Vol. 81 Tuesday, No. 50 March 15, 2016

Part III

Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 218 Train Crew Staffing; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13918 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2) FRA anticipates being able to 3rd Floor, Room W31–309, 1200 New resolve this rulemaking without a Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC Federal Railroad Administration public, oral hearing. However, if FRA 20590, (202) 493–6038). receives a specific request for a public, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 49 CFR Part 218 oral hearing prior to April 14, 2016, one Table of Contents for Supplementary [Docket No. FRA–2014–0033, Notice No. 1] will be scheduled and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the Federal Information RIN 2130–AC48 Register to inform interested parties of I. Executive Summary the date, time, and location of any such II. Background Train Crew Staffing hearing. A. Analysis of Two Recent Catastrophic Accidents Raising Crew Size Issues AGENCY: ADDRESSES: Federal Railroad You may submit comments 1. Lac-Me´gantic, Quebec, Canada Administration (FRA), Department of identified by the docket number FRA– 2. Casselton, ND Transportation (DOT). 2014–0033 by any of the following B. Research Identifies Crewmember Tasks ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking methods: and the Positive Attributes of Teamwork, (NPRM). • Online: Comments should be filed Raises Concerns With One-Person Crews, at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Especially When Implementing New SUMMARY: FRA proposes regulations http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Technology establishing minimum requirements for online instructions for submitting 1. Cognitive and Collaborative Demands of the size of train crew staffs depending comments. Freight Conductor Activities: Results and Implications of a Cognitive Task on the type of operation. A minimum • Fax: 202–493–2251. • Analysis—Human Factors in Railroad requirement of two crewmembers is Mail: Docket Management Facility, Operations proposed for all railroad operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 2. Rail Industry Job Analysis: Passenger with exceptions proposed for those New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140, Conductor operations that FRA believes do not Washington, DC 20590. 3. Fatigue Status in the U.S. Railroad pose significant safety risks to railroad • Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on Industry employees, the general public, and the the Ground level of the West Building, 4. Technology Implications of a Cognitive environment by using fewer than two- 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Task Analysis for Locomotive person crews. This proposed rule would Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. Engineers—Human Factors in Railroad also establish minimum requirements and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, Operations 5. Using Cognitive Task Analysis To for the roles and responsibilities of the except Federal Holidays. Inform Issues in Human Systems second train crewmember on a moving Instructions: All submissions must Integration in Railroad Operations— train, and promote safe and effective include the agency name, docket name Human Factors in Railroad Operations teamwork. Additionally, FRA co- and docket number or Regulatory 6. Teamwork in U.S. Railroad Operations proposes two different options for Identification Number (RIN) for this C. The Acknowledged Limitations of FRA situations where a railroad wants to rulemaking (RIN 2130–AC48). Note that Accident/Incident Reporting Data continue an existing operation with a all comments received will be posted D. FRA’s Regulations Suggest Safety one-person train crew or start up an without change to http:// Hazards Are Created When a Train Has operation with less than two www.regulations.gov, including any Less Than Two Crewmembers 1. Difficulty Providing Point Protection for crewmembers. Under both co-proposal personal information provided. Please Shoving or Pushing Movements options, a railroad that wants to see the Privacy Act heading in the 2. Complications Returning Switches to the continue an existing operation or start a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Normal Position and Loss of Job new operation with less than a two- this document for Privacy Act Briefings person train crew would be required to information related to any submitted 3. Concerns Protecting Train Passengers in describe the operation and provide petitions or materials. an Emergency safety-related information to FRA; Docket: For access to the docket to 4. Deterrence of Electronic Device however, proposed Option 1 includes read background documents or Distraction and Observing Alcohol or an FRA review and approval period comments received, go to http:// Drug Impairment, Reduced Possibility of Co-Worker Referrals lasting up to 90 days while Option 2 www.regulations.gov at any time or to 5. Complicating Radio Communication proposes permitting such operations to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Procedures initiate or continue without a Docket Operations, M–30, West 6. Adding a Potential Safety Hazard to mandatory FRA review and approval Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Activation waiting period or while such review is 140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Failures taking place. For start-up freight Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. E. Defining the Crewmembers’ operations with less than two and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, Qualifications crewmembers, proposed Option 2 also except Federal Holidays. III. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee requires a statement signed by the (RSAC) Overview FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: IV. No Recommendation From the RSAC railroad officer in charge of the Joseph D. Riley, Railroad Safety Working Group operation certifying a safety hazard Specialist (OP)-Operating Crew V. FRA’s Overall Post-RSAC Approach analysis of the operation has been Certification, U.S. Department of A. The Proposal Is Largely Focused on completed and that the operation Transportation, Federal Railroad Influencing How Railroads Approach provides an appropriate level of safety. Administration, Mail Stop-25, Room Future One-Person Operations DATES: (1) Written Comments: Written W33–412, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., B. The Proposal Is Complimentary to Other comments on the proposed rule must be Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493–6318, Regulatory Initiatives, Not Duplicative C. Identifying How the NPRM Differs From received by May 16, 2016. Comments or Alan H. Nagler, Senior Trial FRA’s RSAC Suggested received after that date will be Attorney, U.S. Department of Recommendations considered to the extent possible Transportation, Federal Railroad D. Electronic Submission and Approval without incurring additional expense or Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Process delay. RCC–10, Mail Stop 10, West Building VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13919

VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices true that railroads have achieved a roles of all the crewmembers, and who A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order continually improving safety record has the experience or ability to relieve 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and during a period in which the industry the locomotive engineer of some of the Procedures largely employed two-person train mental strain that can contribute to B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive crews. Order 13272 accidents attributed to human factor C. Paperwork Reduction Act Persons in the railroad industry have errors. FRA understands that expert D. Federalism Implications pointed to countervailing effects of a teamwork can be achieved through E. International Trade Impact Assessment requirement to have more than one effective coordination, cooperation, and F. Environmental Impact crewmember on a train, such as communication. However, FRA G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 additional incidents caused by crew estimates both options of the proposal H. Energy Impact distraction. In addition, having a second would have a small impact on teamwork I. Privacy Act crew person on board a train may not because FRA expects that either co- I. Executive Summary prevent or mitigate an incident but proposal option would result in no more could add to the number of persons than the labor hour equivalent of two to Purpose of the Regulatory Action and killed or seriously injured when one three additional crewmembers Legal Authority occurs. FRA believes such instances are nationwide annually relative to what FRA is concerned that as railroads very rare, but does not have readily would occur with existing operations implement positive train control (PTC) available information for estimating with less than two crewmembers if the such potential countervailing impacts of and other technologies, they may rule were not in place and because FRA this proposed rule. FRA believes that expand use of less than two-person believes that all railroads with multiple- having a properly trained second crew crews on operations without person crews are operating in person on board, or implementing risk considering safety risks or compliance with the proposal’s mitigating actions that FRA believes are implementing risk mitigating actions requirements for the roles and necessary to address any additional that FRA believes are necessary. responsibilities of a second safety risks from using fewer than two- Because there are currently few railroad crewmember. FRA expects that under person crews, provides net safety operations that utilize a one-person the first co-proposal it would require benefits relative to using fewer than crew and FRA has not been specifically some start-up one-person crew two-person crews or not implementing operations (but not existing one-person tracking the safety of those operations mitigating measures that FRA believes through its recordkeeping and reporting crew operations) to implement risk are necessary. mitigating measures that FRA believes requirements, FRA cannot provide In discussing the future of train reliable or conclusive statistical data to are necessary to address safety risks of operations with officials from various using one-person crews in specific suggest whether one-person crew railroads, FRA has become aware that operating environments. However, FRA operations are generally safer or less some railroads have shown a expects to require such measures in very safe than multiple-person crew willingness to conduct more operations few circumstances, and estimates a cost operations. FRA does not currently with only one crewmember. FRA has range of $5.1 million to $27.7 million collect sufficient data related to the size existing authority to take emergency over 10 years and discounted at 7 of a train crew nor do accident reports action to prohibit an unsafe operation if percent from implementing such and investigations generally address the the agency is aware of it (49 U.S.C. measures under either co-proposal size of a crew in order for FRA or any 20104), but FRA often lacks information option. entity to definitively compare one- to use this authority to address unsafe person operations to multiple person one-person crews. FRA does not The proposed rulemaking would be operations. However, FRA has studies currently have a mechanism to collect expected to grant an exception to most showing the benefits of a second detailed information about railroad one- existing operations with less than two crewmember and other information person train operations to determine crewmembers. However, some detailing the potential safety benefits of railroad safety risk. Furthermore, FRA operations would still not be able to multiple-person crews. A recent believes it would be inappropriate to meet the requirements of the proposed catastrophic accident in Canada wait until an emergency situation arises exceptions and those railroads would occurred in which a one-person crew before it takes action against a one- have to add one person to their train did not properly secure an unattended person operation that is not providing crews. FRA estimates that about 10,361 train and another accident occurred in an appropriate level of safety. FRA train starts would not be eligible for the which a multiple-person crew was able believes this proposed rule is necessary proposed specific freight train exception to effectively respond to an accident and for FRA to protect railroad employees, § 218.131. Furthermore, FRA estimated remove cars from danger. In addition, the general public, and the environment that around 15,185 train starts would qualitative studies show that one-person by considering the safety risks of each not be covered by the exception for train operations pose increased risks by type of operation and prohibiting existing one-person operations in potentially overloading the sole operations that pose an unacceptable § 218.133. Given the proposed structure crewmember with tasks, and that PTC level of risk as compared to operations of the passenger train exceptions in does not substitute for all the tasks utilizing a two-person crew. This § 218.129, FRA does not expect any performed by properly trained rulemaking is also necessary to ensure passenger railroad to have to add a conductors. Task overload can lead to a that the public, through FRA, has a crewmember to an existing train loss of situational awareness, and voice in the railroad’s decision to utilize operation as a result of the NPRM. potentially to accidents. Moreover, other less than a two-person crew. Freight railroads would be expected to nations require government approval of FRA research demonstrates the take full advantage of the special railroad decisions to use less than two- effectiveness of properly trained teams. approval procedure in § 218.135. FRA person crews. Further, even if FRA does It is not the act of adding a second used a range of values to estimate the not have data to prove a direct person that makes the train safer, but costs that would be related to § 218.135 correlation between higher rates of instead it is the act of adding a properly due to the uncertainty in the future of safety and multiple person crews, it is qualified person, who understands the crew staffing. This range stipulates that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13920 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

between 850,266 and 15,675,000 train quantities of hazardous materials, would be permitted to operate a single- starts would be affected by crew traveling at high speeds, or putting person service. Both existing and start- reduction over the next 10 years and passengers on passenger trains at risk. up train operations with less than two enter the special approval procedure as Among other exceptions, there is a crewmembers would be required to proposed in § 218.135. For passenger proposed exception for a tourist, scenic, provide an appropriate level of safety. railroads, the proposed special approval historic, or excursion operation that is However, FRA reserves the right to procedure would maintain the status not part of the general railroad system investigate an operation and halt or add quo, as any railroad that could of transportation. Other exceptions conditions to an operation’s potentially request special approval allow railroads to use one-person crews continuance if FRA determines that an under § 218.135 would have done it to assist other trains (i.e., helper operation is not providing an through a passenger train emergency service), maintain track, or move appropriate level of safety. preparedness plan under part 239. locomotives where they are needed Costs and Benefits FRA is proposing regulations without being burdened by the concerning train crew staffing based on proposed two crewmember minimum FRA estimated the benefit and cost the statutory general authority of the staffing requirement. ranges of the two co-proposals using a Secretary of Transportation (Secretary). Two of the proposed sections suggest 10-year time horizon, and performed The general authority states, in relevant how a railroad could apply for FRA sensitivity analysis using a 20-year time part, that the Secretary ‘‘as necessary, approval to operate one-person train horizon. Compliance costs include the shall prescribe regulations and issue crews. One of those proposed sections addition of the labor hour equivalent of orders for every area of railroad safety would require a railroad to provide about one to three additional supplementing laws and regulations in information describing an operation that crewmembers nationwide annually to effect on October 16, 1970.’’ 49 U.S.C. existed prior to January 1, 2015, and certain train movements for existing 20103. The Secretary delegated this FRA would have 90 days from the day operations (an estimated cost of roughly authority to the Federal Railroad of receipt of the submission to issue $120,000–$200,000 annually over 10 Administrator. 49 CFR 1.89(a). written notification of approval or years, undiscounted), off-setting actions disapproval. The railroad would be required by FRA in order for a railroad Summary of the Major Provisions of the allowed to continue the operation to obtain FRA approval to start up new Regulatory Action in Question unless FRA notifies the railroad it must fewer than two-person crew operations, FRA is co-proposing regulations to cease the operation and provides the and information submission and data address train crew sizes. FRA’s first co- reason(s) for the decision. If FRA failed analysis. proposal would establish minimum to disapprove the proposal within 90 FRA estimated a 10-year cost range requirements for the size of different days of the submission, the railroad which would be between $7.65 million train crew staffs depending on the type would be permitted to go forward with and $40.86 million, undiscounted. of operation and the safety risks posed its plan. The second of the proposed Discounted values of this range are by the operation to railroad employees sections under the first co-proposal $5.19 million and $27.72 million at the and the general public. This proposal would allow any railroad, at any time, 7-percent level. FRA is confident that also prescribes minimum requirements to provide information describing an the benefits outlined in this NPRM for the appropriate roles and operation and petition FRA for special would exceed the costs. Preventing a responsibilities of train crewmembers approval of a train operation with less single fatal injury would exceed the on a moving train, and promotes safe than two crewmembers. FRA would break-even point in the low range and and effective teamwork. Each railroad normally grant or deny the petition preventing five fatalities would exceed may prescribe additional or more within 90 days of receipt, but could the break-even point at the high range. stringent requirements in its operating attach special conditions to the approval The proposed rule will help ensure that rules, timetables, timetable special of any petition after considering the train crew staffing does not result in instructions, and other instructions. benefits and costs of the condition(s). inappropriate levels of safety risks to FRA’s first proposed approach starts Under the second co-proposal, an railroad employees, the general public, with a general requirement that each existing one-person train operation and the environment, while allowing train shall be assigned a minimum of would be required to provide technology innovations to advance two crewmembers, regardless of information to FRA in order to continue industry efficiency and effectiveness whether the train is a freight or the operation, and a start-up train without compromising safety. The passenger operation. The NPRM operation with less than two proposal contains minimum contains several proposed requirements crewmembers would be required to requirements for roles and detailing the roles and responsibilities provide information to FRA before responsibilities of second train of the second crewmember when the initiating the operation. The railroad crewmembers on certain operations and train is moving. The primary role of a with the start-up operation would also promotes safe and effective teamwork. second crewmember, typically a be required to attest that it has studied Due to lack of information, these cost conductor, is to have the ability to the operating environment and estimates do not include any safety directly communicate with the circumstances of the intended operation costs from using two-person crews crewmember in the cab of the and that the railroad believes that it has instead of one or zero person crews, controlling locomotive, i.e., the taken any precautions necessary to such as additional accidents caused by locomotive engineer, even if the second ensure that the proposed single-person non-engineer crew distracting the crewmember is located outside of the operation will not pose significant engineer or additional deaths and operating cab. safety risks to railroad employees, the serious injuries from having more Several of the proposed sections general public, and the environment. people on board trains involved in contain exceptions to this general Under this co-proposal, the railroad accidents. requirement, specifying when a train would not be required to wait for FRA FRA is confident that the proposed would not require a minimum of two approval prior to beginning single- rulemaking would generate the benefits crewmembers. These are generally low person service. With the railroad’s necessary to at least break-even. These risk operations that are not hauling large notice and attestation the railroad benefits would result from improved

