prior 24 Hours; Proposed Interpretation of
That Prohibition in Context of New Prohibition Against Communication
With Train and Signal Employees; and Request for Comments
A. Questions Presented and Short Answers
1. Must the Full 10-Hour Period of Uninterrupted Rest Fall Wholly
Within the 24-Hour Period During Which Covered Service May Be
Performed?
Short Answer: No, if FRA applies to the new 10-hour statutory
provision the agency's longstanding interpretation of the old 8-hour
statutory provision, the 10-hour uninterrupted rest period would not
diminish the 24-hour period
[[Page 30669]]
during which covered service may be performed.
Yes, if FRA adopts its proposed interpretation of the new 10-hour
statutory provision, which would require that the full 10-hour
undisturbed off-duty period occupy 10 hours of the 24-hour period
during which covered service may be performed.
2. Is the 10-Hour Period of Undisturbed Rest for Train Employees and
Signal Employees Required To Be Provided Immediately After the Employee
Goes Off Duty--Meaning That if the Off-Duty Period Continues Beyond 10
Hours, the Railroad May Communicate With the Employee After the First
10 Hours Off Duty?
Short Answer: Yes, if FRA applies to the new 10-hour statutory
provision the agency's longstanding interpretation of the old 8-hour
statutory provision, then the 10-hour period of undisturbed rest may be
given immediately after the employee goes off duty, and the railroad
may communicate with the employee after the first 10 hours off duty.
Not necessarily, if FRA adopts its proposed interpretation of the
10-hour statutory provision, because for the railroad to maximize the
work window during which a train or signal employee may be on duty to a
14-hour period, the railroad must give notice of the employee's next
reporting time before the employee begins the 10-hour rest period.
B. The Old 8-Hour Rest Requirement and the Treatment of Calls To Report
for Duty
1. The Old Statutory Language Establishing the 8-Hour Rest Requirement
Section 21103(a)(1) of title 49, U.S.C., in effect through July 15,
2009, reads as follows: ``Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
section [pertaining to emergencies], a railroad carrier and its
officers and agents may not require or allow a train employee to remain
or go on duty * * * unless that employee has had at least 8 consecutive
hours off duty during the prior 24 hours.''
Section 21104(a)(2)(A) of title 49, U.S.C., in effect through July
15, 2009, provides the identical requirement for signal employees.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In addition, section 21104(a)(2)(C) of title 49, U.S.C.,
provides that a railroad carrier, its officers and agents may not
require or allow a signal employee to remain or go on duty ``after
that employee has been on duty a total of 12 hours during a 24-hour
period, or after the end of that 24-hour period, whichever occurs
first, until that employee has had at least 8 consecutive hours off
duty.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. FRA's Existing, Previously Published Interpretation of the 8-Hour
Requirement
The existing interpretation of the equivalent provision for train
employees in the Hours of Service Act \3\ reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 2(a) of the Hours of Service Act provided:
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier, its officers or
agents, subject to this Act--
``(1) To require or permit an employee, in case such employee
shall have been continuously on duty for fourteen hours, to continue
on duty or to go on duty until he has had at least ten consecutive
hours off duty, except that, effective upon the expiration of the
two-year period beginning on the effective date of this paragraph,
such fourteen-hour duty period shall be reduced to twelve hours; or
``(2) To require or permit an employee to continue on duty or to
go on duty when he has not had at least eight consecutive hours off
duty during the preceding twenty-four hours.
Limitations on Hours. The Act establishes two limitations on
hours of service. First, no employee engaged in train or engine
service may be required or permitted to work in excess of twelve
consecutive hours. After working a full twelve consecutive hours, an
employee must be given at least ten consecutive hours off duty
before being permitted to return to work.
Second, no employee engaged in train or engine service may be
required or permitted to continue on duty or go on duty unless he
has had at least eight consecutive hours off duty within the
preceding twenty-four hours. This latter limitation, when read in
conjunction with the requirements with respect to computation of
duty time (discussed below) results in several conclusions:
(1) When an employee's work tour is broken or interrupted by a
valid period of interim release (4 hours or more at a designated
terminal), he may return to duty for the balance of the total 12-
hour work tour during a 24-hour period.
(2) After completing the 12 hours of broken duty, or at the end
of the 24-hour period, whichever occurs first, the employee may not
be required or permitted to continue on duty or to go on duty until
he has had at least 8 consecutive hours off duty.
