[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71183-71188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23303]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Docket No. FRA-2005-22796]
FRA Emergency Order No. 24, Notice No. 2; Emergency Order No. 24:
Hand-Operated Main Track Switches; Amendment
SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT) issues this notice to amend
Emergency Order No. 24 (EO 24) in response to informal comments
received from railroads and labor organizations. This amendment
provides additional guidance, clarifying amendments and expanded relief
from the EO.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas H. Taylor, Staff Director,
Operating Practices Division, Office of Safety Assurance and
Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., RRS-11, Mail Stop 25,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6255); or Alan H. Nagler,
Senior Trail Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont
Avenue, NW., RCC-11, Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-
493-6038).
Background
EO 24 was issued on October 19, 2005, published in the Federal
Register on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61496) and required that railroads
modify their operating rules and take certain other actions necessary
to ensure that railroad employees who dispatch trains in non-signaled
territory or who operate hand-operated main track switches (switches)
in non-signaled territory, ensure the switches are restored to their
proper (normal) position after use.
EO 24 required that railroads ``immediately initiate steps to
implement this EO * * * [and] complete implementation no later than
November 22, 2005.'' 70 FR 61496, 61500. As the resulted community
began implementation, practical concerns were raised with FRA regarding
some aspects of the EO. In response to these informal comments, FRA has
decided to provide the railroads and employees additional flexibility
in complying with the EO. Because FRA is granting additional
flexibility to the railroads and the employees, the November 22, 2005
effective date of the EO is not changing.
On November 4, 2005, FRA posted on its Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/ an additional document, in a question and answer
format, that provided timely guidance to the informal comments offered
by the regulated community.
[[Page 71184]]
This Notice No. 2 reflects the guidance provided in that question and
answer document. In addition, this Notice No. 2 specifies additional
relief granted by amending the ``Relief'' section in its entirety and
issues clarifying amendments to the ``Finding and Order'' section of EO
24, Notice No. 1.
I. Discussion of Comments
The comments received by FRA were informally provided by a diverse
number of railroads and the following associations and labor
organizations. The American Short Line & Regional Railroads Association
(ASLRRA), the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED), the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen (BRS) and the United Transportation Union (UTU). By
discussing the comments and our responses in this notice, FRA is
providing consistent information to the entire regulated community.
Jurisdiction
Some railroads, especially tourist railroads, contacted FRA
regarding whether the EO applied to them. FRA responded that the EO
applies to all railroads that have employees or contractor employees
who operate hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory
or dispatch trains in that type of territory unless specific relief has
been granted. 70 FR 61500. Tourist railroads, or other railroads, that
are unsure as to whether FRA exercises jurisdiction over them should
refer to FRA's published statement on the extent and exercise of FRA's
safety jurisdiction. 49 CFR Part 209, App. A. If a railroad is still
unsure on this issue, please contact FRA's Office of Chief Counsel at
(202) 493-6038.
Initial and Periodic Instruction
Railroads and labor organizations alike were concerned that FRA did
not adequately describe the method for initial and periodic
instruction. Meanwhile, FRA believes the current instruction
requirement is adequate and provides the following further guidance.
Given that this is an emergency situation requiring railroads to
quickly and effectively instruct employees, FRA's expectation is that
the minimum initial instruction and distribution of the EO would
include a face-to-face on-the-job briefing covering the requirements of
this EO and the operating rules to which they relate. In order to be
effective, this job briefing must include examples or real time
applications of the EO, as well as a reasonable opportunity for
employees to ask questions. Regarding periodic instruction, railroads
will include this instruction as part of their program of instruction
pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11.
Some railroads indicated that they already had operating rules that
complied with this EO and had recently instructed their employees on
those rules; thus, these railroads asked whether the prior training
could count as the required initial training. FRA decided that any
training prior to issuance of the EO was insufficient. FRA has
identified an emergency situation and wants to raise the level of
awareness for all employees who operate hand-operated switches in non-
signaled territory or who dispatch trains in that type of territory. In
addition, it is significant for affected employees to understand that
the Federal government will be able to assess civil penalties of up to
$27,000 for a violation of the EO by any person. That said, FRA does
not expect railroads to entirely discount prior instruction. This new
instruction can build upon the prior instruction--prior instruction on
an unchanged operating rule does not need to be as in-depth as it would
be if the employees were being instructed on the relevant operating
rules for the first time.