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13921

post-accident/incident emergency co-proposals would be $7.44 million to known factual findings and makes response and management, reporting of $36.25 million over this timeframe recommendations for preventing similar troubled employees due to drug and using a 7-percent discount rate, and accidents. TSB of Canada Railway alcohol use, compliance with $11.93 million to $50.71 million using Investigation R13D0054 is available restrictions on electronic device use in a 3-percent discount rate. online at http://bit.ly/VLqVBk. In place to prevent distraction, and the II. Background summary, an unattended train on potential avoidance of a high- mainline track did not stay secured and consequence train accident. While FRA A. Analysis of Two Recent Catastrophic rolled down a grade to the center of does not have information that suggests Accidents Raising Crew Size Issues town, where 63 of the 72 crude oil tank that there have been any previous During the last five months of 2013, cars in the train derailed, and about one- accidents involving one-person crew the railroad industry had two accidents third of the derailed tank car shells had operations that could have been avoided that suggest the need for greater Federal large breaches. There were multiple by adding a second crewmember, this oversight of crew size issues. The first explosions and fires causing an rule would break even with its incident at Lac-Me´gantic, Quebec, estimated 47 fatalities to the general estimated costs if it prevents one fatal Canada, was the driving force for public, extensive damage to the town, injury or high-consequence accident in bringing the crew size issue to FRA’s and approximately 2,000 people to be the first 10 years of the rule (and no Federal advisory committee known as evacuated from the surrounding area. additional safety costs result from the the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee presence of additional crew). This The train had been secured by its one- (RSAC). While Canada’s Transportation person crew prior to it being left proposed rule would help ensure that Safety Board could not conclude that passengers and high risk commodities unattended. Because of a mechanical use of a one-person crew was a cause or problem with the train, the engineer left are transported safely by rail and FRA contributing factor to the accident, as is confident that the resulting safety the train running. Prior to leaving the described below, the Lac-Me´gantic train, the engineer consulted with benefits would justify the costs. The accident involved a one-person crew cost increase would result from another railroad employee about how to that did not properly secure a train at handle the problem and applied brakes additional crewmembers on the trains the end of a tour of duty leading to a that are currently operating with a one- on the train. However, TSB of Canada deadly, catastrophic accident. determined that the one-person crew person crew and from the possibility The RSAC includes representatives did not comply with the railroad’s rules that the railroad is required to use more from all of the agency’s major requiring the hand brakes alone to be technology to mitigate the risk related to stakeholder groups, including railroads, capable of holding the train. According crew conversions. FRA has assessed labor organizations, suppliers and to the railroad’s rules, a 72-car train both co-proposals and concluded that manufacturers, and other interested should have had a minimum of nine monetary, quantifiable costs under both parties. (An RSAC overview is provided hand brakes applied. Instead, the one- co-proposals are equal. However, below.) During the time that the RSAC’s person crew used a combination of the railroads may perceive each option Working Group was deliberating locomotive air brakes and seven hand differently, especially as it pertains to whether it could make brakes to give the false impression business risk. Under co-proposal Option recommendations to FRA on the crew 1, railroads would have to wait for size issue, the other accident during the verification test that the hand approval and that would delay summarized here occurred. This brakes alone would hold the train. TSB implementation of crew size reduction accident involved trains carrying multi- of Canada concluded that, without the in the short-term. However, once FRA person crews and is illustrative of the extra force provided by the air brakes, grants approval railroads would have positive mitigation measures a minimum of 17 and possibly as many spent adequate amount of resources to multiperson train crews took following as 26 hand brakes would have been meet regulatory requirements and a track-based derailment of one train needed to secure the train, depending oversight. Under co-proposal Option 2, that led to a second train colliding with on the amount of force with which they each railroad would be able to initiate the first (Casselton, ND). With regard to had been applied. Testing conducted by crew reductions after a petition is the Lac-Me´gantic accident, FRA TSB of Canada concluded that it would submitted to FRA. This means that exercised its oversight following the have been possible for a single operator railroads would be able to reduce costs accident through use of its emergency to apply a sufficient number of hand once petitions are submitted. However, order authority to ensure that the brakes within a reasonable amount of under co-proposal Option 2, railroads railroad involved had at least one time. Shortly after the one-person crew may assume more business risk as an adequate backstop to human error. FRA left the train, the local fire department initiated crew reduction would be has also issued several other regulations responded to an emergency call about a subject to regulatory action to address the safety issues raised by fire on the train. The responders (discontinuance or more conditions for these accidents which are described followed the railroad’s instructions in approval). This means that railroads within the summaries of the accidents. shutting down the locomotive and then could end up acquiring equipment or extinguished the fire. The responders resources for unapproved crew Lac-Me´gantic, Quebec, Canada met with an employee of the railroad, a reductions or to modify initial plans for FRA published Emergency Order 28 track foreman, to discuss the train’s crew reductions. This would be costly (78 FR 48218) on August 7, 2013, condition prior to departing the area. and bring more uncertainty to the (issued on August 2, 2013) which The track foreman dispatched by the railroads’ business plans in the short- contains the preliminarily known railroad did not have a locomotive term. details of the events on July 5–6, 2013, operations background. With all the FRA conducted a sensitivity analysis that led to the catastrophic accident at locomotives shut down, the air of its first co-proposal using a 20-year Lac-Me´gantic. On August 20, 2014, the compressor no longer supplied air to the time horizon and a scenario with a more Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of air brake system, the air leaked, and the rapid crew size reduction schedule. Canada released its railway air brakes gradually become less FRA estimates that the cost range of the investigation report, which refines the effective until the combination of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13922 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

locomotive air brakes and hand brakes • FRA’s Emergency Order 28, 78 FR Some people in the railroad industry could no longer hold the train. 48218, Aug. 7, 2013. view the accident at Lac-Me´gantic as • In the aftermath of the Montreal, FRA’s Safety Advisory 2013–06, 78 having nothing to do with crew size. Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA) FR 48224, Aug. 7, 2013, jointly issued They argue that there are potential with the Pipeline and Hazardous derailment at Lac-Me´gantic, Transport safety benefits to single-person train Materials Safety Administration Canada issued an order for all Canadian operations, such as increased (PHMSA) (discussing the circumstances railroad companies to provide for attentiveness by the lone operator surrounding the Lac-Me´gantic accident because of the absence of a second minimum operating crew requirements and making certain safety-related crewmember on whom to rely. It is also considering technology, length of train, recommendations to railroads and crude said that there are fewer distractions speeds, classification of dangerous oil offerors). from extraneous conversations. The TSB goods being transported, and other risk • FRA’s Safety Advisory 2013–07, 78 of Canada report on the Lac-Me´gantic factors. In response, MMA changed its FR 69745, Nov. 20, 2013, jointly issued accident found that it could not be operating procedures to use two-person with PHMSA (reinforcing the concluded that a one-person crew crews on trains in Canada. However, importance of proper characterization, contributed to the accident. However, FRA was concerned that MMA did not classification, and selection of a packing TSB of Canada found that the risk of automatically make corresponding group for Class 3 materials and the implementing single-person train changes to its operating procedures in corresponding requirements in the operations is a risk that must be the U.S. even though the risk associated Federal hazardous materials regulations addressed because it is related to unsafe with this catastrophic accident also for safety and security planning after the acts, unsafe conditions, or safety issues 1 exists in the U.S. It may have been that, Lac-Me´gantic accident). with the potential to degrade rail safety. without a specific two-person train crew • FRA’s Safety Advisory 2014–01, TSB of Canada concluded that requirement in the U.S., MMA did not jointly issued with PHMSA, 79 FR addressing the risk of one-person feel compelled to take any action to 27370, May 13, 2014, (encouraging the operations is essential to preventing enhance the safety of its U.S. operations use of railroad tank car designs with the future similar accidents, even if the risk in a like-minded way to the preventive highest level of integrity reasonably itself cannot be determined to directly measures it took in Canada. available). have led to this accident. • The Lac-Me´gantic accident is also PHMSA’s final rule, issued in Related to the risks associated with relevant to the issue of crew size coordination with FRA, ‘‘Hazardous one-person operations, TSB of Canada because the tank cars that derailed were Materials: Enhanced Tank Car found that MMA did not have a strong carrying crude oil from the Bakken Standards and Operational Controls for safety culture, which made MMA a poor deposit in North Dakota and Montana High Hazard Flammable Trains,’’ 80 FR candidate to implement one-person and this proposed rule carries forward 26643, May 8, 2015, (adopting new operations. For instance, TSB of Canada FRA’s position that at least a two-person operational requirements for certain notes that an organization with a strong train crew is warranted on any train trains transporting large quantities of safety culture is generally proactive carrying 20 or more tank cars loaded flammable liquids known as ‘‘high- when it comes to addressing safety with crude oil or ethanol. Over the past hazard flammable trains’’ (HHFT), issues, and yet MMA was generally few years, a technological advancement creating improvements in tank car reactive. MMA had significant gaps has allowed crude oil to be recovered standards, providing a sampling and between the company’s operating from under nonpermeable shale rock. classification program for unrefined instructions and how work was This advancement of hydraulic petroleum-based products; and creating performed day-to-day. Furthermore, fracturing, better known as ‘‘fracking,’’ notification requirements). TSB of Canada’s investigation found • FRA’s final rule ‘‘Securement of resulted in a substantial increase in MMA had inadequate training, testing, Unattended Equipment,’’ 80 FR 47349, crude oil shipments in both Canada and and supervision. In contrast, an effective Aug. 6, 2015, (adopting requirements to the U.S. between 2009 and 2015.2 The safety culture is characterized by an prevent unattended trains that carry prevalence of crude oil tank cars on U.S. informed workforce where people crude oil, ethanol, poisonous by railroads, and the volatility of some of understand the hazards and risks inhalation (PIH), toxic by inhalation the blended crude oil from different involved in their own operation and (TIH), and other highly flammable sources or mixed with the chemicals work continuously to identify and contents from rolling away). overcome threats to safety. used in the fracking process, suggested Also, in 2013, DOT launched that Bakken crude oil might have a At the time of the accident, there were Operation Safe Delivery (OSD), which is no rules or regulations preventing significantly greater potential to be examining the entire system of crude oil Canadian railroads from implementing improperly classified and packaged for delivery. OSD concluded, after months one-person train operations. Thus, TSB transportation. Investigators initially of unannounced inspections, testing, of Canada concluded that the risks considered that improper classification and analysis, that ‘‘the current posed by one-person operations suggest and packaging was likely a contributing classification applied to Bakken crude is that Transport Canada, i.e., Canada’s cause to the catastrophic result at Lac- accurate under the current classification DOT, should consider whether each Me´gantic. Consequently, DOT has taken system, but that the crude has a higher railroad has the measures in place to or is taking a variety of actions to gas content, higher vapor pressure, mitigate those risks by creating a address the issues created by lower flash point and boiling point and process to approve and monitor each transporting crude oil produced through thus a higher degree of volatility than railroad’s one-person operation plans. fracking from various approaches. See, most other crudes in the U.S., which TSB of Canada reasoned that if one- the following examples correlates to increased ignitability and person operations are implemented flammability.’’ See OSD Update (July ‘‘without identifying all risks, and if 1 Letter from Joseph C. Szabo, FRA Administrator, 23, 2014) summarizing PHMSA and mitigation measures are not to Mr. Edward Burkhardt, CEO of MMA (Aug. 21, 2013), placed in the docket. FRA testing results of Bakken crude oil implemented, an equivalent level of 2 https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_MOVE_ as of May 2014; available online at safety to that of multi-person crews will RAILNA_A_EPC0_RAIL_MBBL_M.htm. http://1.usa.gov/1piQJB1. not be maintained.’’ Considering that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13923