(3) The 24-hour period referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above
shall begin upon the commencement of a work tour by the employee
immediately after his having received a statutory off-duty period of
8 or 10 hours as appropriate.
[Emphasis supplied.]
FRA's existing interpretation of the language related to signal
employees reads as follows:
LIMITATIONS ON HOURS
No individual employed by a common carrier in installing,
repairing or maintaining signal systems may be required or permitted
to work in excess of twelve continuous hours, After working twelve
continuous hours, an individual must be given at least ten
consecutive hours off duty before being permitted to return to work.
No individual engaged in covered work may be required or
permitted to continue on duty or go on duty unless he has had ``at
least eight consecutive hours off duty within the preceding twenty-
four hours.'' The clear spirit and intent of the quoted language
lead to the conclusions that:
(1) When the time on duty is broken or interrupted by off-duty
periods of less than 8 consecutive hours, the individual may be on
duty up to a maximum of 12 hours during a 24 hour period, so long as
such individual has had a statutory off-duty period of at least 8 or
10 consecutive hours immediately prior to reporting for work.
(2) After completing the 12 hours of broken duty, or at the end
of, the 24 hour period, whichever occurs first, the employee may not
be required or permitted to continue on duty or to go on duty until
he has had at least 8 consecutive hours off duty.
(3) The 24-hour period referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above
shall begin when an employee reports for work immediately after his
having had a statutory off-duty period of 8 or 10 hours.
42 FR 4464, 4466 (Jan. 25, 1977).
3. Discussion of FRA's Current Interpretation of the 8-Hour Rest
Provision and Calls To Report to Duty
Under the old hours of service laws, and the current FRA
interpretations, as cited above, a 24-hour period begins when an
employee reports for duty. At the instant that the employee reports for
duty, FRA looks back at the 24-hour period before the employee reported
for duty to see that the employee had at least 8 consecutive hours off
(or 10 consecutive hours off if the employee worked 12 consecutive
hours) following the prior duty assignment. If so, then the employee
has a maximum of 12 hours to work in the next 24 hours, and must get 8
or 10 hours off either after working that 12 hours or at the end of the
24-hour period, whichever occurs first, before going on duty again.
After the employee receives a statutory off-duty period (i.e., at least
8 or consecutive 10 hours, whichever is applicable), when the employee
next reports for duty, a new 24-hour period begins for the purpose of
calculating time on duty, and the requirement of the statutory off-duty
period.
Therefore, an employee who works in broken service (e.g., 8 hours
on, then 4 hours off, then 4 hours on) just has to get the 8 or 10
hours off somewhere within the 24-hour period before the employee
begins the tour of duty. FRA has not required the 8 or 10 hours to be
any particular set of hours in the 24-hour period before commencing the
current duty tour. If the employee continues off duty after having
received at least the minimum statutory off-duty period, the railroad
may call the employee repeatedly before the
[[Page 30670]]
employee comes on duty. While these contacts would break the continuity
of the off-duty period, and might commingle with the next duty tour if
the employee does not receive a statutory off-duty period, the calls
themselves would not violate the law, once the minimum statutory off-
duty period is completed.
Further, a settled FRA interpretation adopted shortly after the
1969 amendments to the Hours of Service Act, with encouragement from
the industry parties, has permitted the railroad to address one call to
an employee during the rest period for the purpose of advising the
employee concerning the place and time that the employee is to appear
for the next assignment, without that call being considered an
interruption of the required 8- or 10-hour statutory release. (This
interpretation is emphatically extinguished for train employees in
freight service, beginning on July 16, as result of enactment of a
provision in Section 108(b) to be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(e). FRA
proposes to continue it in effect for train employees in passenger
service to maintain the status quo pending further rulemaking, as the
Congress intended in enacting, effective October 16, 2008, 49 U.S.C.
21102(c).)
The purpose and effect of FRA's interpretation regarding the issue
of 8 consecutive hours off duty within the prior 24 hours were to ease
planning by permitting railroads to look forward from the time that the
employee reported for work. The interpretation assumed that 8 or 10
hours of rest immediately preceded the time that the employee went on
duty, which was ordinarily the case (there having been a single call
for the assignment, which by interpretation did not interrupt the
period of rest). Where there were multiple calls outside the basic
period of rest, they were commingled with subsequent service, so in
fact the commencement of the duty tour immediately followed the
statutory rest.