Receipt or Acknowledgment of the EO by Employees
Some railroads, and the associations that represent them,
questioned the necessity for providing a copy of the EO to each
employee and the method for keeping a receipt or acknowledgment. FRA
explained that because of the critical importance of this EO and the
importance of individual railroad employees' compliance and
accountability, FRA must be assured that employees have received their
own paper copy of the EO. However, FRA did not intend to preclude the
creation or retention of the receipt or keeping of the acknowledgment
electronically. As long as the receipt or acknowledgment is a permanent
record that is kept for each affected employee and can be searched and
printed for FRA upon request, electronic recordkeeping is acceptable.
The electronic recordkeeping system should have system integrity to
prevent fraudulent entries, and may be added onto existing systems,
e.g., those systems that already track attendance at railroad operating
rules classes. If those systems do not allow employees to enter an
acknowledgment, the attendance sheet at the face-to-face job briefing
on the EO should indicate that the attendee's signature reflects both
attendance and receipt of a copy of the EO.
A related concern is whether railroads also need to provide a copy
of this Notice No. 2, to all affected employees. This Notice No. 2
provides guidance, relief and clarifying amendments from the earlier
notice, but does not create additional burdens, and thus it is possible
for compliance to be achieved by following Notice No. 1 only. FRA
therefore is not requiring railroads to provide a copy of this Notice
No. 2 to all affected employees. Certainly, any railroad amending its
operating rules with regard to this Notice No. 2 will need to instruct
its employees accordingly and may choose to post or distribute it.
Hand-Operated Main Track Switches--Operational Concerns
FRA received a number of inquiries requesting more information on
the safety basis for certain operational requirements.
Some railroads requested eliminating the requirement that the
dispatcher confirm that both the conductor and engineer have initialed
the switch position awareness form (SPAF). FRA has denied this request
because of the strong safety reasons for its retention. While other
requirements involve intra-crew communication, the dispatcher's
confirmation provides an additional level of communication so that the
crewmember releasing the train's authority ensures that both the
engineer and conductor have properly recorded on the SPAF the position
of all switches operated and that there is no confusion among
crewmembers as to the alignment of those switches.
At least one railroad wanted to do away with the requirements that
the engineer initial each entry, as opposed to only the final entry;
however, FRA is denying this request because the engineer's action of
initialing each entry encourages intra-crew communication while
employees are still at each switch.
BLET asked that FRA clarify that entry of the engineer's initials
is an affirmation that the communication (representation) has been
received and not that the engineer can personally vouch for the actions
taken on the ground. FRA affirms that the engineer's responsibility is
to acknowledge the information provided by the conductor or brakeman,
not to act as a guarantor with respect to the actual position in which
the switch was left.
Several concerns were raised regarding what FRA meant by the term
``releasing the limits of a main track authority.'' The term means
releasing all or a portion of the limits (i.e., rolling up
[[Page 71185]]
the limits) of an existing main track authority.
Railroads and labor organizations alike raised concerns regarding
whether a train crew that is relieved on line-of-road must take the
SPAF with them or whether the SPAF could be left for the subsequent
train crew. The purpose of EO 24 was to establish responsibility,
shared among the crew and the dispatcher, for confirmation of switch
position for all switches operated before the authority is released. A
subsequent crew will not have actual knowledge of the position of
switches in the track segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew.
Further, the declarations made on the SPAF are personal to each
employee participating, and it is not possible for subsequent crew
members to verify information about which they did not have
contemporaneous knowledge. Accordingly, to accomplish the purpose of EO
24, the crew being relieved should contact the dispatcher and confirm
the position of switches operated, at the same time releasing (rolling
up) any portion of the authority not required by the relieving crew.
The crew going off duty would finalize their SPAF at that time. The
relieving crew would then initiate a new SPAF. The order has been
amended to so provide.
At least one request was received for clarification regarding the
requirements of the EO if the limits of a main rack authority are
rolled up behind a train or on-track equipment (OTE) by the dispatcher
without the train crew's or OTE operator's knowledge. FRA's position is
that, in addition to determining the train's or OTE's location, the
dispatcher must confirm the position of all switches operated by the
employees within the limits being rolled up.
