Railroad Workplace Safety; Roadway Worker Protection Miscellaneous Revisions (RRR), 50323-50370 [2012-20065]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50323-50370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20065]



[[Page 50323]]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 161

August 20, 2012

Part V





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Railroad Administration





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





49 CFR Part 214





Railroad Workplace Safety; Roadway Worker Protection Miscellaneous 
Revisions (RRR); Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 50324]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 214

[Docket No. FRA-2008-0086]
RIN 2130-AB89


Railroad Workplace Safety; Roadway Worker Protection 
Miscellaneous Revisions (RRR)

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend its regulations on railroad 
workplace safety to resolve interpretative issues that have arisen 
since the 1996 promulgation of the original Roadway Worker Protection 
(RWP) regulation. In particular, this NPRM proposes to define certain 
terms, establish new procedures for snow removal and cleaning on 
passenger station platforms, resolve miscellaneous interpretive issues, 
codify certain FRA Technical Bulletins, and requests comment on certain 
training requirements for roadway workers. FRA is also proposing to 
update three incorporations by reference of industry standards in 
existing sections of FRA's Bridge Worker Safety Standards.

DATES: (1) Written comments must be received by October 19, 2012. 
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent 
possible without incurring additional expense or delay.
    (2) FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a 
public hearing. However, if prior to September 19, 2012, FRA receives a 
specific request for a public hearing accompanied by a showing that the 
party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written 
statement, a hearing will be scheduled and FRA will publish a 
supplemental notice in the Federal Register to inform interested 
parties of the date, time, and location of any such hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number FRA-
2008-0086 by any one of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251;
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
     Electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket 
name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for 
this rulemaking (2130-AB89). Note that all comments received will be 
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act 
information related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 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: Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Track 
Division, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., RRS-15, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 
(telephone (202) 493-6236); or Joseph St. Peter, Trial Attorney, Office 
of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., RCC-10, Mail Stop 
10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone (202) 493-6047 or 202-493-6052).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
II. Rulemaking Authority and Background of the Existing RWP Rule
III. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Overview
IV. RWP RSAC Working Group and Proceedings in This Rulemaking to 
Date
V. Proceedings concerning On-Track Safety Procedures for Adjacent 
Tracks
VI. Inclusion and Exclusion of RSAC and Non-RSAC RWP Items
VII. Request for Comment on NTSB Recommendation R-08-06
VIII. Additional Items for Comment
    A. RWP and Blue Signal Protections in Shop Areas
    B. Frequency of Training and Qualification for Additional 
Roadway Worker Qualifications
    C. Physical Characteristics Qualification for Lone Workers and 
Watchmen/Lookouts
    D. Use of Tunnel Niches as a Place of Safety
    E. Highly Visible Protective Equipment for Roadway Workers on 
Station Platforms
    F. Splitting of Roadway Worker in Charge Qualifications
    G. Effective Date of Final Rule
IX. Executive Order 13563 Retrospective Review
X. Section-by-Section Analysis
XI. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563 and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Assessment
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism Implications
    E. Environmental Impact
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Energy Impact
    H. Trade Impact
    I. Privacy Act

I. Executive Summary

    In 2005, the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) accepted a 
task to review the existing RWP regulation at subpart C of part 214. 
The RSAC established the RWP Working Group (the ``Working Group'') to 
recommend consideration of specific actions to advance the on-track 
safety of railroad employees and contractors engaged in maintenance-of-
way activities throughout the general system of railroad 
transportation, including clarification of existing regulatory 
requirements.
    The Working Group reached consensus on 32 separate items, which the 
full RSAC recommended to FRA. FRA drafted this NPRM to address the RSAC 
consensus recommendations, the issue of electronic display of track 
authorities, several other items on which the Working Group was unable 
to reach consensus, and miscellaneous other revisions. FRA is also 
proposing to update certain incorporations by reference of personal 
protective equipment standards in FRA's Bridge Worker Safety Standards 
at subpart B of part 214 by cross referencing the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration's (OSHA) regulations on the same point.
    Noteworthy consensus recommendations that FRA is addressing in this 
NPRM include: a job briefing requirement regarding the accessibility of 
the roadway worker in charge; the adoption of procedures for how 
roadway workers walk across railroad track; a new allowance for 
railroad's conducting snow removal and weed spraying operations; a 
clarification of the existing ``foul time'' provision; a new ``verbal 
protection'' provision; three new permissible methods of

[[Page 50325]]

establishing working limits on non-controlled track; the expanded use 
of individual train detection at controlled points; an amended 
provision governing audible warnings by trains for roadway workers; 
and, a request for further comment on certain training requirements for 
roadway workers.
    As mentioned above, FRA is also addressing other items on which the 
Working Group was unable to reach consensus and certain miscellaneous 
other revisions. Noteworthy among these items are: A new provision 
regarding the removal of objects from railroad track when train 
approach warning is used as the method of on-track safety; the 
electronic display of working limits authorities; amendments to the 
existing provision governing the qualification of roadway workers in 
charge; a new section addressing passenger station platform snow 
removal; a new provision governing the use of ``occupancy behind'' or 
``conditional'' working limit authorities; the phase-out of the use of 
definite train location and informational train line-ups, potential 
amendments to the existing roadway worker protection and blue signal 
protection requirements for work performed within shop areas, and, the 
use of other railroad track as a place of safety when train approach 
warning is used as the method of on-track safety; and, a request for 
further comment on the use of certain tunnel niches as a place of 
safety for roadway workers.
    FRA has estimated the costs of this proposed rule, evaluated over a 
20-year period and using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. For the 20-
year period analyzed, the estimated quantified cost that would be 
imposed on industry totals $5,840,921 with a present value of 
$3,103,980 (PV, 7 percent) and $4,350,537 (PV, 3 percent). FRA also 
estimates that for the 20-year period analyzed, the estimated 
quantified benefits total $119,507,405 with a present value of 
$63,310,902 (PV, 7 percent) and $88,902,763 (PV, 3 percent). This 
analysis demonstrates that the benefits for this proposed rule would 
exceed the costs.