there are only two Canadian railroads consistently met when trains were from an adjacent main track. Thirteen that have operated using one-person operated by two crewmembers. This cars in the middle of the 112-car grain operations, TSB of Canada seems to be seems to be the case here, as the train had derailed, most likely due to a making a prudent recommendation engineer only set seven hand brakes broken axle on the 45th railcar, and that before one-person operations are more instead of the minimum of nine. railcar ended up fouling the main track widely used throughout the Canadian Although TSB of Canada’s investigation the key train was operating over. The rail system. This is the exact lesson found that even nine hand brakes would collision derailed the key train’s two learned that FRA would like to apply to not have been enough to hold the train, leading locomotives, as well as the first U.S. rail operations through a second crewmember could have 21 trailing cars behind the locomotives. promulgation of this rulemaking. ensured proper securement if the After the collision, an estimated 474,936 Even though TSB of Canada was not railroad had issued proper instructions gallons of crude oil was released from able to conclude that having another regarding the minimum number of hand 18 loaded tank cars fueling a fire which crewmember would have prevented the brakes to apply. Even TSB of Canada’s caused subsequent explosions as the accident, and certainly FRA agrees that report summarizing its investigations of loaded oil tank cars burned. The local this could not be determined with any other shortline runaway train accidents fire department had requested that absolute certainty, it is distinctly that it investigated previously suggests nearby residents voluntarily evacuate possible that a train crew with a that, without having another immediately following the collision and minimum of two-persons would have crewmember available, no other person approximately 1,500 residents did had more options available to secure the had the opportunity to verify whether evacuate. The voluntary evacuation was train safely, thereby potentially posing the train was properly secured. lifted approximately 25 hours after the less of a risk of a runaway train. This Additionally, although it is not unusual collision. There were no injuries to was an issue raised by some labor for some types of locomotives to smoke crewmembers, emergency responders, members of FRA’s Federal advisory and that the engineer did contact the or the general public, but images and committee and has some support in TSB railroad and was told to leave the engine video of the burning railcars made the of Canada’s report. For instance, a one- while it was smoking, TSB of Canada accident national news. found that the taxi driver that Many members of the general public person crew was limited to where the questioned the decision to leave the who viewed the news accounts of train could be parked so that it would locomotive in a smoking condition did burning wreckage may not be aware that not block a grade crossing, where it is not carry the same weight as a qualified the heroic actions of the grain train’s significantly more feasible operationally railroad employee. Similarly, the one- crewmembers potentially prevented the for a two-person crew to choose to split person crew and the dispatcher did not environmental and property damages the train and park each part on a lesser discuss the MMA procedure requiring from being much worse, in addition to grade than the choice left for the one- that a locomotive be shut down due to potentially shortening the evacuation person crew. There are four main abnormal smoke, and TSB of Canada period. The grain train was operated by reasons why splitting a train is generally states that it is impossible to conclude a three-person crew, which included a considered a two-person job: (1) If a whether the presence of another locomotive engineer, a conductor, and a one-person crew leaves the locomotive crewmember would have resulted in student locomotive engineer (i.e., a cab unoccupied and has not taken different actions to secure the train— conductor training to be a locomotive appropriate measures to secure the although FRA believes it is impossible engineer). Post-accident, the grain train train, it could become a runaway; (2) to exclude either. crew was approached by the Assistant even if the train is secure, some cars Thus, in consideration of the safety Fire Chief of the Casselton Fire may move depending on the terrain, concerns involved in the rail Department who asked whether the making it difficult for the one-person transportation of crude oil, the crew could assist the emergency crew to go between cars at a desired catastrophic accident at Lac-Me´gantic responders by pulling a cut of tank cars location without applying hand brakes, serves as the trigger to create redundant away from the burning derailed cars. which can be time-consuming and safeguards that have a high potential of Upon receiving the request, a BNSF strenuous work; (3) depending on the preventing other accidents. FRA’s road foreman of engines consulted with length of the train, it could be time- position is reinforced by research and the crew to see if the crewmembers consuming for the one crewmember to review of accident information, which believed it was safe to move the cars, walk the train to get to the desired confirms that railroads that provide two which they did. The grain train’s location for a cut and find that the car qualified crewmembers, who can work locomotive engineer and student needs to move to release the coupler as an effective team on those unit trains locomotive engineer went to the DPU on lock; and (4) when the one-person crew (which commonly consist of over 100 the key train and the conductor and stops occupying the lead locomotive loaded tank cars of crude oil), improve road foreman of engines went to the east cab, the train and crew are more the safety of those operations. to the nearest grade crossing and made vulnerable to vandalism and malicious a cut of an estimated 50 tank cars. The Casselton, ND acts by trespassers who might actually engineer and student engineer then want to operate the train. In addition, a Another train accident illustrates how pulled the cars about a quarter of a mile second person might be needed to flag having multiple train crewmembers can west away from the burning train. a grade crossing and it would be easier improve safety for the general public Approximately 45 minutes after that to reposition one or more cars with a and the crewmembers themselves. On move was completed, the Assistant Fire second crewmember. Another issue that December 30, 2013, an eastbound BNSF Chief met the grain train’s crew again favors two-person crews is that a TSB of Railway (BNSF) ‘‘key train,’’ consisting and asked if additional tank cars from Canada survey determined that there of two head end locomotives, one rear the key train could be moved. The grain were instances when MMA one-person distributive power unit (DPU), and two train’s crew made contact with a BNSF crews applied less than the minimum buffer cars on each end of 104 loaded trainmaster and communicated the number of hand brakes required by crude oil cars, collided with a car from request. The trainmaster told the crew MMA’s rules and that the minimum a westbound BNSF ‘‘grain train’’ that that if the move could be completed hand brake requirement was more had derailed less than 2 minutes earlier safely, they had permission to proceed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13924 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

The student engineer borrowed the Fourth, the engineer announced the standpoint, this accident is illustrative Assistant Fire Chief’s fire protective collision by radio. Reporting the of the safety benefits a second clothing and walked within 10 car incident as quickly as possible is always crewmember can provide and that lengths of the fire and uncoupled crucial to getting first responders to the railroad operations, railroad approximately 20 additional cars from scene of an accident. By contacting the crewmembers, the environment, and the the burning train. Then, the locomotive dispatcher on the railroad’s radio, the general public are better served by the engineer coupled to these cars and engineer was taking an important availability of a second crewmember. As moved them to the west creating a safety precaution to ensure other railroad explained in relation to the Lac- gap of approximately 25 to 30 car- operations were not adversely impacted. Me´gantic accident, it is often lengths from the burning cars. Had this been a one-person crew, there impractical to expect a one-person crew Adding these two emergency response is a question of whether the engineer to split a train, and in the case of an moves together, the grain train’s crew might have desired to exit the accident, there are added concerns was responsible for moving locomotive first and then notify the regarding a one-person crew’s ability to approximately 70 loaded crude oil cars dispatcher, assuming the engineer maintain communications with the in the key train out of harm’s way. believed his life was in immediate dispatcher and emergency personnel These urgent moves would have been danger. Having a second crewmember while performing this potentially much more time consuming and present working to exit the locomotive dangerous emergency movement. For logistically difficult if the grain train may have freed the engineer to report instance, although an employee is was operated with only a one-person the accident. Fifth, the conductor permitted to use a cell phone during crew. For those reasons, there is a attempted to exit the front door while emergency situations involving the question of whether either of these the engineer was reporting the accident operation of the railroad under 49 CFR emergency response moves would have over the radio, but finding it jammed 220.309(b), the employee would have to been attempted with a one-person crew. remember to grab it, and the dispatcher Meanwhile, it is arguable that the shut, the conductor departed the locomotive through the back door and emergency personnel might not two-person key train crew benefited know the employee’s phone number. If from each other’s presence in the cab of located behind the engineer’s seat. The engineer soon followed the conductor as the employee took a portable railroad the controlling locomotive. The crew radio while conducting the train helped each other through the it was clearly determined to be the only viable way to exit the locomotive. As splitting operation, there is a significant emergency by issuing appropriate probability that the radio signal would warnings and sharing tasks. First, the the crew escaped from the locomotive, the conductor described the heat from not be strong enough to communicate locomotive engineer was able to warn with the dispatcher. These concerns the conductor to get down and brace for the fire as ‘‘intense.’’ The crew could not get away from the locomotive also do not take into account the fact impact 4 to 5 seconds before colliding that FRA purposely prohibits the use of with the derailed grain train railcar, and quickly as they found themselves in electronic devices during railroad they both were able to get down on the knee-deep snow immediately upon operations as they can be distractions floor and brace themselves. The exiting the locomotive. About a minute that lead to preventable injuries and conductor admitted that he had never after exiting the locomotive, it was accidents. See 49 CFR part 220, subpart been in a situation where a collision engulfed in flames. Sixth, they ran C. The benefits of a second crewmember was imminent, and he did not know together away from the train with the following an accident may be especially what he was supposed to do. Although engineer using his cell phone on the run useful when the commodities hauled a one-person crew would not need to to call 911 and the conductor answering pose significant risks, or a single warn another crewmember of an the dispatcher’s call on the conductor’s crewmember is injured or is simply impending impact, this is an example of cell phone. Thus, the two crewmembers an expert crew working together. were able to simultaneously assist with unable to perform as many tasks as Second, after the impact, the crew was providing different officials with quickly as two crewmembers. able to assess that they were not information that would assist the B. Research Identifies Crewmember seriously injured, and it was the railroad and first responders. Seventh, Tasks and the Positive Attributes of conductor who first noticed that their when the engineer found out local Teamwork; Raises Concerns With One- train was on fire when he looked out the citizens were at the crash site, he Person Crews, Especially When window and was able to warn the strongly urged the local police to get Implementing New Technology locomotive engineer of that fact. This is those citizens away from the site a clear example of the benefit a second because the oil train was just like the Before FRA asked RSAC to consider crewmember can provide. Without a one in (Lac-Me´gantic) Canada, and the accepting a crew size task, FRA was second person, the engineer may not deputy sheriff recognized the danger. aware that some research revealed have realized that he was in immediate These two crewmembers worked as a significant safety concerns with one- danger. Third, upon hearing this news, team in an emergency situation to person crew operations. To aid the the engineer told the conductor to ‘‘grab divide up tasks, warn the dispatcher Working Group in its development of your cell phone and run.’’ This is and local emergency responders, and recommendations for appropriate crew another example of effective teamwork protect each other’s safety. Fortunately, size minimum standards, FRA provided during an emergency situation. Some neither crewmember suffered any five FRA-sponsored research reports, as people do not think as clearly as others serious injuries preventing them from well as one Transportation Research during an emergency and, in this case, escaping the damaged locomotive or Board (TRB) conference report that the engineer, with about 9 years of running to safety. Certainly, with two contains presentations from multiple experience, recognized that it was crewmembers, there is the potential that research reports, prior to the first important for him to instruct the both crewmembers could be hurt, but meeting. This background offers a conductor with less than 2 years of there is also the possibility that one summary of the important findings of experience that the crew should have crewmember could physically assist an these reports, as well as a list of those their cell phones to report information injured colleague. FRA believes that, reports presented, with an internet link and to leave the locomotive quickly. from a post-accident risk mitigation to each report.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13925

(1) ‘‘Cognitive and Collaborative about a territory (e.g., the conductor situational awareness of surroundings, Demands of Freight Conductor instructs the engineer where to place a the ability to project the effect of consist Activities: Results and Implications of a train of a certain length so the train does on train dynamics, the ability to Cognitive Task Analysis—Human not block a crossing). The conductor problem-solve, the ability to plan ahead, Factors in Railroad Operations,’’ Final also serves to remind the engineer about the ability to multitask, the ability to Report, July 2012, DOT/FRA/ORD–12/ upcoming signals and slow orders and exploit external memory aids, and the 13. The research and report was provides ‘‘look ahead’’ information to ability to foster situational awareness performed by the John A. Volpe alert the engineer about hills, curves, through active communication. The National Transportation Systems Center. grade crossings, and other physical study concluded that less experienced The report is available online at http:// characteristics of the territory that have conductors are less able to handle www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04331. the potential to cause operational situations that require multiple A primary finding of this FRA- problems. If the locomotive engineer is demands on attention, and they are less sponsored study is that conductors and not in compliance with the railroad’s able to effectively problem-solve, plan locomotive engineers operate as a joint operating rules, it is the conductor’s job ahead, or identify and avoid potential cognitive system. The findings indicate to bring it to the locomotive engineer’s hazards. Because they have had less that the conductor and the locomotive attention, or take appropriate corrective ‘‘first-hand’’ experience on the job, they engineer function as an integrated team action that may include actuating the are typically less confident in their that often operate as a single unit with emergency brake to bring the train to an knowledge and ability. Having a two- a common goal. These two emergency stop if the conductor feels person crew broadens the number of crewmembers not only work together to the train, its crew, or others outside the experiences from which the crew can monitor the operating environment train are in danger. A significant finding draw from. outside the locomotive, they also was that operating in mountain-grade This research also addresses the role collaborate in planning activities, territory adds complexity to the job and of PTC technology and whether it can problem solving, and identifying and introduces additional cognitive substitute for a conductor, thereby mitigating potential risk. A conductor is demands on both the conductor and the paving the way for one-person defined as the crewmember in charge of locomotive engineer. operations. The cognitive task analysis a train or yard crew. Freight conductors Third, a freight conductor’s duties addresses this issue by laying out the supervise pre-trip activities, over-the- usually extend to taking the lead on multiple ways in which conductors road operation, and post-trip activities interacting with non-crewmembers, to ensure overall safe and efficient train such as dispatchers and roadway contribute to safe and efficient train movement. workers. These communications with operations and contrasts this with the The freight conductor’s role has non-crewmembers typically takes place anticipated features of PTC systems. The evolved from primarily a physical in by radio. There may be expected and report concludes that PTC can provide nature job to one that emphasizes unexpected radio communications, and warnings of upcoming signals, work cognitive work. The research identifies there may be lulls in communication zones and speed restrictions; however, five broad categories of cognitive job and times of heavy interaction that PTC cannot account for all the physical duties that a freight conductor normally require conductors to multitask in order and cognitive functions that a conductor faces, which raises issues for each to simultaneously receive/copy currently provides. For instance, railroad that might be considering one- information received by radio while conductors can support locomotive person train operations and how the calling out signals and speed engineers in monitoring events outside one-person operation can be as safe as restrictions. the cab window for potential obstacles a two-person operation. Fourth, the freight conductor’s duties and hazards undetected by automated One of those five categories of require diagnosing and responding to systems (e.g., people working on or cognitive job duties is to manage the train problems, as well as dealing with around the track, trespassers, cars at train consist, including the train other exceptional situations. grade crossings). FRA acknowledges makeup. This duty requires the freight Fifth, railroads typically assign the that to the extent railroads comply with conductor to understand train makeup freight conductor the job of managing this rule using crewmembers in places rules and apply them both in the yard the train crew’s paperwork. Examples of other than the controlling cab, the and on the mainline. Experienced paperwork managed by a freight crewmember is less likely to be able to conductors understand the implications conductor include the conductor’s log, provide this function. Other functions of car placement, car consist, and car writing down orders, copying bulletins the conductor provides is filling weight and shape when building trains. for both crewmembers received by knowledge gaps that locomotive Conductors must understand how the radio, and keeping an up-to-date engineers may have, supporting train’s consist will affect train handling, rulebook. When a conductor is handling decision making, handling which is important to ensure locomotive all of these duties, the safety benefit is unanticipated events, and keeping the engineer compliance when operating that the engineer can concentrate on locomotive engineer alert, especially on the train. (It is possible that this duty operating the train. long, monotonous trips where there is a could also carry over to passenger train Another issue mentioned separately risk of falling asleep. For this reason, the conductors, if there were different types in this study’s final report is that in research recommends that each railroad of passenger cars in the same train that order to gain the cognitive skill and seeking implementation of one-person had the potential for compatibility knowledge to be an expert freight operations in the future compile a issues, e.g., incompatible doors.) conductor, a person needs about 5 years detailed list of all of the physical and Second, a freight conductor also has of experience. This is because there are cognitive tasks both the engineer and the duty to coordinate with the engineer a significant number of overarching conductor perform in the cab, determine for safe and efficient en route cognitive challenges that differentiate which of these tasks PTC will cover, and operations, which includes checking expert conductors from less experienced understand how the locomotive speed, signal indications, and engineer ones. A quick list of these overarching engineer’s responsibilities would alertness. This duty could also include cognitive challenges include knowledge change in a one-person operation. Of filling an engineer’s knowledge gap of the territory, the ability to maintain course, as the one-person crew would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13926 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