There have been several concerns expressed regarding whether the EO
applied in certain specific situations. For instance, FRA wants to make
clear that the EO does not apply in Rule 251 or GCOR Rule 9.14
territory, i.e., current of traffic, signaled in one direction only.
However, the EO is applicable if the signal system for a track segment
is suspended. Furthermore, the EO is applicable if a track, or portion
thereof, is out-of-service, unless the operating rules or special
instructions require all trains to approach all facing point hand-
operated switches prepared to stop during the entire period the track
is out-of-service.
Finally, at least one comment was received regarding the
requirement that before releasing the limits of a main track authority,
the employee releasing the limits must report to the train dispatcher
that all hand-operated main track switches operated have been restored
to their normal position, unless the train dispatcher directs
otherwise. The commenter noted that another sentence in this section
regarding ``hand-operated main track switches'' permitted the normal
position of a main track switch to be designated by the railroad and
the switch to be lined and locked in that position when not in use,
except ``when the switch is left in the charge of a crewmember of
another train'' or the train dispatcher directs otherwise. Accordingly,
the commenter requested a clarifying amendment so that in addition to
the train dispatcher exception, the switch may be left in the charge of
a crewmember of another train before releasing the limits. FRA agrees
with the commenter that this exception provides at least an equivalent
level of safety and a clarifying amendment has been made in this
notice.
BLET asked that language in item (2) of the order be amended to
delete ``except when the switch is left in the charge of a crewmember
of another train or the train dispatcher directs otherwise,'' following
the requirement that switches be left in normal position when not in
use. BELT suggested that this would heighten the sense of individual
responsibility that the order seeks to promote. FRA appreciates the
suggestion and recognizes that it is thematically consistent with the
general thrust of the order. However, FRA is unable to act upon it for
three reasons. First, this change does not appear to be necessary to
abate the emergency. Recent accidents caused by misaligned switches
have generally involved error on the part of the crew initially
reversing the switch, rather than than miscommunication or lapses
associated with handing off responsibility for the switch. Second, such
a change could expose employees to hazards unnecessarily, as when it
might be necessary to cross live tracks, walk on uneven ballast, or
traverse areas covered with snow or ice. Third, imposing this
requirement would cause significant delay and inefficiency in railroad
operation.
Line Segment Relief Versus System Basis Relief Previously Granted
Several railroads requested that the automatic relief granted to a
railroad, where operating rules require trains to approach all facing
point hand-operated switches prepared to stop on a system basis, be
extended to a line segment basis. The request also covered the two
other situations articulated in the EO; i.e., where hand-operated main
track switches in non-signaled territory (unless out of service) are
protected by either distant switch indicators or by switch point
indicators. FRA is granting this relief although, in our opinion, this
relief is a logical extrapolation from the relief previously provided.
FRA will grant automatic relief on a line segment basis when the relief
is predicated on a permanent application of the relevant operating
rules and special instructions for the territory involved. Employees or
dispatchers involved with more than one line segment may require
instruction if one of the other line segments does not meet any of the
conditions for relief. Distant switch indicators are arrangements that
provide crews with advance indication of switch position in a manner
similar to an approach signal. These arrangements are typically
designed and maintained in a manner similar to technology employed
under 49 CFR Part 236, the Rules, Standards and Instructions for signal
and train control systems and have a well-established history of
performance in the industry.
In this Notice, FRA has required specific acceptance of ``switch
point indicators'' as alternative to the rule because the term does not
apply to a closed set of technologies and in order to provide FRA an
opportunity to evaluate whether the technology provides safety
equivalently to that provided by compliance with this order by properly
qualified employees. In part because of the risk to trains associated
with unauthorized operation of switches by vandals, FRA is encouraging
exploration and implementation of appropriate technology that can
detect misaligned main track switches and provide a means of
safeguarding train operations.
On-Track Safety
Many comments were received expressing concern that the EO was
largely silent regarding employees involved with on-track safety such
as signalmen, maintenance-of-way employees, bridge workers, and others.
Some commenters were unsure of whether the EO applied to employees
involved with on-track safety. When FRA explained that the EO applied
to these workers, more comments were received questioning the logistics
of how the EO would apply in practice. In consideration of these
comments, FRA has decided to issue clarifying amendments (discussed
below) that should allow for smoother operations--although the EO 24,
Notice No. 1 requirement of having each employee fill out a SPAF is a
feasible option as well.