As a practical matter, the prior interpretation had little effect
on hours worked, since as a practical matter only a highly unusual
pattern of broken service (e.g., 4 on, 6 off, 4 on, 6 off, 4 on) could
result in work occurring in defiance of the literal language of the
law, as the employee would have worked 12 hours in the 24-hour period
without ever having 8 hours off duty in the prior 24 hours. This seldom
if ever has occurred, and at no time since publication of
interpretations in appendix A to 49 CFR part 228 in 1977 has FRA had
occasion to question the wisdom of this approach.
C. The New 10-Hour Rest Provision and the Prohibition on Communication
During That Rest
1. Overview
Under the hours of service laws as amended by the RSIA of 2008, the
minimum statutory off-duty period for train employees and signal
employees, for purposes of what will be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 21104(a)(2) is 10 hours, regardless of how
many hours are worked and whether service is consecutive or broken, and
any interruption of a rest period before its desired duration has been
achieved (10 hours for full rest, 4 hours for a train employee's
interim release, etc.) restarts the clock for the minimum full rest
period because of the new prohibition to be codified at 49 U.S.C.
21103(e) and 21104(d).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Effective July 16, 2009, section 21103(e) of title 49 U.S.C.
will provide as follows:
``Communication During Time Off Duty.--During a train employee's
minimum off-duty period of 10 consecutive hours, as provided under
subsection (a) or during an interim period of at least 4 consecutive
hours available for rest under subsection (b)(7) or during
additional off-duty hours under subsection (c)(4), a railroad
carrier, and its officers and agents, shall not communicate with the
train employee by telephone, by pager, or in any other manner that
could reasonably be expected to disrupt the employee's rest. Nothing
in this subsection shall prohibit communication necessary to notify
an employee of an emergency situation, as defined by the Secretary.
The Secretary may waive the requirements of this paragraph for
commuter or intercity passenger railroads if the Secretary
determines that such a waiver will not reduce safety and is
necessary to maintain such railroads' efficient operations and on-
time performance of its trains.''
Effective July 16, 2009, section 21104(d) of title 49 U.S.C.
will provide as follows:
``Communication During Time Off Duty.--During a signal
employee's minimum off-duty period of 10 consecutive hours, as
provided under subsection (a), a railroad carrier or a contractor or
subcontractor to a railroad carrier, and its officers and agents,
shall not communicate with the signal employee by telephone, by
pager, or in any other manner that could reasonably be expected to
disrupt the employee's rest. Nothing in this subsection shall
prohibit communication necessary to notify an employee of an
emergency situation, as defined by the Secretary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Statutory Language of the New 10-Hour Rest Provision
Effective July 16, 2009, the RSIA of 2008 amends 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)
to provide, inter alia, that ``[e]xcept as provided in subsection (d)
of this section, a railroad carrier and its officers and agents may not
require or allow a train employee to * * * (3) remain or go on duty
unless that employee has had at least 10 consecutive hours off duty
during the prior 24 hours * * *'' The predecessor provision is 49
U.S.C. 21103(a)(1). The changes made to this predecessor provision are
fairly minor: redesignating subsection (c), regarding emergencies, as
subsection (d); transferring the phrase ``remain or go on duty'' in the
introductory text of the subsection (a) to the beginning of subsection
(a)(3); transferring all the language in subsection (a)(1) (``unless
that employee has had at least 8 consecutive hours off duty during the
prior 24 hours'') to subsection (a)(3); and then changing ``8'' to
``10'' in the minimum off-duty period.
Effective July 16, 2009, the RSIA of 2008 also amends 49 U.S.C.
21104(a) to provide that ``[e]xcept as provided in subsection (c) of
this section, a railroad carrier and its officers and agents may not
require or allow its signal employees to remain or go on duty and a
contractor or subcontractor to a railroad carrier and its officers and
agents may not require or allow its signal employees to remain or go on
duty * * * (2) unless that employee has had at least 10 consecutive
hours off duty during the prior 24 hours.'' For purposes of this
discussion, the changes are minor, the most salient of which are to
change ``8'' to ``10'' as the minimum off-duty period.