                                 Table--Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Year 1           2-20        Total 20 year       7% PV           3% PV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    214.315 Job Briefings.......        $143,055        $143,055      $2,861,100      $1,515,527      $2,128.297
    214.339 Audible Warning from          24,796               0          24,796          23,174          24,074
     Trains.....................
    214.345 Training on Safe              72,250          72,250       1,445,000         765,418       1,074,898
     Crossing of Track..........
    214.347 Training on Access            10,838          10,838         216,750         114,813         161,235
     to Manual..................
    214.352 Training Platform             22,759          22,759         455,175         241,107         338,593
     Work Coordinate............
    214.353 Training RWIC.......          41,905          41,905         838,100         443,942         623,441
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................         315,602         290,806       5,940,921       3,103,980       4,350,537
 Benefits:
    214.307 Plans No Longer               19,553             426          27,653          22,392          24,912
     Reviewed...................
    214.317 Track Snow Removal..         292,613         292,613       5,852,250       3,099,941       4,353,335
    214.324 Use of Verbal              5,386,021       5,386,021     107,720,415      57,059,581      80,150,388
     Protection.................
    214.327 Inaccessible Track..         204,016         204,016       4,080,319       2,161,348       3,035,242
    214.337 ITD.................           4,335           4,335          86,700          45,925          64,494
    214.338 Platform Snow                 87,003          87,003       1,740,069         921,716       1,294,392
     Removal....................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................       5,993,541       5,974,414     119,507,405      63,310,902      88,902,764
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NET BENEFITS............       5,677,938       5,683,608     113,666,484      60,206,922     84,552,226
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dollars are discounted over a 20-year period.

II. Rulemaking Authority and Background of the Existing RWP Rule

    The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 
20103, provides that, ``[t]he Secretary of Transportation, as 
necessary, shall prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area 
of railroad safety supplementing laws and regulations in effect on 
October 16, 1970''. The Secretary's responsibility under this provision 
and the balance of the railroad safety laws have been delegated to the 
Federal Railroad Administrator. 49 CFR 1.49(m). In the field of 
railroad workplace safety, FRA has traditionally pursued a very 
conservative course of regulation, relying upon the industry to 
implement suitable railroad safety rules and mandating in the broadest 
of ways that employees be ``instructed'' in the requirements of those 
rules and that railroads create and administer programs of operational 
tests and inspections to verify rules compliance. This approach is 
based on several factors, including recognition of the strong interest 
of railroads in avoiding costly accidents and personal injuries, the 
limited resources available to FRA to directly enforce railroad safety 
rules, and the apparent success of management and employees in 
accomplishing most work in a safe manner.
    Over the years, however, it became necessary to codify certain 
requirements, either to remedy perceived shortcomings in the railroads' 
rules to emphasize the importance of compliance, or to provide FRA a 
more direct means of promoting compliance. These actions, which in many 
cases were preceded or followed by statutory mandates, included 
adoption of rules governing:
     Bridge Worker Safety Standards (49 CFR part 214 subpart 
B);
     Roadway Worker Protection (49 CFR part 214 subpart C); and
     On-Track Roadway Maintenance Machines and Hi-Rail Vehicles 
(49 CFR part 214 subpart D).
    In 1990, FRA received a petition to amend its track safety 
standards from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division 
(BMWED), which included issues pertaining to the hazards faced by 
roadway workers. Subsequently, in response to the Rail Safety 
Enforcement and Review Act, Public Law 102-365, 106 Stat. 972, enacted 
September 3, 1992. FRA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM) on November 16, 1992, announcing the opening of a proceeding to 
amend the Federal Track Safety Standards to, in part, address hazards 
faced by roadway workers. 57 FR 54038.

[[Page 50326]]

    FRA held workshops to solicit the views of the railroad industry 
and representatives of railroad employees on the need for substantive 
change in the track regulations. The subject of injury and death to 
roadway workers was of such great concern that FRA received petitions 
for emergency orders and requests for rulemaking from both the BMWED 
and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS). Finding that no 
imminent hazards existed that would justify issuance of emergency 
orders at the time, FRA did not issue any emergency orders in response 
to those petitions, but instead initiated a separate proceeding to 
consider regulations to eliminate hazards faced by roadway workers.
    On August 17, 1994, FRA published its notice of intent to establish 
a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) for regulatory negotiation. 59 FR 
42200. The FAC was tasked with submitting a report, including proposed 
regulatory language, containing the FAC's consensus recommendations. On 
December 27, 1994, the Office of Management and Budget approved the 
Charter to establish a Roadway Worker Safety Advisory Committee 
(Advisory Committee) comprised of twenty-five members. The Advisory 
Committee held seven multiple-day negotiating sessions. An independent 
task force, comprised of representatives of several railroads and labor 
organizations, had met during the preceding year and independently 
analyzed on-track safety practices. This task force presented 
information at the first Advisory Committee meeting. The Advisory 
Committee reached consensus on eleven specific recommendations and nine 
general recommendations. These recommendations served as the basis for 
FRA's first RWP NPRM, which was published on March 14, 1996. 61 FR 
10528. FRA published a final rule establishing the original RWP 
regulation on December 16, 1996, which became effective on January 15, 
1997 (61 FR 65959). The final rule largely incorporated the Advisory 
Committee's recommendations.