presumably have more required tasks programs that address relevant and freight’’ work which involves moving than an engineer in a two-person crew measurable KSAOs. Second, the results trains over long distances between (even if PTC addresses some of those can be used to form the foundation for major terminals or interchange points tasks), the railroad should consider how performance appraisal systems that are and frequently requires overnight stays the strain of additional responsibilities legally defensible and evaluate at an out-of-town location, and (2) may impact situational awareness. FRA employees based on KSAOs that have ‘‘local freight’’ work which involves requests comments on how railroads been identified as related to the job. moving trains between a railroad yard can and do safely and effectively Third, the results can be used to help and a nearby location so that the perform these tasks using one-person ensure that a hiring organization will employee returns to the starting location crews. appropriately screen new talent. at the end of the work period. Railroad Removal of the freight conductor from In relation to the crew size issue, this workers are more likely to get less than the most common arrangement of a two- study is relevant because it explains the seven hours of total sleep on a work person train crew team would have wide variety of KSAOs a passenger train day, which puts them at risk of fatigue. significant implications for the conductor needs to possess in order to Extrapolating from the findings in the remaining one-person crewmember. do the job well. Therefore, if a passenger study, it appears that a railroad One-person train crews would need to railroad employs only a one-person considering a one-person train crew absorb the physical tasks necessary for train crew, there is a question of how operation should consider whether the operations, as well as the many one person can do all of these tasks and crewmember is likely to be fatigued. In cognitive tasks. Some of the freight the tasks required of a locomotive a railroad’s safety analysis, prior to conductor’s current cognitive duties engineer. Examples of passenger implementing a one-person operation, it would be impossible with one person. conductor KSAOs include knowledge of would be prudent for the railroad to For example, with a one-person crew, operating and safety rules, skill in consider what redundancy backstops there will not be a second crewmember working on and around moving have been implemented in case the to fill in the knowledge or experience equipment, judgment and decision- crewmember falls asleep on the job. If gaps of the sole crewmember. One of the making ability, and a commitment to FRA needed to review and approve an problems is that inexperienced people safety. Conductors use a number of operation with less than two ‘‘don’t know what they don’t know’’ and different tools and types of equipment, crewmembers, the agency would be therefore cannot anticipate the risk and and work with a variety of railroad looking to see if the railroad challenges, and cannot prepare for personnel such as locomotive engineers, implemented strategies for reducing them. Pairing a conductor and dispatchers, and foremen. The job is railroad worker fatigue, such as locomotive engineer so that at least one also physically and psychologically improving the predictability of of them is highly experienced can demanding for workers because of the schedules, considering the time of day mitigate that problem. prevalence of irregular work hours, out- it permits one-person train crews to Another potential issue of one-person of-doors work, and the need to lift and operate, and educating workers about crews is that it eliminates the move heavy equipment. Passenger human fatigue and sleep disorders. This opportunity to work as a conductor conductors also need to be able to carry study could help provide a railroad with before promotion to locomotive out tasks involving passenger some ideas for reducing fatigue in its engineer. This is a two-fold problem. interaction; crew communication; crew train crewmembers. First, engineers do not get the supervision; form and record (4) ‘‘Technology Implications of a experience of separately learning the management; train inspection, Cognitive Task Analysis for Locomotive freight conductor position. Second, troubleshooting, and repair; train Engineers—Human Factors in Railroad engineers who are never conductors are makeup and handling; and emergency Operations,’’ Final Report, dated likely to begin their engineer careers situations. January 2009, DOT/FRA/ORD–09/03. with less railroad experience than those (3) ‘‘Fatigue Status in the U.S. The research and report was performed who first become conductors. Railroads Railroad Industry,’’ Final Report, dated by the John A. Volpe National that have used previously promoted February 2013, DOT/FRA/ORD–13/06. Transportation Systems Center and can conductors for their current one-person This report can be found online at be found online at www.fra.dot.gov/ operations may find a shortage of such www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2929. Elib/Document/381. competent candidates to promote within The research and report was performed This report documents the results of the company if they eliminate the by QinetiQ North America and an a cognitive task analysis (CTA) that conductor position. Engineering Psychologist within FRA’s examined the cognitive demands and (2) ‘‘Rail Industry Job Analysis: Office of Research and Development. activities of locomotive engineers in Passenger Conductor,’’ Final Report, Train and Engine (T&E) workers, such today’s environment and the changes in dated February 2013, DOT/FRA/ORD– as locomotive engineers and conductors, cognitive demands and activities that 13/07. The research and report was are safety-critical railroad employees are likely to arise with the introduction performed by the John A. Volpe that have the highest exposure to fatigue of new train control technologies. One National Transportation Systems Center in the railroad industry. They are also of the objectives of this CTA was to and can be found online at http:// among employees that have the longest understand these potential new www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04321. work hours and work at night. Passenger performance demands. Another of the The purpose of this analysis was to T&E workers, as a group, are workers CTA’s objectives was to evaluate the identify key aspects of the passenger with the least fatigue exposure because interaction between the locomotive train conductor job, including the main of the predictability of their schedules engineer and the conductor and how responsibilities of the job, and the kinds and less nighttime work; however, some they work jointly to operate the train in of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other passenger or commuter workers are a safe and efficient manner. At the time characteristics (KSAOs) required to required to stay at an out-of-town of the CTA, the researchers assumed successfully perform the job. The results location and do not return to their that railroads would continue to use a of the analysis are useful to the railroad starting location at the end of the work two-person crew configuration and so industry for three reasons. First, the period. Freight T&E work can be the analysis in this report does not results can be used to build training divided into two groups: (1) ‘‘road explicitly consider any additional

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13927

sources of cognitive workload that may The PTC systems also created new requirements for extensive interaction arise should there be a transition to sources of workload and distraction. with the PTC systems (e.g., to initialize single-person operations. The study Sources of workload and distractions it and to acknowledge messages and notes that each crewmember has a duty include the need to acknowledge alerts) that impose new sources of to catch and correct the errors made by frequent (and often non-informative) workload. The research concluded that the other crewmember. audio alerts generated by the PTC although PTC technology is likely to The research examined the following system and the need for extensive input have a positive impact on overall risk of types of PTC systems: (1) to the PTC system during initialization accidents, these new sources of Communications-based train and when error messages occur while cognitive demand can contribute to management (CBTM), (2) advanced operating the train. For example, the errors and accidents. speed enforcement system (ASES), (3) NAJPTC system is described as having Railroads and PTC system designers incremental train control system (ITCS), a train location determination system need to be made aware that measures (4) electronic train management system (LDS) that is able to locate train position can be taken in the design of PTC (ETMS), and (5) North American Joint within 10 feet but it would trigger a displays and in development of user Positive Train Control (NAJPTC). This failure alarm when the LDS system training to improve train crew 2009 study acknowledges that the PTC experienced difficulty identifying the performance and reduce the potential systems are described and analyzed as train location. The failure alarm for human error. The final section of they were implemented at the time of sounded repeatedly, requiring the train this report discusses a number of the site visits and, in some cases, the crew’s attention. Although this situation suggestions for ways to improve in-cab PTC systems may have undergone described was an early test of the displays to reduce cognitive demands substantial redesign since then. system, and no consequences of failing on train crews and facilitate train crew The results pointed to major cognitive to respond to the alert occurred, when performance as well as suggestions for challenges involved in operating a train, the test period ends a failure to respond improved training. For example, one including the need for sustained to an alert quickly might result in a promising area for research and monitoring and attention; maintaining penalty brake. The experiences of development is improved in-cab an accurate situation model of the European railroads suggest that the displays that minimize the need to immediate environment (including the concern expressed by the locomotive visually attend to the in-cab display to location, activities and intentions of engineers regarding too many non- extract important information. The other agents in the vicinity such as other informative alerts has a potential for research found that a substantial trains and roadway workers); negative safety consequences. Operators learning curve exists to reach the point anticipating and taking action in may respond to poorly designed audio where the in-cab display does not serve preparation for upcoming situations; alerts automatically without fully as a source of distraction, diverting and planning and decision-making, processing their meaning, thus defeating attention away from events out the particularly in response to their purpose. This is consistent with an window. Locomotive engineers must unanticipated conditions (e.g., person or extensive body of human factors have sufficient experience in running a object obstructing the track). literature that indicates that individuals PTC-equipped train as part of training Introduction of new train control are likely to ignore alarms when a high so that they get beyond the point where technology reduces some cognitive false alarm rate exists. (Please note that close monitoring of the in-cab display is demands while creating new ones. For required to avoid a penalty brake FRA’s PTC regulation prohibits example, as four out of the five PTC application. requiring a locomotive engineer to systems tested used conservative Another PTC issue related to crew ‘‘perform functions related to the PTC braking profiles to slow the train to the size is that PTC systems generally desired target speed under restrictive system while the train is moving that require manually entered inputs at the assumptions (e.g., heavy train or have the potential to distract the start of a trip and after a shutdown of slippery track), train crews discovered locomotive engineer from performance the system during train operations. The that they would need to initiate braking of other safety-critical duties,’’ which train crew must enter information that at an earlier point than they were would include distracting, non-useful the system will use as parameters for normally accustomed to if they wanted alerts. See 49 CFR 236.1006(d)(1), safe operation. These data entry tasks to prevent the PTC system from braking formerly § 236.1029(f)). provide another source of workload and the train for them. This earlier braking The new cognitive demands created distraction, yet they are highly point conflicts with the experienced by new technologies such as PTC can important because manual entry errors crews’ effective strategies for operating lead to changes in how locomotive can have safety implications. With a as efficiently as possible. A penalty engineers operate the train. Locomotive one-person crew, the task burden would brake application is highly undesirable engineers certainly combine the current fall on the sole crewmember. Although because it significantly delays train information they can obtain from direct a railroad might consider that if there is operations and may trigger report or perception (e.g., displays inside the cab only one-person in the locomotive cab, documentation requirements to explain as well as the scene outside the cab), in the person should not operate without why the penalty brake occurred. The addition to knowledge and skills gained the PTC system operational, report also discusses the implication of through training and experience to reinitializing the PTC system after it has the results for design of in-cab displays develop train handling strategies. initiated a penalty brake application can and development of training, Sources of new cognitive demands be a complex and time-consuming particularly for PTC systems. The include constraints imposed by the PTC procedure. On one railroad described in research suggests there is a need for braking profile that require locomotive the research, the procedure is so development of in-cab displays that engineers to modify train handling complex, difficult to follow, and time- make it easier to anticipate and stay strategies, increases in information and consuming that, during the PTC within the braking curve without having alerts provided by the in-cab displays system’s trial period, the locomotive to look closely at the in-cab display so that require locomotive engineers to engineers were allowed to forego that more attention can be directed to focus more attention on in-cab displays reinitializing the PTC system. However, looking outside the window. versus out the window, and the study noted that once the system

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13928 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

becomes fully operational, running a because it would like the railroad crew position to be able to assess which train without PTC activated may no industry to consider HSI when of those roles and responsibilities are longer be an option. implementing new technologies such as eliminated (or taken on) by the new This study is important to the crew PTC, energy management systems technology and which remain and must size issue because it challenges the (EMS), and electronically controlled be accounted for in some other way if possibility that a train with PTC is pneumatic (ECP) brakes in the the crew position is eliminated. FRA inherently safe with only a one-person locomotive cab. The expectation is that has significantly aided this HSI analysis crew and that no safety analysis or FRA an HSI approach to railroad technology by previously sponsoring CTA reports oversight of the operation is warranted. acquisition and implementation can that focused on railroad dispatchers, The study concluded that although PTC increase user acceptance and usability roadway worker activities, locomotive technologies have the potential to of the technology, as well as increase engineers, and freight train conductors improve safety and efficiency of railroad the likelihood that it is deployed (the two latter reports were previously operations, they also have the potential successfully. This report provides described in this preamble section). to create new failure modes and impose guidance to the industry with respect to The report cites a prior research new cognitive demands on locomotive the need for HSI in the technology finding that the introduction of new engineers who need to monitor PTC acquisition process, and more technology does not necessarily displays and provide inputs to the specifically, how to use Cognitive Task guarantee improved human-machine system. For example, without PTC Analysis (CTA) methods and results as system performance. Woods, D. & technology, locomotive engineers are part of the HSI process. Dekker, S., ‘‘Anticipating the effects of highly engaged with the train operation, The nature of the work associated technological change: A new era of noticing visual cues (i.e., landmarks and with many railway worker positions dynamics for human factors,’’ mileposts), monitoring radio (e.g., locomotive engineers, conductors, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics communications of other trains, and and roadway workers) is rapidly shifting Science, 1(3), 272–282 (2000); National relaying information by radio to other from being primarily physical to placing Research Council (NRC) Committee on trains about potential hazards. Some greater emphasis on cognitive demands Human-System Design Support for locomotive engineers even indicated (e.g., monitoring, supervising automated Changing Technology, ‘‘Human-System that they get a variety of sensory-based systems, planning, communicating and Integration in the System Development cues that help them perceive their coordinating, and handling Process,’’ National Academies Press location, such as vibrations associated unanticipated situations). CTA methods (2007), http://www.nap.edu/ with a portion of track or a smell that _ reminds them they are near a farm. The provide a means to explicitly identify catalog.php?record id=11893; and research suggests that because the PTC the knowledge and mental processing Wreathall, J., Woods, D.D., Bing, A.J. & technology may require locomotive demands of work so as to be able to Christoffersen, K., ‘‘Relative risk of engineers to focus more of their anticipate contributors to performance workload transitions in positive train attention on in-cab displays, it will problems (e.g., lack of information, high control,’’ Washington, DC: U.S. reduce their ability to monitor activity attention demands, inaccurate Department of Transportation, Federal outside the cab and raises a question understanding) and specify ways to Railroad Administration. DOT/FRA/ about whether the engineers will lose improve individual and team ORD–07/12 (2007), http://ntl.bts.gov/ any situational awareness in relation to performance (be it through new forms of lib/42000/42400/42472/ord0712.pdf. the coherent mental picture (i.e., the training, user interfaces, or decision- Poor use of technology can create situation model) of where the engineer aids). CTAs can inform all aspects of additional workload for system users, perceives the train to be based on prior HSI starting from early system can result in systems that are difficult to experience. Typically, a locomotive requirements exploration and definition learn or use, or, in the extreme, can engineer will use that situation model to through late stage validation and field result in systems that are more likely to help the engineer anticipate future testing. The information in the report lead to catastrophic errors. The events. Furthermore, the research can serve as a lead-in to the kinds of introduction of new technology results concluded that train crews must avoid insights that can be drawn from in the following types of common too much reliance on the new train performing a CTA when introducing changes in operating practice: (1) control technologies because, if the new technologies into railroad Changes in practitioner roles, including system ever fails, the engineer must still operations, as well as a starting point for emergence of new tasks; (2) changes in be able to operate the train safely. the industry as far as identifying the what is routine and what is exceptional; (5) ‘‘Using Cognitive Task Analysis to likely emerging issues that need to be (3) changes to the kinds of human errors Inform Issues in Human Systems explored as a result of the introduction that can occur; and (4) people in their Integration in Railroad Operations– of new technology. For example, CTA various roles adapting by actively Human Factors in Railroad Operations,’’ methods can examine how the altering tools and strategies to achieve Final Report, dated May 2013, DOT/ introduction of PTC might impact the goals and avoid failure. HSI is a way to FRA/ORD–13/31. The research and monitoring demands placed on employ a comprehensive analysis, report was performed by the John A. locomotive engineers, or alter the design, and evaluation process that Volpe National Transportation Systems patterns of communication between mitigates the risk of designing systems Center and can be found online at locomotive engineers and other railroad that create potential mismatches http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/ workers. CTA methods can inform the between the technology and the human L04589. design of systems that are more likely to operator limitations or capabilities. For Human Systems Integration (HSI) is be successful when deployed by example, in reviewing the freight train defined as a systematic, organization- ensuring that they address the specific conductor CTA and how it could inform wide approach to implementing new performance challenges users face and the HSI process regarding issues of one technologies and modernizing existing are sensitive to the larger system versus two-person train crew operation, systems that emphasizes the importance context. A CTA can be used to better the study concluded that ‘‘[i]t is not of the end-user in the system acquisition understand the various roles and clear how the introduction of PTC will process. FRA sponsored this research responsibilities associated with each affect cognitive and collaborative