3. Discussion of Proposed Interpretation of New 10-Hour Rest Provision
FRA is concerned that, as applied to the revised laws, the
existing, ``fresh start'' interpretation conflicts with the plain
meaning of laws by excluding the 10-hour period from the ``prior 24
hours'' to which the revised statute refers. Although the ``fresh
start'' approach may have had some merit to simplify planning under the
old hours of service laws, it does not appear to track the purpose or
intent of the new, more stringent statute. Accordingly, FRA proposes to
enforce the plain meaning of the revised statute, i.e., no train
employee or signal employee may be required or permitted to go or
remain on duty unless that employee had received at least 10
consecutive hours of rest within any of the 24-hour periods prior to
any of the moments in question (i.e., any instant that the employee
goes or remains on duty during the duty tour), rather than the one 24-
hour period prior to the one moment that the employee commences the
duty tour.
This new approach, which may be described as ``continuous
lookback,'' conforms to the plain meaning of the law, which by its
terms prohibits an employee from going or remaining on duty unless the
employee has received 10 hours of rest in the prior 24 hours.\5\
[[Page 30671]]
It appears that this interpretation would also best address the acute
fatigue of employees working at different times of day and night, by
ensuring that their best opportunity for rest, free from interruptions
by the railroad, comes just prior to their going back on duty, so that
they are well rested when they go to work, and better able to remain
reasonably so throughout the duty tour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Indeed, FRA acknowledged this when issuing its current
interpretation, providing, ``A very literal reading of the statute
would require that the required 8-hour release period be within the
``preceding twenty-four hours'' described in section 2(a)(2) of the
statute * * * in every instance. That would mean that broken service
would have to be distributed within the remaining 16 hours in every
instance. (For instance, 4 hours on duty, 4 hours off duty--the
minimum permitted and 4 hours on duty.).'' 42 FR 27594, 27595 (May
31, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There would be practical challenges associated with the continuous
lookback approach, and the utilization of employees could be
constrained. First, it would be particularly important that crews be
scheduled precisely in order to obtain best use of their available
time, particularly for extended assignments (i.e., those approaching
the maximum 12 hours on duty, or exceeding 12 hours total time on duty
when on-duty time is combined with time spent waiting for deadhead
transportation or in deadhead transportation to the place of final
release). For typical over-the-road assignments, railroads might either
have to notify the employee of the time to report 10 or more hours
before the time the employee is wanted, so that the last 10 or more
hours would be uninterrupted,\6\ or else have to call immediately at
the conclusion of a known period of rest, providing notice of the next
assignment within a short time prior to its beginning. A typical
maximum pattern might be a ``2-hour'' call (i.e., a call from the
railroad notifying the employee to report for duty 2 hours later),
followed by an on-duty period of 12 consecutive hours. This approach
would effectively eliminate the possibility of 12 hours of broken
service, because the interim period of release would also occur within
the 24-hour period. (For example, with a 2-hour call, 8 hours of work,
and 4 hours off, any resumption of work would be barred because
following the aggregate period of 14 hours (2+8+4) any ``look back'' to
find a continuous 10-hour period of release within the prior 24 hours
would be futile.) By contrast, lesser periods of aggregate service
might be plausible (e.g., a call prior to the 10-hour rest period, 5
hours on duty, 4 hours off duty, 5 hours on duty, allowing a total of
10 hours of on-duty time before the 24-hour duty period would have to
end, because an instant later the prior 24-hour period would not
include a period of 10 consecutive hours off).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ More than 10 hours uninterrupted rest would be required for
a train employee if additional rest is required as a result of time
spent awaiting or in deadhead transportation after 12 hours on duty.
To be codified at 49 U.S.C. 21103(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly the means by which ``pool crews'' and ``extra board''
assignments are managed would need to be altered if the railroad wished
to get full use of the employee's allowed 12 hours. To accomplish this,
among the options available to the railroad would be to tell the
employee when to come back before the employee is released from the
previous duty tour, or to notify the employee when he or she is about
10 hours out from the next call. If the projected time is later set
back, the railroad would need to notify the employee of the setback up
to 10 hours before the new time that the employee would need to report,
because those next 10 hours would be the uninterrupted rest.
FRA has identified the following positive aspects of the proposed
interpretation:
Appears most faithful to the literal language of the
statute.
The legislative history of the RSIA of 2008 reiterates the
statutory language, which has not significantly changed, the literal
meaning of which FRA has always believed supports the proposed
interpretation.