III. RSAC Overview

    In March 1996, FRA established the RSAC, which provides a forum for 
collaborative rulemaking and program development. The RSAC includes 
representatives from all of the railroad industry's major stakeholder 
groups, including railroads, labor organizations, suppliers and 
manufacturers, and other interested parties. A list of RSAC members 
follows:
     American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners 
(AARPCO);
     American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials (AASHTO);
     American Chemistry Council;
     American Petroleum Institute;
     American Public Transportation Association (APTA);
     American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 
(ASLRRA);
     American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA);
     Association of American Railroads (AAR);
     Association of Railway Museums (ARM);
     Association of State Rail Safety Managers (ASRSM);
     Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET);
     Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division 
(BMWED);
     Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
     The Chlorine Institute, Inc.;
     Federal Transit Administration (FTA);*
     The Fertilizer Institute;
     High Speed Ground Transportation Association (HSGTA);
     Institute of Makers of Explosives;
     International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
Workers;
     International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);
     Labor Council for Latin American Advancement;*
     League of Railway Industry Women;*
     National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP);
     National Association of Railway Business Women;*
     National Conference of Firemen & Oilers;
     National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association 
(NRC);
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak);
     National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB);*
     Railway Supply Institute (RSI);
     Safe Travel America (STA);
     Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte;*
     Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA);
     Tourist Railway Association, Inc.;
     Transport Canada;*
     Transport Workers Union of America (TWU);
     Transportation Communications International Union/BRC 
(TCIU/BRC);
     Transportation Security Administration (TSA);* and
     United Transportation Union (UTU).
    *Indicates associate, non-voting membership.
    When appropriate, FRA assigns a task to the RSAC, and after 
consideration and debate, the RSAC may accept or reject the task. If 
the task is accepted, the RSAC establishes a working group that 
possesses the appropriate expertise and representation of interests to 
develop recommendations to FRA for action on the task. These 
recommendations are developed by consensus. A working group may 
establish one or more task forces to develop facts and options on a 
particular aspect of a given task. The individual task force then 
provides that information to the working group for consideration. If a 
working group comes to unanimous consensus on recommendations for 
action, the package is presented to the full RSAC for a vote. If the 
proposal is accepted by a simple majority of the RSAC, the proposal is 
formally recommended to FRA. FRA then determines what action to take on 
the recommendation. Because FRA staff plays an active role at the 
working group level in discussing the issues and options and in 
drafting the language of the consensus proposal, FRA is often favorably 
inclined toward the RSAC recommendation. However, FRA is in no way 
bound to follow the recommendation, and the agency exercises its 
independent judgment on whether the recommended rule achieves the 
agency's regulatory goal, is soundly supported, and is in accordance 
with policy and legal requirements. Often, FRA varies in some respects 
from the RSAC recommendation in developing the actual regulatory 
proposal or final rule. Any such variations are noted and explained in 
the rulemaking document issued by FRA. If the working group or the RSAC 
is unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for action, FRA may 
move ahead to resolve the issue through traditional rulemaking 
proceedings.

IV. RWP RSAC Working Group and Proceedings in This Rulemaking to Date

    As discussed above, on January 26, 2005, the RSAC formed the RWP 
Working Group to consider specific actions to advance the on-track 
safety of employees of covered railroads and their contractors who are 
engaged in maintenance-of-way activities throughout the general system 
of railroad transportation, including clarification of existing 
requirements. The assigned task was to review the existing RWP 
regulation, technical bulletins, and a safety advisory dealing with on-
track safety for roadway workers, and, as appropriate, consider 
enhancements to the existing rule which would further reduce the risk 
of serious injury or death to roadway workers. The Working Group was 
directed to report

[[Page 50327]]

specific actions identified as appropriate, including planned 
milestones for completion of projects and progress towards completion, 
to the full RSAC at each scheduled RSAC meeting.
    The Working Group was comprised of members from the following 
organizations:
     Amtrak;
     APTA;
     ASLRRA;
     ATDA;
     AAR, including members from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), 
Canadian National Railway Company (CN), Canadian Pacific Railway, 
Limited (CP), Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), CSX 
Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), The Kansas City Southern Railway Company 
(KCS), Norfolk Southern Corporation railroads (NS), and Union Pacific 
Railroad Company (UP);
     Belt Railroad of Chicago;
     BLET;
     BMWED;
     BRS;
     FRA;
     Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (IHB);
     Long Island Rail Road (LIRR);
     Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (Metro-North);
     Montana Rail Link;
     NRC;
     Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation 
(Metra);
     RailAmerica, Inc.;
     Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 
(SEPTA);
     UTU; and
     Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad (WNY&P).
    The Working Group held 12 multi-day meetings. The Working Group 
worked diligently and was able to reach consensus on 32 separate items. 
The Working Group attained consensus to recommend that part 214 \1\ be 
amended to: add two new definitions; revise an existing definition; 
and, incorporate three other existing definitions from 49 CFR part 236. 
The Working Group also came to consensus to add or amend various 
provisions in the following sections in subpart C of part 214:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to the CFR in this document reference Title 
49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec.  214.309--revision to address on-track safety manual 
for lone workers and changes to the manual.
     Sec.  214.315--requirement that information concerning 
adjacent tracks be included in on-track safety job briefings; 
accessibility of the roadway worker in charge.
     Sec.  214.317--new paragraph to formalize procedures for 
roadway workers to walk across tracks; new paragraph for on-track weed 
spray and snow blowing operations on non-controlled track.
     Sec.  214.321--new paragraph to address the use of work 
crew numbers.
     Sec.  214.323--clarification of foul time provision 
whereby roadway worker in charge or train dispatcher may not permit 
movements into such working limits.
     Sec.  214.324--new section called ``verbal protection'' 
for abbreviated working limits within manual interlocking and 
controlled points.
     Sec.  214.327--three new paragraphs to formalize the 
following instruments to make non-controlled track inaccessible: 
occupied locomotive as a point of inaccessibility; block register 
territory; and, the use of track bulletins to make track inaccessible 
within yard limits.
     Sec.  214.335--complete revision of paragraph (c) 
concerning on-track safety for tracks adjacent to occupied tracks. Key 
elements are the elimination of ``large-scale'' and the addition of a 
new requirement for on-track safety for tracks adjacent to occupied 
tracks for specific work activities (addressed in separate rulemaking 
proceeding as discussed further below).
     Sec.  214.337--allowance for the use of individual train 
detection at controlled points consisting only of signals and a new 
paragraph limiting equipment/materials that can only be moved by hand 
by a lone worker.
     Sec.  214.339--complete revision of this section 
concerning audible warning by trains to address operational 
considerations.
     Sec.  214.343--new paragraph to ensure contractors receive 
requisite training/and or qualification before engaged by a railroad.
     Sec.  214.345--lead-in phrase requiring all training to be 
consistent with initial or recurrent training, as specified in Sec.  
214.343(b).
     Sec. Sec.  214.347, .349, .351, .353, and .355--consistent 
requirements for various roadway worker qualifications and a maximum 
24-month time period between qualifications.
    On June 26, 2007, the full RSAC voted to accept the above 
recommendations presented by the Working Group. In addition to the 
above, the Working Group worked on a proposal for use of electronic 
display of authorities as a provision under exclusive track occupancy. 
The Working Group developed lead-in regulatory text and agreed to some 
conceptual items. When circulated back to the Working Group prior to 
the full RSAC vote, however, technical issues were raised that could 
not be resolved in the time available. Accordingly, in this NPRM, FRA 
is addressing the electronic display issue, and certain of the other 
issues that the Working Group was unable to reach consensus on. The 
other items that the Working Group was unable to reach consensus on 
were:
     Sec.  214.7--new term and definition for a ``remotely 
controlled hump yard facility.''
     Sec.  214.7--revision to the definition for the term 
``roadway worker.''
     Sec.  214.317--use of tunnel clearing bays.
     Sec.  214.321--track occupancy after passage of a train.
     Sec.  214.329--removal of objects from the track under 
train approach warning.
     Sec.  214.336--passenger station platform snow removal and 
cleaning.
     Sec.  214.337--consideration of allowance for the use of 
individual train detection at certain types of manual interlockings or 
controlled points.
     Sec.  214.353--qualification of employees other than 
roadway workers who directly provide for the on-track safety of a 
roadway work group.