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13929

processes, but findings suggest that it government and others on scientific and Backup behavior occurs when a team will not account for all the cognitive technical questions of national member recognizes that another team and physical support functions the importance. This particular conference member is in need of aid and offers conductor currently provides.’’ drew upon the expertise of researchers assistance. Backup behavior requires The study found that there are other and operating personnel concerned with team members to know enough about CTA methods that can be used to human performance and human factors other team members’ responsibilities to provide more fine-grained input to HSI research issues related to railroad anticipate their needs. Research has analysis and design activities. For operations. The following is a summary identified three types of backup example, there are CTA methods that of some of the relevant discussions in behavior: (1) Providing feedback to provide a more detailed, second-by- the conference report. The report improve performance, (2) assisting a second description of the mental contains citations to the research each teammate in performing a task, and (3) processes (e.g., perceptual processes, presenter relied on in forming their completing a task for a team member attention processes, memory store and analyses and conclusions. who is overloaded. The benefits of retrieval processes) involved in One central theme is that teams do mutual performance monitoring and performing complex cognitive tasks not become expert without guidance. backup behavior are simply lost when such as operating a train. The study They must be trained according to the the team consists of a single employee. provides descriptions and citations to established scientific principles. But One comment FRA heard during the these recent attempts to examine the training alone is not enough. To RSAC Working Group meetings was that microlevel (second-by-second) facilitate its success, organizations must multiple person train crews could be information processing involved in promote and reinforce teamwork less safe than a one-person crew because operating the train over a route. These behaviors. Long-term organizational sometimes crewmembers distract each more microcognitive-level analyses can commitment is crucial to demonstrating other from the train operation activities. be particularly helpful for analyzing that teamwork training is not just a fad, This issue was addressed in the attention and workload demands at an but is a central component of company conference report with regard to a in-depth level. policies and procedures. In other words, discussion of how expert teams perform In the emerging issues section of the there needs to be a ‘‘culture of versus non-expert teams. An example report, the study explained that if a teamwork’’ embedded within the was given of a train accident in which railroad chooses to transition to one- organization. a student engineer was allowed to person operations based on technology Team performance can be improved operate a train independently, receiving such as PTC, a proper HSI analysis when members effectively no guidance through supervisor role would require that the railroad answer communicate. One effective example is modeling or feedback prior to a certain fundamental questions about the when crews use periods of low collision. The incident was an operation for the system designers. For workload to plan ahead, so that if a exemplary prototype of a non-expert instance, will the engineer still be difficult situation arose, the explicit team because not only were the responsible for manually operating the discussions become the basis for crewmembers not trained adequately train? If not, when will the engineer actions. Of course, a question implied with effective feedback prior to the day manually control the train? When will from this report is that if the train crew of the accident, but also communication the software (automation) system consists of only one person, can the lone and coordination completely broke operate the train with the engineer crewmember plan ahead during periods down between all team members acting as supervisor? And, when will of low workload to the same extent as directly before the incident. In contrast, the roles be blended? Answers to these a crew of two or more persons who expert teams have a clear and common questions may introduce additional understand how to effectively purpose, as well as an understanding of concerns. For example, situational communicate? Unfortunately, the each individual member’s roles. It is awareness and operator vigilance may conference report does not answer this that understanding that allows expert become more of a concern when the implied question. team members to anticipate each other’s engineer’s role becomes more There are five critical components of actions and back each other up when supervisory. If crew size is reduced to teamwork: Mutual performance needed, as well as coordinate without one person, how will the reduction in monitoring, backup behavior, explicit and lengthy communication. crew size impact safety when the one- adaptability, team leadership, and team Furthermore, unlike non-expert teams, person crew is used to relying on orientation. Although not addressed by expert teams engage in a regular cycle cooperative strategies with the second the conference report, arguably three of of prebrief, performance, and debrief. person that fosters shared situational these strengths of teamwork are lost This performance cycle engages the awareness and creates safety nets? when the team consists of only one expert teams to identify high and low (6) ‘‘Teamwork in U.S. Railroad person. Team orientation refers to a priorities, revise goals and plans, Operations,’’ A Conference, April 23– person’s tendency to prefer working identify lessons learned, and evaluate 24, 2009, Irvine, California, with others, which could certainly be whether the team is or is not effective Transportation Research Board, Number problematic if a person with a team both in performing the task and E–C159, dated December 2011. The orientation is ordered to operate a train identifying the needs of team members. many authors of the research and as a one-person team. Mutual The research in the conference report reports are listed in the publication performance monitoring refers to the concludes that the main advantage of which can be found online at http:// ability to keep track of fellow team developing expert teams is that they onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ members’ work while carrying out their have higher levels of performance. For circulars/ec159.pdf. own, to ensure that everything is example, expert teams make better This conference report discusses the running as expected, and to ensure that decisions and fewer errors, which in key aspects of successful teams, such as they are following procedures correctly. turn enable expert teams to have a train crews. The Transportation Mutual performance monitoring is higher probability of mission success. Research Board is a division of the necessary in teams in order to prevent In yet another of the presentations in National Research Council, and an teams from making errors and enable the conference report, an issue raised independent adviser to the Federal teams to engage in backup behaviors. was whether internal and external

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13930 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

communications of train crewmembers train accidents/incidents that FRA equipment accident/incident or a grade could be captured to consider the determined might have greater crossing accident. impact of new technology, such as PTC, significance to the industry or the FRA is considering including in the on crew interactions and performance. general public. FRA did not have the final rule a requirement to report train The report states that making the most resources to investigate all of the 1,781 crew size data in the deaths, injuries, of new technologies to improve train accidents/incidents railroads and occupational illnesses accident efficiency while maintaining safety and reported to FRA in 2013. FRA is not report form. Such a regulatory change augmenting effectiveness will always aware that any of the accidents/ would allow FRA to have crew staffing present challenges, but that prudent incidents it investigated involved a one- information and to better assess the application of team science in general person crew operation. performance of train crews with less and of communications analysis in Part 225’s central provision requires than two members. The benefits of this particular can both facilitate their that each railroad subject to part 225 proposed change would be evaluated achievement and enhance their utility. submit to FRA monthly reports of all while FRA conducts a future The report explains that those accidents and incidents that meet FRA’s comprehensive reform of its accident/ technologies place new demands on reporting criteria. 49 CFR 225.11. incident reporting forms to modernize train crews in terms of tasks to be Railroad accidents/incidents are divided and meet data needs. As it relates to performed, skills required, and the size into three groups, each of which crew staffing and its characteristics, the and mix of both onboard and distributed corresponds to the type of reporting impetus for this effort originated during the RSAC Working Group meetings teams. FRA notes that, based on RSAC form that a railroad must file with FRA: regarding train crew size. This effort Working Group discussions, some (1) Highway-rail grade crossing made it clear that there is a need to railroads appear ready to reduce train accidents/incidents (FRA Form F improve both the quality and the scope crew size from two persons to one, upon 6180.57); (2) rail equipment accidents/ related to the collection of information implementation of PTC, under what incidents (FRA Form F 6180.54); and (3) of train crew staffing safety. As FRA and the presenters of this report deaths, injuries and occupational presented above, existing data forms do suggest would be a wrong presumption illnesses (FRA Form F 6180.55a). See 49 collect information about the number of that with PTC there would be less tasks CFR 225.19. For the reporting of deaths, for the crew to do or the tasks would be crewmembers involved in a train injuries, and occupational illnesses that easier to accomplish with a single accident. However, current reporting result from an event or exposure arising person. The report counters that requirements do not provide all the from the operation of a railroad, the presumption and suggests that the information required to assess the safety FRA forms do not request that the impact is unknown until PTC is performance of crews with less than two railroad record the number of implemented and the impact it would members. Likewise, FRA data needs crewmembers as that distinction is have on a two-person crew is studied. outside of this rulemaking are numerous unlikely to be pertinent to accident and need to be contemplated. For these C. The Acknowledged Limitations of analysis for those types of accidents/ reasons, FRA is engaged in an effort to FRA Accident/Incident Reporting Data incidents; instead, FRA only requires review and determine what data FRA’s accident/incident data is that the railroad report which collection practices need to be changed. derived from the agency’s requirements crewmembers were injured, killed, or However, FRA also concluded that this for railroads to record and self-report suffered an illness. Thus, it is effort has to be thoughtful and broad to specific information to FRA. The impossible to search FRA’s accident/ ensure it collects high quality data. FRA purpose of FRA’s accident/incident incident database for those forms to find is considering how to prioritize items recordkeeping and reporting regulation, whether a death, injury, or occupational and decide what data to collect on items contained in 49 CFR part 225, is ‘‘to illness did arise from the operation of a such as ECP brakes, PTC, or crude oil provide the Federal Railroad train with a one-person crew. or ethanol transportation by rail. All Administration with accurate Meanwhile, for the first and second these matters are of high priority and information concerning the hazards and group, highway-rail grade crossing would have to be considered in a risks that exist on the Nation’s railroads. accidents/incidents and rail equipment comprehensive manner to minimize FRA needs this information to accidents/incidents, the FRA forms information collection burden on the effectively carry out its statutory record the number of crewmembers. The regulated community. This NPRM is responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. highway-rail grade crossing accidents/ useful to request public input as it chapters 201–213. FRA also uses this incidents form records the number of pertains to crew staffing data and information for determining people on the train at the time of the determine what type of information comparative trends of railroad safety accident (both passengers and train collection needs to be refined or what and to develop hazard elimination and crew). The rail equipment accidents/ clarification in the part 225 guidance risk reduction programs that focus on incidents form records the number of needs to be amended to ensure forms preventing railroad injuries and crewmembers in boxes 40–43, with four are completed correctly. This input accidents.’’ 49 CFR 225.1. Over the life different work positions listed: would be used to inform a future of the part 225 regulation, FRA has Engineer/Operator, Fireman, Conductor, rulemaking that would propose changes amended these requirements in an effort and Brakeman. Obviously, FRA does not to part 225, FRA Form F 6180.54, and to require railroads to improve the see as many Fireman and Brakeman its related guidance. accuracy of their reporting. See 75 FR listed as it once did, but they are still For the benefit of the RSAC Working 68862, 68863–64 (providing an occasionally listed. The railroad must Group, FRA reviewed nearly 12 years of overview of part 225 and recent record the number of each type of railroad safety data between January amendments). FRA does not investigate crewmember that was working on the 2002 and October 2013 by searching the every reportable accident/incident, but train at the time of the accident/ F 6180.54 rail equipment accidents/ frequently conducts audits and incident. Thus, FRA is able to search the incidents forms. FRA manually investigations to ensure that railroads records to determine how many train reviewed 1,443 reports and applied are accurately reporting. In 2013, FRA crewmembers were assigned to a train several filters to eliminate redundant conducted its own investigation of 89 that was involved in a reportable rail reports, other than human-factor caused