FRA is issuing a clarifying amendment to allow an employee
[[Page 71186]]
responsible for on-track safety, such as an employee in charge (EIC),
to complete the SPAF for all employees working under the EIC's
jurisdiction. The employee responsible for on-track safety pursuant to
49 CFR 214, Subpart C, may maintain the SPAF in lieu of the individual
worker(s) operating switches. Likewise, FRA is amenable to issuing a
clarifying amendment so that each railroad could choose whether to
create a SPAF specifically tailored to the communications among
employees involved with on-track safety. Of course, if a worker
operates a switch, that worker must still be qualified, i.e.,
instructed on, the relevant operating rules for operating a switch,
even if they are not the employee completing a SPAF.
Additionally, FRA is clarifying that if an EIC of on-track safety
permits a train into the EIC's authority limits and there are switches
operated by that train crew, both the EIC and the train crew must
complete a SPAF. This clarification does not require an amendment to
the EO.
Some commenters did not understand whether the EO required the EIC
to complete the SPAF in a situation when trains are operating through
the limits of an EIC's authority and the EIC instructs all trains to
operate at restricted speed. FRA explained that the EO does not need
amending as this is a temporary application of the relevant operating
rules for the territory involved and thus the EIC in that situation
must complete a SPAF.
Another concern regarding OTE was a request for clarification on
the SPAF requirements when an OTE is moving to a work location. FRA's
expectation is that the employee that receives the authority will
complete the SPAF for all switches operated while under that authority.
Furthermore, a SPAF is still required if an employee operates a
switch when it is not necessary to receive permission from a
dispatcher.
Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF)
Some commenters were confused as to how the EO applied to an
employee, other than a crewmember, who lines a switch for a train. FRA
believes the EO clearly conveys that each employee, other than a
crewmember, operating a switch for a train must complete a SPAF for all
switches operated.
The SPAF's content was also criticized as being too specific to
train crews, rather than more general in nature so as to apply to any
employee handling a switch. By requiring both the engineer's and
conductor's names, the engineer's initials for each entry, and the
conductor's signature when the form is completed, FRA addressed the
common situation of a two-person crew in which the conductor is
operating the switches. The commenters explained that there may be
regular circumstances in which someone other than the conductor is
operating a switch and therefore that person's initials must appear on
the SPAF instead of the conductor's. One commenter asked whether a SPAF
can provide spaces for the engineer and the person handling the switch
to initial, and a space for the conductor to sign when the form is
completed. FRA finds that such a SPAF would be in compliance with the
EO.
A question was raised regarding the requirement that the date be
entered on the SPAF when an employee's tour of duty spans two calendar
days. FRA's requirement is fulfilled as long as the date entered is the
date that the tour of duty began. Of course, this is a minimum
requirement and railroads are permitted to require multiple dates. For
example, a railroad would be in compliance with the EO if it chooses to
require the date for each switch entry instead of the date the crew
started its tour of duty. Furthermore, FRA would certainly not find
fault with an employee who chose to be more exacting than FRA has
required--even if not required by railroad operating rules.
Some railroads raised concerns that the SPAF was too specific in
requiring employees to identify the track segment by a ``subdivision''
entry in that some railroads do not have subdivisions. FRA understands
that some railroads do not have subdivisions and that instead of
``subdividion'' the SPAF may be filled out to include branch, secondary
track, or some other appropriate designation. FRA has added a
clarifying amendment to address this issue.
Communication
A concern shared by many commenters was that the EO was written in
such a way as to indicate that unless radio communication was
inoperable, no alternative method of communication among crewmembers
would be acceptable to indicate a switch position. Some railroads
requested an amendment because they preferred to use a method of
communication other than radio as their primary method, such as hand or
whistle signals. FRA has issued a clarifying amendment to indicate that
it will accept alternate methods of intra-crew communication when they
afford an equivalent level of communication integrity relevant to the
prevailing operating conditions. FRA agrees with a comment from BLET
that there will be situations where hand signals do not provide
unambiguous information, as where a ground employee is expected to
restore a switch behind a movement that will not be using the switch to
exit the area. In those cases, radio communications or face-to-face
communication will be required.