V. Proceedings Concerning On-Track Safety Procedures for Adjacent 
Tracks

    As mentioned above, the Working Group was able to reach consensus 
on items that dealt specifically with the adjacent-track on-track 
safety issues. In light of roadway worker fatality trends involving 
adjacent track protections, and to expedite the lowering of the safety 
risk associated with roadway workers fouling adjacent tracks, FRA 
decided to undertake a rulemaking proceeding separately, and in advance 
of this NPRM, to specifically address adjacent-track safety issues 
contemplated by the Working Group. As such, FRA published an NPRM 
addressing adjacent-track on-track safety on July 17, 2008 (73 FR 
41214), but formally withdrew the NPRM on August 13, 2008 (73 FR 
47124). FRA then issued a revised NPRM, which was published on November 
25, 2009 (74 FR 61633), and a final rule was published on November 30, 
2011 (76 FR 74586). The provisions contained in that final rule are 
currently scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2013. Accordingly, 
as the adjacent track rulemaking was undertaken separately, the subpart 
C section numbering for the consensus items as agreed upon by the 
Working Group has changed slightly from that recommended. This NPRM 
will note any relevant numbering changes in the section-by-section 
analysis below. FRA acknowledges that it has received petitions for 
reconsideration of the adjacent track final rule. See Docket No. FRA-
2008-0059; available online at

[[Page 50328]]

www.regulations.gov. There is limited interaction between the 
provisions of this NPRM and those contained in the final rule in the 
adjacent track rulemaking. FRA will note any potential changes 
(specifically with regard to section numbering) in a final rule which 
result from any FRA response to petitions for reconsideration in the 
adjacent track rulemaking.

VI. Inclusion and Exclusion of RSAC and Non-RSAC RWP Items

    The section-by-section analysis below includes explanations of the 
proposed revisions to the RWP regulation, including certain consensus 
items recommended by the Working Group, certain of the non-consensus 
items listed above, and certain other miscellaneous items being 
proposed by FRA. FRA notes that the Working Group meetings discussed 
above took place between 2005 and 2007. In the interim, during FRA's 
efforts to publish the adjacent track rulemaking discussed above, there 
have been changes in the railroad industry. Notably, Congress' passage 
of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Division 
A, 122 Stat. 4848) (RSIA), has required significant new FRA regulatory 
efforts.
    These new efforts include FRA's recently published NPRM addressing 
minimum training standards and plans. Section 401 of RSIA (codified at 
49 U.S.C. 20162) mandates that FRA promulgate a regulation that sets 
minimum training standards for ``each class and craft of safety-related 
railroad employee.'' FRA has undertaken this mandated rulemaking via 
the RSAC process (Task No. 10-01, Training Standards Working Group). 
The training standards NPRM was published on February 7, 2012 (77 FR 
6412), and includes proposed minimum training standards for roadway 
workers as defined by existing Sec.  214.7
    As a result, although in 2007 the full RSAC recommended that FRA 
adopt the RWP Working Group's proposed consensus training requirements 
for roadway workers, FRA's training standards NPRM proposes to address 
training issues pertaining to roadway workers.\2\ As such, FRA is not 
proposing certain of the RWP Working Group's consensus training 
recommendations in this rulemaking (e.g., the proposed proficiency 
demonstration for additional roadway worker qualifications required 
every 24 months), but rather seeks comment below on whether to adopt 
the training and qualification frequencies prescribed by the minimum 
training standards NPRM, or those previously recommended by the RWP 
Working Group. FRA notes that it is not proposing to amend the existing 
mandatory annual roadway worker training requirements contained in 
subpart C of part 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These consensus recommendations were meant, in part, to 
eliminate confusion in the railroad industry regarding the 
requirements of the roadway worker protection training provisions 
and also to provide uniformity, particularly with regard to 
additional roadway worker qualifications (e.g., lone worker and 
roadway worker in charge qualifications, which currently only 
require ``periodic'' requalification with no specified interval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Working Group also came to consensus to add a new paragraph (e) 
to existing Sec.  214.343, which pertains to the training of roadway 
workers. That recommended paragraph would have required that each 
railroad require that contractor employees receive the requisite 
roadway worker training and qualification prior to performing any 
roadway worker duties. FRA is not including that consensus 
recommendation in this NPRM. Under the existing RWP regulation, 
contractor employees are already required to receive roadway worker 
training prior to performing roadway worker duties. See 49 CFR 214.5, 
214.7, 214.343 and 214.345; FRA Technical Bulletin G-05-19. Therefore, 
this recommended paragraph would not actually amend or enhance any 
existing training requirements, but could require additional costs to 
be incurred by railroads. Further, the training standards NPRM contains 
proposed requirements regarding coordination between contractors and 
railroads pertaining to the training of contractor employees at 
Sec. Sec.  243.1(b), 243.101(e)-(f), and 243.209. 77 FR 6453. These 
proposed requirements are actually more extensive than the ones 
recommended by the RWP Working Group. For these reasons, FRA is not 
proposing this consensus recommendation.
    The RSAC also recommended that FRA adopt the Working Group 
consensus language for the definition of the term ``interlocking, 
automatic'', with that definition mirroring the existing definition of 
the same term found at 49 CFR 236.750. However, that term is not 
actually used anywhere in the existing text of part 214, nor is it used 
in any of the text proposed in this NPRM. The minutes to the Working 
Group meetings indicate that potentially this definition was 
recommended in an effort to help the regulated community differentiate 
between an automatic interlocking and a manual interlocking (within the 
limits of which individual train detection is not permitted via 
existing Sec.  214.337). Because the term is not used in the regulation 
as it exists currently or as proposed in this NPRM, FRA is not 
proposing to adopt the Working Group's recommended definition. The 
recommended consensus definition of ``interlocking, manual'', and the 
accompanying discussion in the section-by-section analysis, should 
enable differentiation of those terms. Further, FRA and the regulated 
community can always look to the existing definition of ``interlocking, 
automatic'' contained in part 236 for additional guidance, if 
necessary.
    There were several items addressed during the Working Group 
meetings for which no consensus was reached. For most of those items, 
FRA is proposing rule text in this NPRM and is requesting comment on 
those proposals. However, for certain of these non-consensus items, FRA 
is not proposing rule text. For example, the Working Group discussed 
various potential amendments to the definition of ``roadway worker'' 
found at 49 CFR 214.7. After consideration, FRA is not proposing an 
amendment to that definition. FRA believes the meaning of the existing 
definition is clear. One of the potential recommendations discussed by 
the Working Group was to specifically add the words ``who fouls a track 
in connection with'' to the first sentence of the existing definition. 
FRA, in contemplating such an addition, revisited the preamble to the 
1996 final rule promulgating the RWP regulation. In that preamble FRA 
explained that a proposal for a similar addition of language to the 
definition of the term ``roadway worker'' was unnecessary and would 
``severely limit the application of the rule due to the difficulty in 
determining when a worker becomes engaged in a task.'' (61 FR 65962). 
FRA maintains that same position today. The definition for the term 
``roadway worker'' describes employees who are covered by this 
regulation, and not when that coverage begins or ends. As is explained 
in FRA Technical Bulletin G-05-13, the existing provisions of Sec.  
214.313 already require that when a roadway worker fouls a track, 
including when performing preparatory activities to make such track 
inaccessible to establish working limits, that on-track safety is 
required. FRA disagrees that an amendment to the definition of the term 
``roadway worker'', as discussed during the Working Group meetings, 
would make the established RWP on-track safety requirements any more 
clear.
    The Working Group also discussed the potential addition of a 
definition to existing Sec.  214.7 for the term ``remotely controlled 
hump yard facility.'' That term is used in existing Sec.  
214.337(c)(3), which prohibits the use of individual