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13931

accidents/incidents, accidents/incidents accurate description and identification a human factor failure, the data suggests that occurred within railroad yards, and of the causes, FRA personnel reviewing that MMA stood out as having accidents/incidents involving railroad the report might not believe there is the significantly more accidents involving maintenance equipment. After applying potential that a second person could trains carrying hazardous materials than these filters, FRA was left with have helped prevent the accident/ its peers. accidents/incidents that railroads incident. When looking at all train accidents in informed FRA were caused by human After RSAC failed to reach consensus, which a MMA shortline railroad peer error and involved a one-person crew FRA conducted additional accident/ reported the cause to be a human factor operating on main track. The result of incident data searches in an effort to failure, MMA reported four such this review was that FRA identified 28 determine whether there were any accidents, 4 of MMA’s shortline peers human-factor caused accidents/ trends that could be identified. FRA also reported 4 such accidents, 13 of incidents involving one-person crews looked at whether any data might have MMA’s shortline peers reported more operating conventionally and four suggested a safety problem with MMA, than 4 such accidents, and 39 of MMA’s accidents/incidents involving remotely which operated the train in the tragic shortline peers, including MMA, controlled operations on main track. Lac-Me´gantic accident described earlier, reported a total of 153 human factor Since FRA does not capture data that or with any problems with shortline failure caused accidents. Including would provide information regarding railroads that were similar in size to MMA, over 70 percent of MMA’s the total operating mileage for one- MMA. Rather than compare MMA to the shortline peers had at least one train person crew operations in the United entire railroad industry which could accident caused by human factor failure, States (or even two-person operations), provide a distorted result (as just a few and 25 percent had more human factor it is impossible for FRA to normalize the accidents on a shortline might make it failure train accidents than MMA. Thus, data and be able to compare the look like it has a high accident rate MMA did not stand out among its peers accident/incident rate of one-person compared to a major railroad that as having a much higher number of operations to that of two-person train operates many more miles over the accidents attributed to human factor crew operations to see if one-person course of a year), FRA compared MMA failure. FRA believes that even in cases operations appear safer or less safe. to its shortline peers. In 2012, the last where problematic one-person train Additionally, one-person operations full year before the accident, MMA had operations cannot be identified by their over this period are not constant and about 160,000 total miles. FRA reviewed number of past human factor accidents, use of one-person train crews for its accident/incident database from 2003 FRA would be able to identify such operations on main track appear to be through April 2014 and compared MMA operations with other information increasing over the past several years, so to the 52 other railroads that had total including inspection reports, and the there are additional factors that could miles in 2012 of between 100,000 and railroad’s description of operations and make historical rates less of an indicator 200,000. FRA also looked at the data to contingency plans to evaluate the safety of current or future rates. see if it could determine the number of culture and overall emergency accidents for each of these shortlines, preparedness to handle one-person The accident/incident reports with and without one-person crews. For operations. involving one-person train crews also the one-person crews, FRA was able to If FRA were only to focus on the one- do not clearly help determine that the isolate train accidents where hazardous person crew safety data prior to the Lac- accident/incident would have been materials were in the train, and Me´gantic accident, it would have been prevented by having multiple eliminate remote control operations and difficult to make the case that MMA did crewmembers. FRA requires railroads to any operation that occurred on yard not have a good enough safety record to determine the primary cause of a rail track. operate one-person train crews as MMA equipment accident/incident and enter The data concerning MMA and its did not have any accidents/incidents a primary cause code on the form. If shortline peers revealed that nearly half that it attributed to human factor failure possible, railroads are also encouraged of the 52 shortlines (25, or 48 percent) of the one-person train crew. It also only to enter a contributing cause code on the had at least one accident where had 2 one-person crew accidents form as well. FRA does not have a cause hazardous materials were in the train, involving hazardous materials in the code that a railroad could use to but that MMA had the worst record in train over the more than 10-year period indicate that a one-person train crew this category. MMA had 18 accidents, analyzed. However, if this NPRM is caused the accident. In other words, which was twice as many as its closest finalized, FRA could use the data there is no cause code that directly shortline peer. MMA’s 18 accidents suggesting MMA had significantly more suggests that the reporting railroad accounted for 23 percent of the 78 total accidents involving trains carrying believes the accident/incident could number of accidents in its shortline peer hazardous materials than its peers to have been prevented by having a second group where hazardous materials were have MMA address safety issues to crewmember. Even if FRA were to add in the train. Although only 4 of these 78 reduce the overall high number of such a code, a railroad would have a accidents/incidents occurred with a accidents before providing FRA disincentive to use it as doing so might one-person crew (about 5 percent), 2 of approval of the continuance of a one- suggest that the railroad employ more the 4 occurred on MMA. Looking at all person train operation or approval for a crewmembers, increasing wage costs. Of one-person crew train accidents in new one-person operation. See 49 CFR course, if a railroad thought that only which a MMA shortline railroad peer 218.133 and 218.135. having one person was a factor, FRA has reported the cause to be a human factor Furthermore, this is an example of a cause code, M599, that may be used failure, MMA reported no such when the limitations of FRA’s safety when no other cause codes apply. If accidents and 9 of MMA’s shortline data would not help make a direct case M599 is used, the railroad must describe peers reported a total of 13. that one-person operations are less safe the events in a narrative. Furthermore, Consequently, while it can be than multiperson train crews but may FRA relies on each railroad to self- determined that the two MMA one- still provide some possible basis for this report a description of the accident/ person crew accidents involving proposed rule. That is, FRA’s safety data incident, as well as the primary and hazardous materials in the train were suggests that a particular railroad that contributing causes. Without an not reported by MMA to be caused by has a higher rate of train accidents

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13932 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

where hazardous materials are in the caused train accidents/incidents are Federal rail safety requirements that train could find itself more likely to down over 50 percent. Over that same will not work as intended when one- continue that trend regardless of the size period, the number of reportable train person train crews are deployed. of the crew, assuming the railroad takes accidents/incidents has decreased from 1. Difficulty Providing Point Protection no action to further prevent such 3,385 in 2004 to 1,781 in 2013, a for Shoving or Pushing Movements accidents from occurring. And if such decrease of over 47 percent. The accidents were to eventually occur, FRA normalized frequency index of 2.380 per For shoving or pushing movements, a has found that multiperson train crews one million train miles for 2013 second crewmember routinely provides are better equipped to protect each represents the safest year in that 10-year point protection where the controlling other, other railroad workers, railroad period, and is a decrease of nearly 46 locomotive is the furthest car in the equipment, the environment, and the percent from 2004. Meanwhile, it is train from the leading end. See 49 CFR general public, because they have more impossible to keep data on how many 218.99. In that case, a second options available to them for taking accidents/incidents were prevented by crewmember riding the leading end or mitigation measures than a single having a properly trained two-person being on the ground in radio crewmember. Thus, a derailment might crew, where each crewmember communication with the train’s occur, regardless of the number of train understood each other’s duties and locomotive engineer may be the safest crewmembers, but it might be the together could perform as an expert practice. A one-person train crew, actions of the train crew post-accident team. Thus, although the limitations of operating any train of a significant that determine the severity of the the data collected make it difficult to length, may have difficulty determining damages or injuries that result. This make a straightforward finding that one- that the track is clear for the shoving or may be especially so when hazardous person operations are more or less safe pushing movement without the materials are present in the train or are than two-person operations, FRA’s assistance of another person. Shoving in other trains operating on the same or approval process in this NPRM is blind, i.e., not protecting the movement, adjacent track. expected to provide some insight into would violate the Federal rule. While data and information about exposing dangerous operations and lead Passenger and commuter locomotives one-person operations around the world to safety improvements for those do not always have room for a second are limited, evidence found by FRA and railroads that want to reduce the crewmember in the locomotive control explained in the Regulatory Impact number of train crewmembers to less compartment, but a second person may Analysis (RIA) that accompanies this than two. still be necessary to provide assistance rulemaking indicates that the safety for shoving or pushing movements. records of these foreign operations are D. FRA’s Regulations Were Designed for Pushing or shoving movements are acceptable. FRA also found that most of at Least Two Crewmembers routine operations and thus FRA’s these foreign operations would meet the During the Working Group’s first expectation is that few trains could requirements in one of the exceptions of meeting, FRA presented the agency’s perform these movements safely with the proposed rule (due to their size), position that many of the Federal rail only a one-person crew. We note, and that most foreign governments have safety regulations were written with the however, that the point protection rule a role in the implementation of one- expectation that each train would have permits use of cameras for performing person crews (where they exist). multiple crewmembers. That does not these movements. See 49 CFR Another factor to consider is that mean that FRA expects that at least two 218.99(b)(3)(i). crewmembers will be in the cab of the railroad workers in other countries have 2. Complications Returning Switches to controlling locomotive at all times, a more predictable work schedule, fewer the Normal Position and Loss of Job which may surprise some people who working hours per week, and more Briefings opportunities to rest. See RIA Table 4. are not familiar with a wide-variety of Nonetheless, FRA requests public railroad operations. A typical freight In a typical multiple crewmember comment on the lessons learned from locomotive is founded with the operation, the locomotive engineer these nations to implement one-person expectation that multiple crewmembers would rarely be expected to leave the crews under a balanced regulatory could be working in the cab of the cab of the controlling locomotive to oversight. Additionally, FRA requests controlling locomotive. However, there perform operational work. However, in public input about the safety are many operating circumstances in a one-person operation, unless all performance of passenger and freight which a second crewmember could switches can be operated from the rail operations with less than two more effectively safeguard the operation locomotive or by a non-crewmember in people in other countries. This is by being somewhere other than the accordance with a railroad’s operating important because FRA could not find locomotive cab of the controlling procedures, the locomotive engineer specific data on the safety records of locomotive and it would be difficult for would encounter logistical difficulties international one-person crew passenger a one-person train crew to perform the in throwing some switches and then operations that do and do not meet the same operation. Because a railroad’s returning those switches and locking proposed exceptions. operating rules and practices for a one- them in the normal position after use. Finally, railroads have achieved an person operation will be a bit different See 49 CFR 218.103 through 218.107. If improving safety record during a period than for multiple person train crews, the one-person crew were to throw the in which the industry largely employed some safeguards will be lost and new switches and return them to the normal two-person train crews. FRA has no methods of operation will be developed position, the person would need to walk empirical evidence to suggest a causal to try and plug any regulatory holes. back and forth the length of the train relationship between these variables Without a crew size regulation, railroads each time a switch was returned to the rather than a correlative one. In fact, it would be free to jettison certain normal position. is possible that one-person crews have requirements that apply to multiple The Federal regulations concerning contributed to the improving safety person crews without specifically being throwing switches anticipate that the record. Comparing calendar year 2004 to required to fully consider the potential crewmembers will conduct job briefings 2013, total accidents/incidents are down safety repercussions. The following ‘‘before work is begun, each time a work over 21.5 percent and human factor- background explains some of the plan is changed, and at completion of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13933

the work.’’ See, 49 CFR 218.103(b)(1). are large numbers of passengers. be tempted to use cell phones and other The regulation does not anticipate that Furthermore, although signs for train prohibited electronic devices when a train crew consisting of one-person passengers can be useful, signs have nobody is around to observe them. would be exempt from the job briefing limited value for reliably instructing When FRA issued a final rule restricting requirements, although it seems absurd passengers on when it is safe or unsafe railroad operating employees from using to think that any one-person train crews to evacuate under all conditions. cellular telephones and other electronic would need to hold job briefings with 4. Deterrence of Electronic Device devices, FRA noted that distracted themselves. However, one of the most Distraction and Observing Alcohol or driving impacts all transportation important benefits of a job briefing, with Drug Impairment; Reduced Possibility modes because these devices have each crewmember’s input, is potentially of Co-Worker Referrals become ubiquitous in American society. lost when there is a one-person See 75 FR 59580, 59582, Sep. 27, 2010, operation. That is, a lone crewmember Another issue that could be a concern promulgated at 49 CFR part 220, subpart cannot benefit from another with a one-person train crew is whether C. In the justification for the crewmember’s experience about the best there is adequate supervision to rulemaking, FRA stated that it way to safely perform the operation. determine that the person is not discovered numerous examples of the Under routine operations, one-person reporting for duty under the influence of dangers posed by distracting electronic crewmembers will decide for or impaired by alcohol or drugs. With devices and described five rail accidents themselves how best to proceed. The multiple train crewmembers, a second indicating the necessity for the one-person crewmember will also assess crewmember might suspect that a restrictions. FRA’s electronic device the factual circumstances of a situation person has used, or is using or distraction rulemaking also stated that by themselves, without the benefit of possessing alcohol or drugs on railroad ‘‘it is difficult to identify distraction and any additional crewmembers’ property. Working with a potentially its role in a crash’’ if it goes unreported observations. Although a railroad could impaired co-worker is a safety hazard by the operator of the vehicle. 75 FR at implement procedures to address that puts other crewmembers in direct 59582 (describing how data on the certain types of operations that can aid conflict with one another. For that number of motorcoach crashes may a one-person crew, such a briefing may reason, FRA has developed minimum potentially understate the true size of not be able to duplicate all of the standards for co-worker report policies the problem because ‘‘self-reporting of information that a fellow crewmember that allow the employee suspected of negative behavior, such as distracted could. abuse to get treatment and driving, is likely lower than actual rehabilitation, with the potential to occurrence of that behavior). Thus, a 3. Concerns Protecting Train Passengers return to railroad safety-sensitive work second crewmember could act as both a in an Emergency under certain conditions. See 49 CFR deterrent to any crewmembers using During the first Working Group 219.405 and 219.407 (permitting a electronic devices in a prohibited meeting, FRA made a presentation railroad to implement an alternate co- manner and as a witness reporting such regarding FRA’s passenger train worker policy with the written inappropriate electronic device usage emergency preparedness rule (49 CFR concurrence of the recognized during an accident/incident part 239) and explained how multiple representatives of a particular class or investigation. train crewmembers are typically craft of covered employees). The co- necessary in order to fulfill the purpose worker referral policy makes it more 5. Complicating Radio Communication of the rule. The purpose of the palatable for an employee to turn in a Procedures passenger train emergency preparedness potentially impaired co-worker, rule ‘‘is to reduce the magnitude and knowing that the co-worker will have an Some radio and wireless severity of casualties in railroad opportunity to get professional help communication requirements were operations by ensuring that railroads without the co-worker necessarily losing written with the expectation that there involved in passenger train operations his or her job, and not having to work would be at least two crewmembers on can effectively and efficiently manage side-by-side with that impaired co- a train. For example, FRA requires that passenger train emergencies.’’ 49 CFR worker. an employee copying a mandatory 239.1(a). There are numerous ways that Although a one-person crew may be directive received by radio transmission crewmembers, other than the subject to pre-employment testing, shall not be an employee operating the locomotive engineer, can assist the random testing, and testing for cause, controls of moving equipment. See 49 passengers in an emergency. each of these types of tests do not apply CFR 220.61. Copying a mandatory Emergencies can require evacuations in to shortline railroads which have a total directive would clearly be distracting to various types of circumstances where a of 15 or fewer employees who are a person who was attempting to operate trained person would be helpful to covered under the hours of service laws a train simultaneously, which explains guide passengers away from danger. For and do not operate on the tracks of any why it is strictly prohibited. Certainly, example, passengers that self-evacuate other U.S. railroad. Additionally, even if a one-person train crew could stop a might not realize that they could step on a one-person crew is potentially subject train to receive a mandatory directive by an electrified rail or be struck by a train to each of those tests, the person will radio, but there is a question whether approaching on an adjacent track. not be tested before, during, or after railroads have thought through all the Evacuations in remote areas, in tunnels, every tour of duty. Thus, a one-person safety implications of stopping the train. or on bridges also pose significant crew has more opportunity, especially The train may be going at a high enough dangers to passengers and are places on the smallest shortline operations, to speed that it would take over a mile to where crewmembers are required to be conceal a drug or alcohol violation, than stop the train, or the train might be in trained on safe methods to assist the person would if there were two or a territory where a steep grade or other passengers. A one-person crew would more crewmembers. physical conditions make stopping the have significant difficulty coordinating Similarly, without a second train logistically difficult. One would any type of evacuation, especially in crewmember to monitor the sole hope that the mandatory directive difficult terrain, if the crewmember crewmember’s attentiveness, there is a would not impact the train operation cannot walk from car to car, or if there risk that more locomotive engineers will immediately before the one-person crew