Best ensures that meaningful rest closely precedes the
period of work, supporting the safety purpose of the laws.
Creates a strong incentive for employers to plan their
operations in such a way that employees can effectively plan their
rest.
Prevents periods of aggregate service potentially
extending for up to 24 hours without substantial rest.
FRA has identified the following negative aspects of the proposed
interpretation:
Departs from a settled interpretation, which could require
significant training and adjustment in expectations regarding the
operation of the law.
During periods of stress on rail operations, could limit
availability of employees and efficiency of operations.
To the extent that employers notify employees of
assignments precisely 10 hours prior to the time for reporting, the
rest period could be compromised by the requirement to accomplish
travel to the report-for-duty location within the 10 hours.
Might not produce uniformly positive outcomes in terms of
safety (e.g., to the extent that an employee is released from service
in the late evening hours, the best time for rest could be immediately,
rather than just before the onset of the duty tour).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This is a formal concern, but FRA is not persuaded that it
is a practical concern, as the employer will have little reason to
contact the employee until next assignment is approaching, and the
employee's circadian pattern will tend to support quality sleep
during the nighttime hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA requests comments on this proposed change in interpretation,
including the options for adapting to the interpretation if adopted,
the operational difficulties presented by the proposed interpretation,
and the circumstances most likely to present such difficulty. FRA asks
that those objecting to the proposed interpretation provide their views
as to the better interpretation that would satisfy the language and the
intent of the statute.
FRA wishes to note that, even under the present interpretation,
railroads would not be free to simply provide 10 interrupted hours of
rest and then repeatedly set back calls over a long period of time. The
current interpretation is that the beginning of the duty tour following
statutory rest starts the clock. Statutory rest will now clearly be
uninterrupted rest, and so even one call ``busting'' or ``setting
back'' an assignment will be commingled with the subsequent service
unless a new 10-hour period of rest ensues. Whichever interpretation is
finally adopted, railroads will need to do a better job of planning
crew utilization.
IV. FRA's Interim Policies and Interpretations of the Hours of Service
Laws as Amended by the RSIA of 2008
A. Other Questions Related to the Prohibition on Communication With
Train Employees and Signal Employees
These questions apply to sections 108(b)(3) and (c)(4) of the RSIA
of 2008, which amend sections 49 U.S.C. 21103 and 49 U.S.C. 21104
effective July 16, 2009, to provide that a railroad carrier or a
contractor or subcontractor to a railroad carrier, and its officers and
agents, are prohibited from communicating with a train employee or a
signal employee by telephone, pager, or in any other manner that could
reasonably be expected to disrupt the employee's rest. To be codified
at 49 U.S.C. 21103(e) and 21104(d). This prohibition applies during--
A train employee's or a signal employee's minimum off-duty
period of 10 consecutive hours;
A train employee's period of interim release of at least 4
hours that is available for rest; and
A train employee's required additional rest, in the amount
by which
[[Page 30672]]
the sum of on-duty and limbo time exceeds 12 hours.
The section does not prohibit communication necessary to notify an
employee of an emergency situation, and the provision may be waived as
to train employees of commuter or intercity passenger railroads if the
Secretary determines a waiver will not reduce safety and is necessary
to maintain such railroads' efficient operation and on-time
performance.
1. Does the Prohibition on Communication With Train Employees and
Signal Employees Apply to Every Statutory Off-Duty Period No Matter How
Long the Employee Worked?
Yes, except for the 48- or 72-hour rest requirement. This
prohibition on communication applies to every off-duty period of at
least 10 hours under 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(3) or 21104(a)(2) and to any
additional rest required for a train employee when the sum of on-duty
time and limbo time exceeds 12 hours. For train employees it also
applies to every lesser off-duty period that qualifies as an interim
release.
2. Is the Additional Rest for a Train Employee When On-Duty Time Plus
Limbo Time Exceeds 12 Hours Mandatory, or May the Employee Decline It?
The additional rest is mandatory and may not be declined. Alternate
proposed versions of the legislation gave the employee the option, but
the statute (i.e., the legislation as passed), makes the additional
rest mandatory.
3. If an Employee Is Called To Report for Duty, But Then Receives a
Call Canceling the Call To Report Before He or She Leaves the Place of
Rest, Is a New Period of 10 Uninterrupted Hours Off Duty Required?