[[Page 50329]]

train detection inside the limits of a remotely controlled hump yard 
facility. There was agreement among the Working Group that a remotely 
controlled hump yard facility began at the crest of a hump. The segment 
of a hump yard from the crest, through the retarders, and to the end of 
classification tracks would clearly be within the limits of a remotely 
controlled hump yard facility. However, there was no consensus in the 
Working Group as to the limit of such a facility at the far pull-out 
end, in part due the myriad of physical layouts in existing hump yards. 
Unlike the voluminous number of manual interlockings and controlled 
points that exist (the other two locations in which the use of 
individual train detection is prohibited by Sec.  214.337), there are a 
limited number of remotely controlled hump yard facilities in the 
United States, and enforcement problems for FRA have not been 
noteworthy to date. Also, the varying physical layouts for these 
facilities would make it difficult to attempt to propose language 
defining the limits of the pull-out ends of such facilities which could 
reasonably apply to all existing layouts. Finally, if a lone worker is 
unsure whether the track he or she needs to foul is within the limits 
of a remotely controlled hump yard facility, or if there is any 
question regarding the safety of fouling any track, the existing 
individual train detection regulation already contains an absolute 
right for a lone worker to utilize an on-track safety procedure other 
than individual train detection.
    For these reasons, FRA is not proposing a definition for the term 
``remotely controlled hump yard facility'' in this NPRM. If a dispute 
regarding the limits of a remotely controlled hump yard facility 
arises, FRA will, on a case-by-case basis, provide assistance in 
identifying that facility's limits based on the particular physical 
layout of the facility.
    The Working Group also addressed the use of tunnel niches or 
clearing bays as a place of safety for roadway workers when such niches 
are outside the clearance envelope but, by design, may be less than 
four feet from the field side of the rail. The Working Group discussed 
this issue at length, but no consensus was reached. FRA is not 
proposing regulatory text regarding this issue in this NPRM. Instead, 
FRA is requesting further comment below on how to best address the use 
of such tunnel niches in a final rule.
    For the remaining non-consensus items listed in Section IV above, 
FRA is proposing regulatory text in this NPRM. FRA is also proposing 
other miscellaneous revisions to the existing RWP rule that were not 
addressed by the Working Group; some of which codify existing guidance 
and interpretations and some of which are intended to merely clean-up 
or clarify existing requirements. FRA's rationale for these proposed 
revisions is contained in the relevant section-by-section analysis 
below. Upon issuance of a final rule in this proceeding, FRA intends to 
supplant, as appropriate, technical bulletins concerning the existing 
RWP regulation.