An Exception to Initialing the SPAF Prior to Leaving a Switch
Several commenters raised concerns regarding the requirement that
before employees leave the location of a switch, they must make the
required entries on the SPAF ``as soon as practicable.'' Some
commenters did not understand what the phrase ``as soon as
practicable'' meant, and asked for clarification. Other commenters
requested an amendment because there could be situations in which all
involved employees might find it impracticable to initial the SPAF
prior to leaving the switch.
Regarding the phrase ``as soon as practicable,'' FRA's expectations
are that when employees are in close prosimity, the required SPAF
entries will be personally completed by the individual employees before
they actually leave the location of the switch. FRA is not concerned if
there is some delay in filling out the entries on the SPAF if other
duties would normally, logically, or operationally be performed first.
Of course, if the SPAF is readily available to the employee, it is a
best practice for the employee to fill out the form first lest the
employee forget either to fill it out or record exactly how the switch
was last positioned.
FRA recognizes that there are operating conditions, such as extreme
physical separation, which would make recording the required entries on
the SPAF before employees leave a location of a switch impracticable.
In circumstances such as this, where it is logistically unfeasible, and
in some situations unsafe, to record the required entries on the SPAF
before leaving the location of a switch, FRA is issuing a clarifying
amendment so that the crewmember completing the SPAF may make an
appropriate entry on the SPAF. An appropriate entry would state that
the necessary radio job briefing concerning the switch position was
accomplished. Furthermore, the crewmember completing the SPAF should
then enter the required employee's initials for that employee, clearly
reflecting who made the entry (e.g., ``AD for CS''). FRA will consider
the entries on teh SPAF for that switch to be complete at that time.
For example, a conductor reverses a main switch for an intended
100-car
[[Page 71187]]
shoving movement into a 2-mile industrial lead. After lining the
switch, the conductor begins the shoving movement, remaining on the
leading end to protect the movement. When the engine clears the switch,
the movement stops, and the brakeman lines the main track switch to its
normal position, and the shoving movement resumes, with the conductor
still protecting the lending end of the movement. In this case, it
would be impracticable to require the conductor to talk back 100 car-
lengths to the engine in order to obtain the brakeman's initials on the
SPAF, and then walk back 100 car-lenghts to the lending end to continue
protecting the movement. Thus, the clarifying amendment would allow the
conductor to complete the SPAF by (1) noting that the brakeman
confirmed that the switch was normalized by radio, or other acceptable
communication, and (2) entering the brakeman's name or initials.
Application of the Hours of Service Laws
Some comments regarding the application of the hours of service
laws in conjunction with the EO. One question was whether the act of
filling out a SPAF is itself covered service. This issue raised the
beggest concern for maintenance-of-way employees because they are not
otherwise typically performing work that is considered covered service
under the hours of service laws. FRA wants to be clear that the act of
filling out any portion of a SPAF does not by itself trigger covered
service.
Meanwhile, for employees that are covered by the hours of service
laws, the act of filling out a SPAF is commingled service that should
be performed within the statutory period. Railroads and employees are
responsible for completing all activities required of them within that
period. A railroad that requires an employee to perform a task in the
last few minutes of a tour of duty must be mindful of whether it is
possible to complete all required tasks within the allotted time.
Meanwhile, employees should be mindful that many of the accidents that
led to FRA issuing this EO could have been prevented if the employees
had been more diligent about complying with railroad operating rules
regarding the alignment of hand-operated main track switches in non-
signaled territory at the end of their tours of duty. Thus, regardless
of the hours of service implications, employees should not hastily fill
out a SPAF at the end of a tour of duty, with disregard to its
accuracy, or release or roll up their limits without conferring that
the entries on the SPAF have been completed, as these actions require
the type of communication among employees that can prevent life-
threatening accidents.
At least one commenter was concerned about the legistical issue of
how the time associated with completion of the SPAF should be recorded
on the time return or in the hours of service electronic system. For
employees otherwise subject to the hours of service laws, there is no
requirement to make a separate entry of the time associated with
completion of the form. It is intended that completion of the form be
integral to the accomplishment of the work, so it may be considered as
part of covered service for hours of service recordkeeping purposes.