If the employee has not left the place of rest, the employee has
not accrued on-duty time, and would still be off-duty, with the
exception that the time spent in the call could commingle with a future
duty tour. However, if FRA adopts the proposed interpretation discussed
in section III, above, the railroad's options might be more limited,
because the beginning of the uninterrupted rest of 10 hours would
continue to serve as the beginning of the 24-hour period within which
the employee may be utilized.
4. What If the Call Is Cancelled Just One Minute Before Report-for-Duty
Time?
The answer to this scenario is the same as the answer to the
preceding question.
5. What If the Employee Was Told Before Going Off Duty To Report at the
End of Required Rest (Either 10 Hours or 48 or 72 Hours After Working 6
or 7 Days), and Is Released From That Call Prior to the Report-for-Duty
Time?
The answer to this scenario is the same as the answer to the
preceding question.
6. Are Text Messages or E-Mail Permitted During the Rest Period?
The employee may not be required to receive any communication of
any sort, or to access information of any kind. However, FRA encourages
provision of information that can be accessed at the employee's option,
especially in the case of unscheduled or uncertain assignments, so that
the employee can plan rest. The alerts provided by most devices when an
e-mail or text message is received might reasonably be expected to
disturb an employee who may be trying to obtain rest. However, an
employee might be reluctant to turn the devices off, because that would
also prevent their receiving personal messages that they would want to
receive even during rest. One solution may be railroad-provided
communication devices that can be turned off, so that the employee will
not be disturbed, but can access the messages at other times, and will
not interfere with personal communication. However, there must be no
expectation of a response during the uninterrupted rest period.
7. May the Railroad Return an Employee's Call During the Rest Period
Without Violating the Prohibition on Communication?
Yes. If the employee initiated the contact, then the railroad's
receipt of the communication from the railroad is voluntary on the part
of the employee, and a railroad will not be penalized for responding to
an employee's request. However, the content of the communication must
be limited to the issue about which the employee called. A call from an
employee about one issue does not open the door to unlimited
communication on other matters that would otherwise be prohibited.
Railroads may also push data to an employee at a particular time of
day selected by the employee, or in a specific situations requested by
the employee, such as if an employee requested, for example, to receive
information when he or she is a certain number of crews out from being
called, provided that (1) the receipt of the information is voluntarily
chosen by the employee and is purely for the employee's convenience and
(2) the railroad does not require the employee to access this
information or respond to it within the period of required
uninterrupted rest.
8. May the Railroad Call To Alert an Employee to a Delay (Set Back) or
Displacement?
No. The railroad may not call the employee for these purposes
during the employee's 10 hours of uninterrupted rest, without violating
the prohibition on communicating with the employees. However, the
railroad may make the information available by some means by which the
employee may voluntarily access it, or would have it available at the
conclusion of the uninterrupted rest. The ideal situation would be that
if the setback provides sufficient time before the employee would now
need to report for duty, the railroad would make the call, and then
provide 10 hours of uninterrupted rest before the employee is to report
for duty at the new time.
9. If the Railroad Violates the Requirement of Undisturbed Rest, Is the
Undisturbed Rest Period Restarted From the Beginning?
Yes.
10. Should Any Violation of Undisturbed Rest Be Documented by an
Electronic Record?
Yes. The communication and the time involved in it must be recorded
as an activity on the employee's hours of service record, as required
by 49 CFR 228.11(b)(9) for train employees and 49 CFR 228.11(e)(9) for
signal employees, which provisions become effective on July 16, 2009.
For those railroads not participating in electronic recordkeeping, this
activity must be captured on their paper records.
11. Is the Additional Rest Required When On-Duty Time Plus Limbo Time
Exceeds 12 Hours (During Which Communication With An Employee Is
Prohibited) To Be Measured Only in Whole Hours, So That the Additional
Rest Requirement Is Not a Factor Until the Total Reaches 13 Hours?
No. Section 108(b)(2) of the RSIA of 2008 requires that when the
employees total time on duty, awaiting deadhead transportation, and in
deadhead transportation exceeds 12 consecutive hours, the railroad
shall provide the employee with additional time off duty ``equal to the
number of hours by which such sum exceeds 12 hours.'' FRA believes that
it is consistent with the Congressional intent of this provision to
interpret a fraction of an hour as a ``number of hours.'' Therefore,
the
[[Page 30673]]
additional undisturbed time off that an employee must receive includes
any fraction of an hour that is in excess of 12 hours.