VII. Request for Comment on NTSB Recommendation R-08-06

    On January 9, 2007, two Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 
(MBTA) maintenance-of way employees were killed in an accident that 
occurred near Woburn, Massachusetts. The incident occurred when a 
passenger train struck a roadway maintenance machine that was on the 
track. The NTSB found the probable cause of that accident was ``the 
failure of the train dispatcher to maintain blocking that provided 
signal protection for the track segment occupied by the maintenance-of-
way work crew, and the failure of the work crew to apply a shunting 
device that would have provided redundant signal protection for their 
track segment.'' (See NTSB Accident Report NTSB/RAR-0801, Collision of 
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Train 322 and Track 
Maintenance Equipment near Woburn, Massachusetts, January 9, 2007; 
available online at https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2008/RAR0801.pdf).
    The MBTA had a rule in effect at the time of the accident which 
required that roadway workers shunt track circuits in order to provide 
additional signal protections to prevent trains or other rolling 
equipment from entering working limits. The NTSB found that the roadway 
work group involved in the incident did not comply with that rule. The 
NTSB made several recommendations in response to that accident, 
including Recommendation R-08-06. That recommendation states FRA should 
``[r]equire redundant signal protection, such as shunting, for 
maintenance of way work crews who depend on the train dispatcher to 
provide signal protection.''
    This incident occurred near the end of the Working Group's work in 
2007, and the Working Group did not consider the use of shunting 
devices in conjunction with the applicable controlled track ``working 
limits'' requirements of the RWP regulation (exclusive track occupancy 
(Sec.  214.321), foul time (Sec.  214.323), or verbal protection (Sec.  
214.324)). While the mandatory use of shunts as an additional measure 
of safety when establishing working limits had not previously been 
considered, FRA wishes to analyze available options for redundant forms 
of working limits protection. FRA understands that shunting procedures 
can be disruptive to signal systems, and, in some circumstances, might 
not be permissible under FRA's signal system regulations at 49 CFR part 
236. However, if safe and cost-effective procedures can be implemented, 
FRA may add a provision in the final rule or proceed with an additional 
rulemaking in the future to require the use of redundant forms of 
protection. FRA specifically invites comment on this issue from the 
railroad industry and other interested parties, to include potential 
costs of implementing various redundant measures. The RWP regulation 
does not currently prescribe the use of every device or procedure that 
may be used by a railroad to supplement the establishment of working 
limits. However, FRA notes that roadway workers are already required by 
existing Sec.  214.313(a) to follow all on-track safety rules and 
procedures of a railroad, including those such as the MBTA redundant 
protection requirement discussed above, even if such rules are not 
enumerated in Federal regulation.

VIII. Additional Items for Comment

    FRA is requesting comment on several requirements or amendments for 
which regulatory text is not being proposed in this NPRM, but which FRA 
is considering adopting in a final rule in this proceeding. FRA 
specifically requests comment on these additional items, and also 
discusses some of them further in the section-by-section analysis 
below.

A. RWP and Blue Signal Protections in Shop Areas

    Under the existing roadway worker and blue signal protection 
requirements, any roadway workers performing work that involves fouling 
track within locomotive servicing track areas or car shop repair track 
areas (or performing work on structures within those areas that 
involves fouling a track) are required to utilize on-track safety 
procedures via the requirements of part 214. Any ``workers'', as 
defined by Sec.  218.5, performing work on, under, or between rolling 
equipment within such facilities are required to do so via the blue 
signal protection requirements of subpart B of part 218. Since the 
promulgation of the RWP regulation, there has been confusion in the 
railroad

[[Page 50330]]

industry over what protections are appropriate within such shop 
facilities for certain types of work activities (e.g., performing work 
on the overhead doors of a locomotive maintenance building when such 
work involves fouling a track). FRA issued Technical Bulletin G-08-03 
to help clarify the issue, and explained that whether or not employees 
are working in a shop area, it is always the type of work being 
performed that dictates which type of protection is required, roadway 
worker protection or blue signal protection. Technical Bulletin G-08-03 
also explained that FRA would not take exception to any work being 
performed that appeared to be more akin to roadway worker duties, but 
that was of an ``incidental'' nature to the larger job of mechanical 
personnel performing work on rolling equipment, e.g., sweeping a shop 
floor or changing a light bulb in an inspection pit.
    Railroads have argued that FRA should exempt certain maintenance of 
way work within shop areas from the on-track safety requirements of 
part 214, as the employees within the limits of the shop areas may 
perform such work safely while utilizing the blue signal protections 
that they have been trained on the requirements of and are familiar 
with. Railroads have also argued that training shop personnel on two 
different protection regimes is costly, and is also confusing for 
employees that actually have to apply those two different types of 
protection, and, thus, detrimental to safety.
    FRA is not proposing any specific rule text regarding this issue in 
this NPRM, but is contemplating amending the existing blue signal 
protection and/or roadway worker protection regulations in a final rule 
to make additional allowances for certain maintenance work performed 
within the limits of locomotive and car shops. FRA would only make such 
amendments if they provided for at least an equivalent level of 
employee safety to that which exists via the existing Federal 
regulations governing this issue. FRA is requesting comment on this 
issue, and specifically requests comment on how the issue of contractor 
employees would best be addressed, as contractor employees are subject 
to the requirements of part 214, but are not considered ``workers'' via 
existing part 218's blue signal protection requirements. As throughout 
the history of the blue signal regulation it has only governed work 
being performed on, under, or between rolling equipment, FRA also 
specifically requests comment on how an amendment to the existing 
regulations could best accommodate the protection of additional work 
activities within shop areas. Among other amendments, FRA anticipates 
existing Sec.  218.29(a)(7) would be required to be amended to require 
that workers clear any shop track on which a locomotive is to be 
repositioned on. If in a final rule FRA decides to forego making any 
amendments to the current roadway worker and blue signal protection 
regulations within shop areas, FRA may utilize the comments received on 
this issue in a future rulemaking proceeding.