II. Amendment to Emergency Order No. 24
The ``Finding and Order'' section of EO 24 is amended by adding the
following clarifying amendments.
Clarifying Amendments
Instruction
Given that this is an emergency situation requiring
railroads to quickly and effectively instruct employees, the minimum
initial instruction and distribution of the EO would include a face-to-
face on-the-job briefing covering the requirements of this EO and the
operating rules to which they relate. In order to be effective, this
job briefing must include examples or real time applications of the EO,
as well as a reasonable opportunity for employees to ask questions.
Regarding periodic instruction, railroads will include this instruction
as part of their program of instruction pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11.
Any instruction completed prior to issuance of the EO is
sufficient to meet the instruction requirements. However, FRA does not
expect railroads to entirely discount prior to instruction as this new
instruction can build upon the prior instruction. Thus, prior
instruction on an unchanged operating rule does not need to be as in-
depth as it would be if the employees were being instructed on the
relevant operating rules for the first time.
Hand-Operating Main Track Switches
EO 24 contains a requirement that before releasing the
limits of a main track authority, the employee releasing the limits
must report to the train dispatcher that all hand-operated main track
switches operated have been restored to their normal position, unless
the train dispatcher directs otherwise. This requirements remains in
effect except that FRA will also permit the employee releasing the
limits to report to the train dispatcher the switches that were left in
the charge of a crewmember of another train before releasing the
limits, if left in other than normal position.
The EO does not apply in Rule 251 or GCOR Rule 9.14
territory, i.e., current traffic, signaled in one direction only.
However, the EO is applicable if the signal system for a track segment
is suspended or a track is out-of-service, unless the operating rules
or special instructions require trains to approach all facing point
hand-operated switches prepared to stop during the entire period the
signal system is suspended or the track is out of service.
Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF)
FRA specifically amending the requirement that an employee
operating a hand-operated main track switch in non-signaled territory
shall be the employee to complete a SPAF. As an alternative, FRA will
allow an employee responsible for on-track safety, such as an employee
in charge (EIC), to complete a SPAF for all employees working under the
EIC's jurisdiction. An employee responsible for on-track safety
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 214, Subpart C, may maintain a SPAF in lieu of
the individual worker(s) operating switches.
In conjunction with the above clarifying amendment for on-
track safety, FRA is clarifying the requirement in EO 24 that the SPAF
must contain the engineer's initials for each entry and the conductor's
signature when the form is completed because those SPAF requirements
would not be applicable to an on-track safety situation. Each railroad
may continue to use the train crew oriented SPAF, as described in EO
24, Notice 1, for its on-track safety situations. Similarly, a railroad
may permit its employees involved in on-track safety the discretion to
make notes or modify the SPAF so that it both contains the mandatory
information and is understandable in the context of an on-track safety
situation. Alternatively, FRA has no objection to railroads exceeding
the EO's requirements by creating a SPAF that is tailored to
communications among employees involved with on-track safety.
FRA is amending the requirement that each SPAF must
identify the track segment by a ``subdivision'' entry as not every
railroad has subdivisions. Employees cannot be expected to provide a
subdivision designation when no such designation exists. However, a
railroad that does not have subdivisions should instruct its employees
to provide
[[Page 71188]]
some other appropriate designation, such as branch or secondary track,
for the ``subdivision'' entry. To facilitate the appropriate
designation entry, a railroad that does not have subdivisions is
encouraged to amend its SPAF by replacing the ``subdivision'' entry
with a more suitable entry. If the exact name and location of a main
track switch to be operated by an employee is identified, but there is
no suitable entry for subdivision, branch, secondary track, etc., an
employee may leave that entry blank or identify that entry as not
applicable.
EO 24 requires that entries made with respect to a
specific hand-operated main track switch is non-signaled territory must
be recorded as soon as practicable after the switch is reversed, and as
soon as practicable after the switch is returned to its normal position
before leaving the location. FRA recognizes that there are operating
conditions which would make recording the required entries on the SPAF
before employees leave a location of a switch impracticable due to
extreme physical separation. Thus, in circumstances in which it is
logistically unfeasible or unsafe to record the required entries on the
SPAF before leaving the location of a switch, FRA will allow the
crewmember completing the SPAF to make an appropriate entry on the
SPAF. Such entry would stat that the necessary radio job briefing
concerning the switch position was accomplished. Furthermore, the
crewmember completing the SPAF should then enter the required
employee's initials for that employee. FRA will consider the entries on
the SPAF for that switch complete at that time.