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13934 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

could safely stop the train to receive the a train can only proceed through the a one-person train crew and no ability transmission. crossing when other steps are taken to to quickly flag the crossing. The different ways a multiple person protect highway users from approaching E. Defining the Crewmembers’ crew can handle a radio communication trains. 49 CFR 234.105. If a railroad has Qualifications failure also is indicative of how an FRA enough time to arrange for an equipped regulation was written with the flagger or a uniformed law enforcement In this proposed rule, FRA chose not expectation that there would be more officer to be at the crossing, then the to define the duties of the two than one train crewmember. Under most train may proceed through the crossing mandatory crewmembers. FRA circumstances, FRA’s railroad without stopping, albeit at potentially a previously fulfilled its statutory communication regulation requires a slower than normal speed depending on obligations to promulgate regulations train to have a working radio in each the number of flaggers/officers. requiring certain minimum standards occupied controlling locomotive, and in However, if a railroad does not have for locomotive engineers and a second locomotive for purposes of enough time to make other conductors. 49 U.S.C. 20135 and 20163 ‘‘communication redundancy.’’ 49 CFR arrangements, the only other method and 49 CFR parts 240 and 242. FRA 220.9. If the controlling locomotive’s that will allow the train to proceed believes that each locomotive or train radio fails en route, the crewmembers through the crossing is if the train stops must have a crew that can perform all have the back-up radio in the second prior to entering the crossing in order to of the duties described by the locomotive to use to avoid a radio permit a crewmember to dismount to qualifications requirements in the blackout. flag highway traffic to a stop. The certification regulations for these two Trains with multiple crewmembers flagging crewmember is not allowed to operating crewmembers. This can be have an option not available to one- reboard the train until the locomotive accomplished with the assistance of person crews. In cases of radio has completed its procession through technology and sometimes with the malfunction, it may be necessary to the crossing. Hence, under FRA’s assistance of one or more other safety- have a crewmember located in the regulations, a one-person crew could related railroad employees who are not second locomotive to monitor the not stop and flag the crossing without a recognized by the railroad as the train’s dispatcher’s communications as long as non-crewmember flagger or a uniformed conductor. In this background, FRA will the crewmembers can otherwise law enforcement officer’s assistance. reiterate the regulatory requirements, communicate while the train is moving. focusing on the existing limitations and However, if the train was a one-person Certainly, a railroad’s on-time acknowledging FRA’s policy. This issue operation, the lone crewmember would efficiency would be negatively impacted is raised because FRA may consider certainly not be able to operate from a by the activation failure because a train adding requirements in the final rule locomotive not on the leading end, so with a one-person crew would have no specifying minimum requirements for a the one-person crew would have to choice but to wait until a flagger or second crewmember’s qualifications, in either try and swap out the locomotives officer arrived before proceeding the event that person is not a qualified so that the one on the leading end had through the crossing. Depending on the conductor. There is a question of a working radio to communicate with circumstances, the general public might whether the rule might need to define the dispatcher, or the one-person crew also be negatively impacted. For the duties of a freight train second would need to find a way to notify the example, if the train was forced to stop dispatcher as soon as practicable that in a highly populated area, nearby crewmember who is not a conductor radio communication has been lost. 49 citizens and businesses might be differently from the duties of a CFR 220.38. With a multiple person inconvenienced by the locomotive passenger train second crewmember. operation, swapping the locomotives engine noise or exhaust fumes. Another Nearly every movement of a would likely involve a crewmember concern is whether the train stopped locomotive, whether or not the getting off the train and lining switches. clear of all other crossings. Highway locomotive is coupled to other rolling Swapping the locomotives could be users and local emergency responders equipment, requires that the operation logistically difficult for a one-person may be significantly inconvenienced if be performed by a certified locomotive crew depending on the track the railroad and one-person train crew engineer. 49 CFR 240.7 (defining configurations encountered and the were unable to plan a safe place to stop ‘‘locomotive engineer’’ and allowing method of operation. Although a one- the train without blocking other grade exceptions for movements of person crew could operate the train crossings. Planning a safe place to stop locomotives: (1) Within a locomotive without a working radio to the nearest the train is typically considered a repair or servicing area and (2) of less forward point where the radio can be conductor’s job, but with only one than 100 feet for inspection or repaired or replaced, doing so is not as crewmember the one-person crew has maintenance purposes). Until safe an option as utilizing the redundant no one else to help. Motor vehicle technology is developed that might communication in the second drivers or local emergency responders allow for the safe operation of locomotive with a working radio—an would not be given any advance locomotives or trains completely by option more likely to be utilized with a warning of the blocked crossing or any computer automation, a person is multiple-person train crew. information regarding when the crossing needed to operate the locomotive or would no longer be blocked. Such poor train, and that person is required to be 6. Adding a Potential Safety Hazard to planning can infuriate motor vehicle certified pursuant to FRA’s locomotive Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Activation drivers and lead these drivers to take engineer regulation. The issue of Failures risks not to get caught waiting for a train whether a one-person crew can operate The general public is directly the next time they see a grade crossing safely is mainly an expansion of the role impacted when a highway-rail grade warning system begin to activate. In of a locomotive engineer to include crossing fails to activate because that some cases, such poor planning could some or all of the duties of a conductor, means motor vehicle traffic would not compromise the ability of local sometimes with the assistance of receive any warning of an approaching emergency services to respond. Thus, technology and sometimes with the train. Protecting the public is paramount there is the potential for immediate and assistance of one or more other safety- to train operation, and FRA requires that future repercussions when there is only related railroad employees who are not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13935

recognized by the railroad as the train’s should address this issue in the final freight trains and equipment, including conductor. rule. For example, FRA suggests that a end-of-train devices (49 CFR part 232). In the conductor certification final second passenger crewmember who is FRA requests public comment on how rulemaking, FRA recognized that there not a conductor should be qualified on: railroad operations can and do safely may be circumstances where a person is (1) The signals to be encountered, and efficiently comply with these ‘‘serving as both the conductor and the including the name and possible regulations with one-person crews or engineer.’’ 76 FR 69802, 69809, Nov. 9, indications; (2) the physical autonomous trains. Are there particular 2011 (explaining that a person may hold characteristics of the territory to be operational contexts in which both a locomotive engineer certification operated over; (3) flagging; (4) railroad compliance using one-person crews is and a conductor certification, and operating rules (49 CFR part 218); (5) particularly difficult or poses greater establishing rules for when revocation railroad radio and communications safety risks? What risk mitigating of each certification is appropriate rules (49 CFR part 220); (6) passenger measures will railroads use to safely and under 49 CFR 242.213). In doing so, equipment safety standards (49 CFR part efficiently comply with these FRA recognized the realities of remotely 238); and, (7) passenger train emergency regulations using one-person crews? controlled locomotive and train preparedness (49 CFR part 239). Should any of these regulations be operations which often involve yard or Currently, FRA has enforced a safe revised to allow one-person crews to yard-type operations, travel to and from course through the approval process operate safely and efficiently? yards, or travel to service customers, requirement in the passenger train III. RSAC Overview without a second crewmember being emergency preparedness rule. 49 CFR present. See 49 CFR 242.213(d). 239.201. Although FRA may continue to In March 1996, FRA established the Similarly, FRA permits a certified use the emergency preparedness Railroad Safety Advisory Committee conductor attached to a train crew in a approval process in this manner, the (RSAC), which provides a forum for manner similar to that of an passenger railroad industry or public collaborative rulemaking and program independent assignment when a might benefit from a clear set of development. RSAC includes certified conductor is not accompanying requirements for the qualification of a representatives from all of the agency’s a locomotive engineer or the engineer is second train crewmember. major stakeholder groups, including not dual conductor/engineer certified. FRA has similar concerns about a railroads, labor organizations, suppliers However, FRA expressly noted in the second freight train crewmember who is and manufacturers, and other interested NPRM that the ‘‘conductor certification not a certified conductor. A railroad parties. A list of RSAC members regulation, including section 242.213, follows: be neutral on the crew consist issue might employ a brakeman or other [and that] [n]othing in . . . part 242 operating crewmember who lacks the American Association of Private Railroad Car should be read as FRA’s endorsement of versatility of a conductor, which could Owners (AARPCO); American Association of State Highway & any particular crew consist raise questions regarding the safety of such a two-person operation. Similar Transportation Officials (AASHTO); arrangement.’’ 76 FR 69166, 69179, Nov. American Chemistry Council; 10, 2010. This disclaimer was made to operational questions could arise with the use of a person who is more like a American Petroleum Institute; facilitate industry-wide discussion on American Public Transportation Association the conductor certification rulemaking utility employee (see 49 CFR 218.22) (APTA); and foster a potential consensus than a crewmember who is assigned to American Short Line and Regional Railroad recommendation from FRA’s Federal a train. There are certainly some duties Association (ASLRRA); advisory committee, without the that a utility employee can perform for American Train Dispatchers Association conductor rule becoming a referendum a train crew that would typically be (ATDA); on the issue of crew size. Thus, classified as the responsibility of a Association of American Railroads (AAR); freight conductor. However, because the Association of State Rail Safety Managers although portions of the conductor rule (ASRSM); could be read to suggest FRA acceptance utility employee is neither in the locomotive cab with the locomotive Association of Tourist Railroads and Railway of a variety of one-person crew Museums (ATRRM); operations, FRA’s explicit disclaimer engineer or in near constant radio Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and shows that the agency did not intend for communication with the locomotive Trainmen (BLET); the conductor rule to be that sort of engineer while the train is moving, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way proclamation. utility employee cannot be deemed a Employes Division (BMWED); FRA’s foremost concern is that a replacement for all of the conductor’s Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS); passenger railroad will have one person duties and benefits. In order to address Chlorine Institute; in the crew who is dual certified as both safety concerns with the use of a second Federal Transit Administration (FTA); * a locomotive engineer and a conductor, crewmember who is not a certified Fertilizer Institute; conductor, FRA seeks comments on Institute of Makers of Explosives; but a second person may be lacking International Association of Machinists and many of the relevant qualifications whether the final rule should identify Aerospace Workers; normally associated with a passenger specific minimum qualifications for International Brotherhood of Electrical conductor. If a second passenger train freight train crewmembers that lack all Workers (IBEW); crewmember lacks too many of the of the qualifications of a conductor. Labor Council for Latin American qualifications of a conductor, the second Minimum requirements for a second Advancement (LCLAA); * person may not be truly helpful in freight train crewmember who is not a League of Railway Industry Women; * emergency situations or even routine certified conductor might include: (1) National Association of Railroad Passengers rail operations. The potential for Knowledge of railroad rules and safety (NARP); creating foreseen and unforeseen instructions; (2) railroad operating rules National Association of Railway Business Women; * problems with using a second passenger particular to handling equipment, National Conference of Firemen & Oilers; crewmember who is not conductor switches, and fixed derails (49 CFR part National Railroad Construction and qualified is disconcerting. For these 218, subpart F); (3) railroad radio and Maintenance Association (NRC); reasons, FRA encourages interested communications rules (49 CFR part National Railroad Passenger Corporation parties to comment on whether FRA 220); and, (4) brake system safety for (Amtrak);

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13936 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

National Transportation Safety Board IV. No Recommendation From the 13–02 (i.e., an RSAC task to identify (NTSB); * RSAC Working Group types and quantities of hazardous Railway Passenger Car Alliance (RPCA) On August 29, 2013, the RSAC materials for special handling as a result Railway Supply Institute (RSI); accepted a task (No. 13–05) entitled of reviewing the Lac-Me´gantic accident) Safe Travel America (STA); ‘‘Appropriate Train Crew Size.’’ The as requiring special handling and/or Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte; * statement clarified that ‘‘[i]n light of the operational controls, and if appropriate SMART Transportation Division (SMART recent Canadian train incident and the develop recommended regulatory TD) language specific to these railroad Transport Canada; * subsequent emergency directive issued by Transport Canada, FRA believes it is operations. Transport Workers Union of America (TWU); Furthermore, in order to Transportation Communications appropriate to review whether train crew staffing practices affect railroad accommodate some RSAC members, International Union/Brotherhood of RSAC agreed to consider other issues Railway Carmen (TCIU/BRC); safety.’’ FRA identified four purposes of this task, which were all variations on that have some arguable connection to Transportation Security Administration the crew size issue. These other issues (TSA). requests for RSAC to evaluate whether and how crew redundancy affects were to consider (1) the appropriate role * Indicates associate, non-voting railroad safety and when crew and impact of technological advances membership. redundancy should be deemed on crew size and crew deployment and incorporate these into any When appropriate, FRA assigns a task necessary. Crew redundancy is the idea recommendation developed, (2) PTC to RSAC, and after consideration and that a second crewmember can confirm for the locomotive engineer important and Remote Control Operations or other debate, RSAC may accept or reject the operations where crew deployment task. If accepted, RSAC establishes a information thereby providing a second layer of assurance that the train is being practices or the use of technology may working group that possesses the enhance the safety of operations, and (3) appropriate expertise and representation operated in accordance with all applicable rules, procedures, practices, the application of a System Safety of interests to develop recommendations Program to these issues. to FRA for action on the task. These restrictions, and signal indications. However, the second crewmember’s In addition to FRA, the following recommendations are developed by organizations contributed members: consensus. The working group may responsibilities are not just passive in a establish one or more task forces or confirming way. The second APTA, including members Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority other subgroups to develop facts and crewmember can provide redundancy by taking the lead on tasks that free the (CMTA), Keolis North America, Long Island options on a particular aspect of a given Rail Road (LIRR), Massachusetts Bay task. The task force, or other subgroup, locomotive engineer to focus on the engineer’s core role of train handling. Commuter Railroad Company (MBCR), reports to the working group. If a Metro-North Railroad (MNCW), North The task statement specified that working group comes to consensus on County Transit District (NCTD), Regional RSAC was expected to look at a list of recommendations for action, the Transportation District (RTD), and San FRA rail safety regulations to evaluate package is presented to RSAC for a vote. Joaquin Regional Rail Commission; whether and how crew size impacts rail • ASLRRA, including members from If the proposal is accepted by a simple safety. The statement also asked RSAC Central California Traction Company (CCT), majority of RSAC, the proposal is to review published studies and reports, Farmrail System (FMRC), Genesee & formally recommended to FRA. FRA as appropriate. FRA provided the five Wyoming Inc. (GNWR), Indiana Rail Road then determines what action to take on FRA-sponsored studies, as well as the Company (INRD), OmniTRAX, Pinsly the recommendation. Because FRA staff one TRB conference report, each of Railroad Company, and WATCO Companies, play an active role at the working group Inc. (WATCO); which were described previously in this • ASRSM, including members from the level in discussing the issues and preamble. In reviewing these materials, options and in drafting the language of California Public Utilities Commission FRA was hoping that RSAC would be (CPUC); the consensus proposal, and because the able to address the following issues in • ATDA; RSAC recommendation constitutes the its recommendations report: • ATRRM consensus of some of the industry’s • Report on whether there is a safety • BLET; leading experts on a given subject, FRA benefit or detriment from crew • BMWED; is often favorably inclined toward the • BRS; redundancy, including an analysis of • RSAC recommendation. However, FRA observed safety data and outcomes from NRC, including members from Herzog is in no way bound to follow the Transit Services (Herzog); current crew deployment practices. • SMART TD; recommendation and the agency • Review existing regulations and • exercises its independent judgment on TCIU/BRC; and consider the impact of crew size on the • TWU. whether the recommended rule achieves performance of any task or activity. the agency’s regulatory goals, is soundly • Report on the costs and benefits The Working Group convened five supported, and is in accordance with associated with crew redundancy. times on the following dates in applicable policy and legal • If appropriate, develop Washington, DC. Minutes of each of requirements. Often, FRA varies in some recommended regulatory language or these meetings are part of the docket in respects from the RSAC guidance documents regarding crew size this proceeding and are available for recommendation in developing the requirements that enhance the safety of public inspection. actual regulatory proposal or final rule. railroad operations by providing • October 29, 2013 Any such variations would be noted and enhanced regulatory redundancy. In • December 18, 2013 explained in the rulemaking document considering the development of • January 29, 2014 issued by FRA. If the working group or regulatory language, specifically • March 5, 2014 RSAC is unable to reach consensus on consider the value of regulatory • March 31, 2014 recommendations for action, FRA redundancy in terms of crew size as it As the Working Group meeting notes resolves the issue(s) through traditional relates to trains or vehicles identified by in the docket reflect, FRA started the rulemaking proceedings or other action. the group responsible for Task Number first meeting by providing an overview