B. Frequency of Qualification and Training for Additional Roadway 
Worker Qualifications

    The existing sections in part 214 that govern the training and 
qualification requirements for additional roadway worker qualifications 
(Sec. Sec.  214.347 (lone worker), 214.349 (watchman/lookout), 214.351 
(flagman), 214.353 (roadway worker in charge), and 214.255 (roadway 
maintenance machine operator)) do not expressly specify an interval for 
refresher training and qualification. Those existing sections currently 
only state that ``[i]nitial and periodic qualification of [additional 
roadway worker qualification] shall be evidenced by'' either 
demonstrated proficiency or a recorded examination, depending on 
section. The Working Group made the consensus recommendation that FRA 
propose regulatory text expressly requiring initial training and 
qualification before a roadway worker is assigned to perform duties 
involving that qualification, and also recommended requiring refresher 
training annually and qualification every 24-months. The requirement 
that initial training and qualification must be provided before 
assigning a roadway worker duties involving an additional qualification 
is required by the current regulation. The consensus recommendation 
would only more clearly state such if adopted in a final rule.
    With regard to the refresher training and qualification consensus 
recommendations, however, in the time period that has passed since the 
Working Group proposed consensus text for this section, RSIA 2008 
mandated that FRA undertake a rulemaking to set minimum training 
standards for ``each class and craft of safety-related employee,'' to 
include training standards for roadway workers. That rulemaking was 
undertaken by the RSAC and FRA recently published an NPRM proposing 
such minimum training standards. 77 FR 6412. The training standards 
NPRM contains an extensive proposal for refresher training and 
qualification requirements for roadway workers, and would require such 
refresher training and qualification every three years, to include for 
the additional roadway worker qualifications in part 214.
    As the consensus recommendation made by the RWP Working Group and 
those proposed by the minimum training standards rulemaking do not 
parallel one another with regard to frequency of refresher 
qualification and training, FRA is requesting comment on the best 
manner to proceed in setting refresher qualification and training 
intervals for the additional roadway worker qualifications in a final 
rule. FRA specifically requests comment on the costs and/or potential 
benefits of the two different approaches.
    FRA notes that the existing RWP regulation requires that each 
roadway worker be trained each calendar year on the items listed in 
Sec.  214.345, and on the on-track safety rules and procedures they are 
required to follow via Sec.  214.343. FRA is not proposing to amend 
those existing annual basic roadway worker training requirements. 
Rather, FRA is only seeking comment on the appropriate interval of 
refresher qualification and training requirements for additional 
roadway worker qualifications found in existing Sec. Sec.  214.347, 
214.349, 214.351, 214.353, and 214.255. FRA would also apply the 
interval adopted in a final rule to proposed Sec.  214.352.

C. Physical Characteristics Qualification for Lone Workers and 
Watchmen/Lookouts

    Existing Sec.  214.353 governs qualification and training for 
roadway workers in charge that provide for on-track safety, and 
paragraph (a)(4) of that section requires that such training include 
the ``relevant physical characteristics of the territory of the 
railroad upon which the roadway worker is qualified.'' However, such a 
qualification is absent from existing Sec.  214.347, which governs 
training for lone workers, and also from existing Sec.  214.349, which 
governs training for watchmen/lookouts. FRA is currently considering 
amending Sec. Sec.  214.347 and 214.349 to include a requirement for 
such training.
    Existing Sec.  214.349(a)(3) requires that watchmen/lookouts 
receive training and qualification on the ``[d]etermination of the 
distance along the track at which trains must be visible in order to 
provide the prescribed warning time.'' FRA believes that requiring 
qualification on the physical characteristics could potentially aid a 
watchman/lookout in making the safe distance determination to identify 
an appropriate location to give train

[[Page 50331]]

approach warning. Such a qualification could be important in areas 
where curves, the possible presence of trains on adjacent tracks, and 
other unique physical layouts or situations exist. In addition, lone 
workers often essentially act as roadway workers in charge when 
performing work on their own. FRA believes that a requirement to be 
qualified on the physical characteristics at a location where a lone 
worker fouls track to perform work could similarly improve safety. 
Qualification on the physical characteristics at a particular location 
could aid in a lone worker's ability to be able to safely detect 
approaching trains and similarly make the appropriate distance 
determination as required by existing Sec.  214.337(a). A discussion of 
the level of qualification required by a lone worker, to include 
qualification on physical characteristics, was undertaken in FRA 
Technical Bulletin G-05-03 (January 10, 2005).\3\ This proposed 
requirement, if adopted in a final rule, would codify the substance of 
that technical bulletin discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Effective January 10, 2005, RWP technical bulletins WPS-99-
01 through 99-09 were reissued and designated as technical bulletins 
G-05-02 through G-05-10. New RWP bulletins G-05-11 through G-05-30, 
most of which are discussed below, were also issued on that date. 
These technical bulletins are all available on FRA's internet site 
at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_1532.shtml. FRA plans, as 
appropriate, to supplant the majority of these technical bulletins 
based on changes made to the RWP regulation in any final rule in 
this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To clarify, FRA does not believe that a watchman/lookout or a lone 
worker would need to be versed in the physical characteristics of an 
entire territory in the same manner as a roadway worker in charge, and 
is aware of the challenges such a broad requirement could present to 
system-wide roadway work gangs on larger railroads. However, FRA seeks 
comment on its potential inclusion of a provision in a final rule that 
would require an abbreviated physical characteristics qualification at 
a particular location where train approach warning is to be given by a 
watchman/lookout, or at a particular location where a lone worker is to 
perform work. FRA is considering the inclusion of such a requirement in 
the final rule issued in this rulemaking. FRA also specifically 
requests comment on the potential costs that could be associated with 
this requirement, and the factual basis of any such costs.

D. Use of Tunnel Niches as a Place of Safety

    Some railroad tunnels have niches or clearing bays built into their 
sidewalls that permit roadway workers to occupy a place of safety while 
performing work in tunnels (typically inspection work). However, some 
of these niches that are outside the clearance envelope may, by design, 
be slightly less than four feet from the field side of the rail. 
Technically, the use of such niches as a place of safety would be a 
violation of the existing RWP regulation, as a roadway worker occupying 
such a niche could be ``fouling a track'' per the existing definition 
for that term in Sec.  214.7. The Working Group discussed this issue at 
length, but no consensus solution was reached. The Working Group did, 
however, decide against modifying the definition of ``fouling a track'' 
to accommodate such niches or bays. Working Group discussions indicated 
that such niches that were outside the clearance envelope but less than 
four feet from the field side of the rail existed on a small number of 
railroads, and were located primarily in the Eastern United States. 
Amtrak indicated that its tunnel niches have been used for 100 years, 
and are essential to protecting roadway workers in high traffic areas. 
The BMWED indicated during Working Group discussions that its 
membership largely did not utilize clearing bays, but rather primarily 
obtained working limits while fouling track within tunnels.
    FRA is not proposing specific text regarding this issue in the 
NPRM, but is contemplating whether to adopt regulatory text in a final 
rule that would permit the use of these structures as a place of safety 
by roadway workers, provided certain safety requirements are complied 
with. FRA requests further comment on this issue.
    FRA anticipates that if the use of such tunnel niches and clearing 
bays were permitted, that railroads would be required to designate in 
their on-track safety programs which niches or clearing bays could be 
used as places of safety. In making such designations, railroads would 
have to take into account the time it may take an individual to move 
into such niches or bays when departing a track upon the approach of a 
train (to ensure that a roadway worker could occupy a designated niche 
as a place of safety at least 15 seconds before a train would pass the 
location of the bay, in accordance with the existing requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  214.329(a) or 214.337(c)(4)). Requirements that such niches 
be free from any type of debris or supplies and also be of an adequate 
size to safely accommodate a roadway worker would also likely be 
necessary.