When a train crew is relieved on line-of-road, a member of
the train crew, typically the conductor, shall either retain the SPAF
for the required five days or turn it in to the designated railroad
official who shall retain it for the required period. A SPAF should not
be left for the subsequent train crew unless the relieved crew
purposely makes an extra copy for the benefit of the relieving crew.
The purpose of EO 24 was to establish responsibility, shared among the
crew and the dispatcher, for confirmation of switch position for all
switches operated before the authority is released. A subsequent crew
will not have actual knowledge of the position of switches in the track
segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew. Further, the declarations
made on the SPAF are personal to each employee participating, and it is
not possible for subsequent crew members to verify information about
which they did not have contemporaneous knowledge. Accordingly, to
accomplish the purpose of EO 24, the crew being relieved must contact
the dispatcher and confirm the position of switches operated, at the
same time releasing (rolling up) any portion of the authority not
required by the relieving crew and closing out the SPAF. The crew going
off duty would finalize its SPAF at that time. The relieving crew would
then initiate a new SPAF.
Radio Communication
EO 24 requires that train crewmembers shall communicate by
radio unless the radio is inoperable. FRA amends the EO so that
alternate methods of intra-crew communication will be acceptable,
regardless of whether the radios are operable, when they afford an
equivalent level of communication integrity relevant to the prevailing
operating conditions. Hand or whistle signals are examples of
acceptable methods of alternate intra-crew communications.
Distribution of Emergency Order
A railroad may retain an electronic receipt or
acknowledgment, as an alternative to a written receipt or
acknowledgment, for each employee affected by the EO that indicates
that the employee was provided with a copy of EO 24, Notice No. 1. As
long as the receipt or acknowledgment is a permanent record that is
kept for each affected employee and can be searched and printed for FRA
upon request, electronic recordkeeping is acceptable. The electronic
recordkeeping system should have system integrity, to prevent
fraudulent entries, and may be added onto existing systems, e.g., those
systems that already track attendance at railroad operating rules
classes. If those systems do not allow employees to enter an
acknowledgment, the attendance sheet at the face-to-face job briefing
on the EO should reflect that the attendee's signature reflects both
attendance and receipt of a copy of the EO.
FRA is not requiring railroads to provide a copy of this
Notice No. 2 to all affected employees. Certainly, any railroad that
amends its operating rules with regard to Notice No. 2 will need to
instruct its employees accordingly and may choose to post or distribute
this notice.
The ``Relief'' section of Emergency Order No. 24 is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
Relief
Petitions for special approval to take action not in accordance
with EO 24 may be submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety,
who shall be authorized to dispose of those requests without the
necessity of amending this EO. In reviewing any petition for special
review, the Associate Administrator for Safety shall only grant
petitions in which a petitioner has clearly articulated an alternative
action that will provide, in the Associate Administrator for Safety's
judgment, at least an equivalent level of safety as this EO provides. A
copy of this petition should be submitted to the Docket Clerk,
Department of Transportation Central Docket Management System, Nassif
Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. Such
request may be in written or electronic form consistent with the
standards and requirements established by the Central Docket Management
System and posted on its Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.
FRA recognizes that certain railroad operating rules or equipment
used by some railroads already provide a level of safety equivalent to
this EO. If all of a railroad's hand-operated main track switches in
non-signaled territory are covered by one or more of the protective
measures identified below, a railroad need not apply for relief from
this EO as relief shall be deemed automatically granted. FRA also
grants automatic relief on a line segment basis when the relief is
predicated on a permanent application of the relevant operating rules
and special instructions for the territory involved. Relief from this
EO is automatically granted when:
Operating rules require trains to approach all facing
point hand-operated switches in non-signaled territory prepared to
stop;
Hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled
territory (unless out of service) are protected by distant switch
indicators; or
Hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled
territory are protected by switch point indicators accepted by the
Associate Administrator as providing safety equivalent to that provided
by positioning and securing of switches in compliance with this order.
This amendment is effective from the date of issue of this notice.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 18, 2005.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-23303 Filed 11-21-05; 4:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-M