B. Questions Related to the Requirements Applicable to Train Employees
for 48 or 72 Hours Off at the Home Terminal
In particular, these questions involve the requirements that train
employees receive--
(1) 48 hours off at their home terminal after initiating an on-duty
period on 6 consecutive days,
(2) 72 hours off at their home terminal after initiating an on-duty
period on 7 consecutive days, and
(3) 72 hours off at their home terminal after initiating an on-duty
period on 6 consecutive days, completing their on-duty time at other
than the home terminal, and then working the 7th consecutive day.
Section 108(b)(1) and (g) of the RSIA of 2008, amend 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(4) effective on July 16, 2009, to provide that--
In general, a railroad carrier and its officers and agents
may not require or allow a train employee to remain or go on duty after
the employee has initiated an on-duty period each day for 6 consecutive
days unless the employee has had at least 48 consecutive hours (48
hours) off duty at the employee's home terminal during which the
employee is unavailable for service for any railroad carrier.
However, an employee may work a seventh consecutive day if
the employee ends the sixth consecutive day at a location other than
the employee's home terminal. After that, the employee must be given 72
consecutive hours (72 hours) off duty at the home terminal.
An employee may also work 7 consecutive days if a
collective bargaining agreement or pilot project allows such a
schedule.
If an employee initiates an on-duty period each day for 7
consecutive days, the employee must receive 72 hours off duty at the
employee's home terminal, during which the employee is unavailable for
service for any railroad carrier.
FRA may waive both the 6-consecutive-day and 7-consecutive-day
provisions if a collective bargaining agreement provides for a
different arrangement and that arrangement is in the public interest
and consistent with railroad safety.
1. Is a ``Day'' a Calendar Day or a 24-Hour Period for the Purposes of
This Provision?
Although arguments could be made for either interpretation of this
language, FRA interprets this provision as related to initiating an on-
duty period on 6 or 7 consecutive calendar days. This interpretation
should promote administrative simplicity, and is consistent with what
has seemed to be the understanding of the industry.
2. If an Employee is Called for Duty But Does Not Work, Has the
Employee Initiated an On-Duty Period? Is There a Call and Release? What
if the Employee Has Reported?
If an employee is called to report for duty at a particular time,
but is notified of his or her release from that call prior to the time
the employee is scheduled to report for duty, then the employee has not
accrued any time on duty, and has the full time remaining to work
without having to receive another statutory off-duty period. The
employee has not initiated an on-duty period. This is true whether or
not the employee has yet arrived at the location at which he or she was
to report for duty, so long as the employee is notified of the release
prior to the time he or she was to report.
However, if the employee reports for duty at the time that he or
she is scheduled to report, and then is released at a time after that,
the period from the report time until the release time is time on duty,
by which amount of time the time remaining for that employee to work
before a statutory off-duty period is required must be reduced, and the
employee has initiated an on-duty period for the purpose of the 6- or
7-day limitation.
3. Does Deadheading From a Duty Assignment to the Home Terminal for
Final Release on the 6th or 7th Day Count as a Day That Triggers the
48-Hour or 72-Hour Rest Period Requirement?
Scenario 1: An employee initiates an on-duty period for five
consecutive days. On the next day the employee deadheads from a duty
assignment to the place of final release that is the employee's home
terminal. Does the deadheading on the 6th day count as initiating an
on-duty period so that afterwards the employee is entitled to a minimum
of 48 hours off duty?
Analysis of Scenario 1
Deadheading from a duty assignment to a place of final release is
neither time on duty, nor time off duty. Therefore, such a deadhead
could not itself constitute initiating an additional on-duty period,
separate from the one from which the employee was deadheaded.
Similarly, if the deadhead was unconnected to a duty tour, meaning
that the employee had received at least a statutory off-duty period
before being deadheaded back to the home terminal, the deadhead would
still be neither time on duty nor time off duty, and would not
constitute initiating an on-duty period.
Therefore, if an employee is deadheaded back to the home terminal
on the 6th day, the 48-hour rest requirement would not be triggered by
the deadhead transportation, because the employee would not have
initiated an on-duty period on 6 consecutive days.
However, if an employee is deadheaded to the home terminal and then
performs covered service without having received at least a statutory
off-duty period, then the deadhead would be a deadhead to duty, which
is time on duty under the statute, and would constitute