E. Highly Visible Protective Equipment for Roadway Workers on Station 
Platforms

    FRA is considering adding a requirement in a final rule in this 
proceeding to the proposed station platform snow removal and cleaning 
section (proposed Sec.  214.338) that would require roadway workers 
performing duties under the procedures proposed in that section to wear 
highly visible protective equipment (vest or other outer garment) which 
would meet a standard of the American National Standards Institute/
International Safety Equipment Association. The request for comment 
regarding this item is also discussed further in the section-by-section 
analysis below.

F. Splitting of Roadway Worker in Charge Qualifications

    FRA is considering adopting a requirement in a final rule in this 
proceeding that would only permit the splitting of roadway worker in 
charge qualifications to occur in situations where a conductor or other 
railroad employee serves as a pilot to a roadway worker in charge who 
is not qualified on the physical characteristics of a particular 
territory. FRA is considering such, as every roadway work group is 
already required to have a roadway worker in charge, and if the 
proposed amendment to paragraph (a) of existing Sec.  214.353 is 
adopted in a final rule in this proceeding, any employee acting as a 
roadway worker in charge would be required to be trained on the 
substantive requirements listed in Sec.  214.353. This issue is 
detailed further in the section-by-section analysis for Sec.  214.353 
below, and FRA specifically requests comment on this issue.

G. Effective Date of Final Rule

    FRA currently anticipates that the effective date of a final rule 
in this proceeding would be 180 days from the date of publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register. However, FRA is cognizant that 
depending on when a final rule is published, the training schedules of 
railroads may have to be taken into account when establishing the 
implementation schedule. FRA welcomes comment on an appropriate 
effective or applicability date for a final rule in this matter.

IX. Executive Order 13563 Retrospective Review

    In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13563, this 
NPRM proposes to modify the existing RWP requirements, in part, based 
on what has been learned from FRA's retrospective review of the 
existing regulation.

[[Page 50332]]

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to review existing regulations 
``* * * that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 
burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in 
accordance with what has been learned.'' \4\ As a result of its 
retrospective review, FRA is proposing to reduce burdens on the 
industry by no longer requiring that railroads submit their on-track 
safety programs to FRA for review and approval before such programs 
become effective and when any subsequent changes are made to such 
programs (Sec.  214.307). FRA is also proposing to delete several 
sections of the existing RWP regulation it believes to be outmoded or 
superfluous (Sec. Sec.  214.302, 214.305, 214.331 and 214.333), and has 
also proposed to allow for greater industry flexibility in several 
other sections (Sec. Sec.  214.317, 214.324, 214.327, 214.337 and 
213.338). FRA does not believe that these proposals will reduce safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exec. Order No. 13563, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011); available 
online at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Section-by-Section Analysis

    FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM. Proposed 
Amendments to 49 CFR part 214 (Part 214).

Section 214.7 Definitions

    FRA proposes to amend the existing definitions section for Part 214 
by both adding new definitions and amending existing definitions. FRA 
proposes to add new definitions for the following terms: controlled 
point; interlocking, manual; maximum authorized speed; on-track safety 
manual; roadway worker in charge; station platform work coordinator; 
and verbal protection. FRA also proposes to amend Part 214's existing 
definitions for the terms effective securing device and watchman/
lookout.
    The proposed definition of the term ``controlled point'' was a 
consensus recommendation agreed to by the Working Group. This new 
definition is being proposed because existing Sec.  214.337 prohibits 
the use of individual train detection by a lone worker inside the 
limits of a ``controlled point.'' See Sec.  214.337(c)(3). However, 
that term is not defined in the existing RWP regulation and over the 
years interpretive issues have arisen. In response, FRA issued 
Technical Bulletin G-05-29. The Working Group discussed this topic, and 
decided to recommend the incorporation of the existing definition for 
the same term found in FRA's signal and train control regulations 
(Sec.  236.782), along with the definition of ``interlocking, manual'' 
(the definition for the term automatic interlocking was also adopted as 
consensus language by the Working Group, but as explained above, is not 
being proposed by FRA in this NPRM). If definitions for the terms 
``controlled point'' and ``interlocking, manual'' are adopted in a 
final rule, those definitions will supplant FRA Technical Bulletins G-
05-29 and G-05-11, as discussed further below.
    FRA is proposing to amend the definition for existing term 
``effective securing device'' as recommended by the Working Group. The 
term ``effective securing device'' is intended to describe an 
appurtenance preventing the operation of mechanisms that make non-
controlled track inaccessible. Since promulgation of the original RWP 
regulation, a number of interpretive questions have arisen about this 
definition. In response, FRA issued Technical Bulletin G-05-20 to 
provide clarity. This new proposed definition incorporates the contents 
of that technical bulletin in order to clarify what constitutes an 
``effective securing device.''
    The proposed amendment would require that locks used to lock 
switches or derails for the purpose of providing on-track safety for 
roadway workers must be keyed to allow for removal by only the roadway 
workers for whom protection is being provided. In the absence of a 
lock, the definition would allow a spike to be driven into a switch tie 
to secure a switch, so long as the spike cannot be removed without the 
use of railroad track tools. Clamps and metal wedges (solidly driven on 
a derail securing it to the rail) without a lock would also be 
acceptable if they cannot be removed wi