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13937

of FRA’s position on the crew size issue. and operating rules when operating mainline operations.’’ 3 AAR was Although FRA always enters any RSAC with a one-person crew, (3) FRA’s safety certainly looking to assure FRA that the discussion with an agency position on regulations were written with at least a major railroads were not conducting the issue being discussed, FRA was two-person crew in mind and that one-person trains transporting the types quicker than in previous RSAC operating with a one-person crew may, and quantities of hazardous materials discussions to reveal its broad-based in some cases, compromise railroad and specified in appendix A of Emergency positions. Typically, FRA will start the public safety, and (4) a second Order 28. ASLRRA could not be specific first meeting with a free-form discussion crewmember provides safety about each of its members’ policies on of the topic, allowing the RSAC redundancy and provides a method of transporting hazardous materials with Working Group’s members to checks and balances on train operations. one-person crews. However, ASLRRA brainstorm problems and a range of For all these reasons, FRA took the tried to assure FRA that its members acceptable solutions. The typical position that it needs to have some had ‘‘carefully consider[ed] the approach works well when FRA is appropriate train and engine crew oversight of train crew size so that it can unsure of whether a regulation is assignments to assure the highest degree protect railroad employees and the necessary, there already is an informal of safety for the movements they general public. consensus that action needs to be taken, operate.’’ 4 Taking the AAR and or the Working Group knows FRA will FRA then explained its broad position ASLRRA’s comments at face value, FRA regulate the issue because there is a on establishing train crew size did not believe the agency’s initial statute mandating promulgation of a requirements, explaining that the negotiating position differed greatly regulation. None of these scenarios were agency wanted the Working Group to from the status quo. That is, the major present with the crew size issue. For make recommendations that would railroads were already using two-person these reasons, FRA believed it needed to establish safe practices for both two- train crews for over-the-road mainline approach this RSAC differently by person train operations and those with operations and the shortlines were defining its broad position on less than two-persons. For instance, carefully considering safety, presumably appropriate train crew size at the FRA took the negotiating position that through a safety analysis of each beginning of the first meeting. the Working Group should develop a operation prior to implementation—or During that first RSAC Working recommendation with a baseline of a so that was intimated. Group meeting, FRA presented some minimum two-person crew for freight Despite the AAR and ASLRRA’s background on the crew size issue. FRA and passenger trains. The Working publicly stated positions on crew size, acknowledged that it had not previously Group was told that FRA wanted to hear it was clear from the first meeting that felt the need to talk about crew size about current one-person crew the members of these associations were until recently for several reasons. operations that have been safely opposed to RSAC making any Historically, crew size has been an issue conducted so that those exceptions to a recommendation that provided FRA for labor relations, and technology has two-person standard could be carved with oversight on crew size issues. AAR enabled a gradual reduction in the out in the RSAC’s recommendations. stated at that first meeting that there is number of train crewmembers from FRA also expressed an interest in no safety justification for FRA to about five in the 1960s to two in 2014. address train crew size. ASLRRA took offering to provide for a special Four major technological breakthroughs the position that because there have approval process in a crew size were mentioned in FRA’s presentation been very few, if any, accidents regulation that would allow FRA to that led to the historic train crew size involving a one-person crew, and quickly and efficiently provide review reductions: (1) The phase out of steam management has been very responsible and approval of any train crew locomotives allowed locomotives to be regarding crew size, that FRA should operated without crew known as arrangement that could not meet any not dictate safety regulations on the fireman dedicated to keeping the engine easy to define specific exclusions. In subject. FRA interpreted that fed with coal, (2) the introduction of order to ensure reasonable oversight, unwillingness as an indication that the portable radios made it easier to FRA suggested that a special approval industry does not intend to maintain the transmit information from a would be granted based on whether the status quo. Thus, FRA believes it cannot crewmember at the far end of the train railroad’s petition demonstrated an rely on the assurances made in the to the leading end, (3) the end-of-train appropriate level of safety based on a associations’ written pronouncements. device replaced the need for one or combination of safeguards offered by As more Working Group meetings more crewmembers to be at the rear of shoring up operating procedures and were held, FRA became increasingly a train on a caboose to monitor brake implementing proven technologies. FRA concerned about the extent of one- pipe pressure, and (4) the development noted that this was a generous person train operations in the U.S. and of improved train control devices compromise position, as FRA was not the extent that these operations may helped automate safer operations in case taking an absolute position that all have proliferated without FRA oversight of human error. Furthermore, FRA trains must be operated with a two- of them. Based on discussions with the raised another significant technological person crew because it has the expertise railroad members of the Working Group, innovation that has become widespread to recognize accepted safe practices. there appears to be a trend that more over the last 20 years; that is, remotely FRA’s broadly stated negotiating railroads of every class are willing to controlled locomotive operations position at the Working Group meetings experiment with one-person train crew utilizing only a one-person crew for was also constructed based on feedback operations. Members representing Labor switching service have become recently received from two railroad commonplace. 3 associations participating as RSAC Letter from Mr. Edward R. Hamberger, President FRA told the Working Group that the and CEO of AAR, to Mr. Joseph C. Szabo, FRA agency’s position on appropriate crew members. In response to Emergency Administrator (Oct. 16, 2013), which has been size is that: (1) Railroad safety is Order 28, which was issued after the placed in the docket to this rulemaking. 4 enhanced through the use of multiple Lac-Me´gantic accident, AAR reported to Letter from Mr. Richard F. Timmons, President FRA that ‘‘Class I railroads currently use of ASLRRA, to Mr. Joseph C. Szabo, FRA crewmembers, (2) it is difficult to Administrator (Oct. 17, 2013), which has been comply with current safety regulations two-person crews for over-the-road placed in the docket to this rulemaking.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13938 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

organizations seemed as surprised as person train crews to add another layer Helpers; (2) Pushers; (3) Light engines; FRA with some of the generalized of safety. (4) Passenger moves; (5) Hostlers; (6) statements made by a variety of During the Working Group’s first Locomotive exchange crews; (7) Work railroads regarding the extent of the meeting, SMART–TD stated its belief trains; (8) Wreck crews; and (9) existing one-person operations. For that FRA appears to be responding to Roadway maintenance machines.’’ Final example, railroads of all classes the public’s demand for action. Minutes 2014 0129 TCWG–14–03–0503 seemingly have permitted remote SMART–TD backed up its statement pdf at 15. During the same meeting, control operations with only one-person during the Working Group’s January 29, AAR also asked whether FRA would to routinely operate on main track in 2014, meeting when it shared a research agree to an exception for (10) limited train service, as opposed to report it sponsored that combined data interchange and transfer moves, (11) being used for switching service—the from five surveys that indicated a strong mine load out or plant dumping, and original expected use for which the level of bipartisan support among voters (12) toxic by inhalation or poisonous by technology was designed. AAR and for a Federal law requiring freight trains inhalation (TIH/PIH) hand-offs, where ASLRRA were unwilling to recommend to operate with a crew of two. The one crewmember remains behind to FRA oversight of their members to surveys were conducted in the States of facilitate secure hand-off, a assure railroad employees and the Kentucky and North Dakota, and in Transportation Security Administration general public that their members’ select Congressional districts in the (TSA) requirement. FRA agreed, and existing operations are safe, proclaiming States of Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, and altered its Working Group proposal to that the lack of safety data showing Pennsylvania. The data supported a include an exception for each of the there was an existing problem should finding that 77 percent of all twelve items with the following caveats: prevail as an argument. respondents support Federal legislation (1) FRA did not believe a special Without a requirement for railroads to requiring freight trains to be operated by exception was necessary for pushers, as consult FRA on questionable crew size a crew of two. Even when respondents the exception for helpers also covers practices, FRA did not field inquiries were not reminded in a prior question pushers; (2) FRA provided an exception from railroads asking for the agency’s about recent deadly train accidents in for light/lite engines, but made clear opinion on the safety of the practices. Quebec, Spain, and New York City, 74 that the exception did not apply to Even if an FRA inspector were to percent supported Federal legislation. passenger diesel or electric multiple observe a train being operated with only Another finding was that an unit (DMU or EMU) operations; (3) FRA one-person, FRA personnel would not overwhelming majority of those polled provided an exception for hostlers have any reason to write up an (between 83 to 87 percent in each of the conducting switching operations, but inspection report detailing the finding— five surveys) had the opinion that, not hostlers working in other than unless the one-person operation was generally speaking, when it comes to switching operations; (4) FRA considers alleged to have violated an FRA safety railroad safety and operations, one a wreck crew to be a work train, and law, regulation, or order and the issue operator cannot be as safe as a train with FRA provided an exception for work was tangentially raised in the report. a crew of two individuals. A copy of trains; (5) FRA’s work train exception Certainly, high level safety personnel at this report has been placed in the applies to roadway maintenance FRA were unaware of how many docket. machines in a work train, but such Despite the early warning signs that railroads, especially freight railroads, machines are not otherwise excepted; the Working Group would not be able to were regularly fielding trains with only (6) FRA did not except interchange/ a one-person crew. For these reasons, reach a consensus, FRA held 5 day-long transfer train movements as these the Working Group’s discussions of meetings spread out over 6 months in operations, which may travel up to 20 existing one-person train crew which the agency continued to make miles while picking up or delivering operations were illuminating. substantive presentations and negotiate Just as railroads have explained for in good faith. Every time APTA or freight equipment under the definition over a century that certain operating ASLRRA presented a new set of facts for of ‘‘transfer train’’ in 49 CFR 232.5, pose rules were ‘‘written in blood’’ because it a potential exception, FRA listened and the same safety issues as other trains took one or more accidents causing came back with a written that are not limited to traveling 20 serious injuries or fatalities before the recommendation that tried to capture miles; and (7) during a TIH/PIH hand- operating rule was written, railroad the request for leniency. Twice, AAR off, FRA did not create an exception that employees and the general public provided the Working Group with a list would allow the second crewmember to should not have to wait for horrific of a variety of railroad operations that it be left behind with the PIH/TIH car accidents before the Federal government claimed should be allowed to continue while the train departed with only a takes action. FRA provided the Working with one-person with no restrictions. one-person crew as the train continuing Group with a number of significant Each time, FRA responded with a would pose the same safety issues as reasons for recommending regulatory written recommendation that tried to other trains. action. In summary, FRA provided: (1) capture the request for leniency or, in a Second, in anticipation of the final The scientific research studies showing few instances, explained why it could Working Group meeting held on March the benefits of a second crewmember, not support such a request. Although no 31, 2014, AAR submitted a document on (2) the anecdotal information regarding consensus was reached during the March 28, 2014, titled ‘‘Discussion of recent train accidents and how a second Working Group meetings, there seemed Current Class I Operations Using crewmember either could have played a to be a tacit understanding that FRA had Vehicles When Assisting Trains.’’ AAR safety role or did play such a role, (3) adequately described each operation for Discussion Document TCWG–14–03– the explanation that FRA’s railroad which it included an exception in its 31–04.pdf. The document describes six safety regulations were written with the working document. situations where a second train expectation that nearly every train First, at the January 29, 2014 meeting, crewmember would need to be located would be operated by no fewer than two AAR listed the following examples as outside of the operating cab of the crewmembers, and (4) the general non-revenue movements that it controlling locomotive when the train is public’s negative reaction to the idea suggested should not require a moving in order to continue to perform that FRA did not already mandate two- minimum of two crewmembers: ‘‘(1) the duties assigned, and then lists seven

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13939

additional examples. The second train V. FRA’s Overall Post-RSAC Approach safety analysis or allowing FRA the crewmember would then need another This proposed rule offers a pragmatic opportunity to review whether the way to catch up to the train to get back approach to providing oversight of the railroad has considered the safety on it. FRA believes all of the operations crew size of non-switching train implications of the operation or described in that AAR document are services to ensure the continued safety implementing any off-setting actions acceptable, as long as the second train of railroad employees and the general that FRA believes are necessary. FRA expects that the two-person crewmember that is separated from the public. In that respect, FRA’s approach aspect of the crew size rule would also train can directly communicate with the to the crew size issue has remained the not have much of an impact on current crewmember in the cab of the same as when the agency first brought passenger train operations. It is rare for controlling locomotive pursuant to its position to the Working Group’s passenger train operations to have less proposed 49 CFR 218.125(d). FRA has attention. FRA views its crew size than a two-person crew, largely because greatly benefited from the open, concerns as a relatively small current emergency preparedness plans would be informed exchange of information problem that has the potential to ineffectual without at least two persons during the meetings. Although the balloon into a much greater problem in to execute it. Like the major railroads, Working Group did not reach consensus the not-too-distant future if appropriate some passenger railroads will oppose on any recommendations, FRA decided oversight is not exercised. Because there this proposed rule largely because it not to extend the April 1, 2014, deadline is significant potential for this safety restricts a railroad’s unilateral ability to that FRA initially presented the RSAC. issue to become a much greater problem reduce train crew size in the event it can FRA did not think it would be beneficial in the second half of this decade, FRA automate ticket sales and eliminate the to continue to discuss with the RSAC’s believes the time to act is now. need for assisting passengers. As with railroad members the issue of what data A. The Proposal Is Largely Focused on the major freight railroads, FRA is FRA had to support this rulemaking Influencing How Railroads Approach concerned that passenger railroads will recommendation when they knew full Future One-Person Operations focus on the economic benefit of not well that the data, supplied by the having to pay for a second crewmember Based on information orally provided railroads themselves to FRA, does not without considering all of the safety by AAR regarding the major railroads benefits of having a second capture accidents where the cause or current train crew size practices, it crewmember. FRA certainly believes its contributing factor was lack of a second appears that the proposed rule would crewmember. oversight of passenger train safety is not have a substantial impact on the warranted to protect the general public It was also made clear to FRA that current operation of the major railroads. and any railroad employees that organizations representing railroad Each major railroad appears more potentially could be impacted by the employees supported FRA’s overall concerned about how a crew size decision to reduce current train crew concept of mandating two-person crews regulation would impact the railroad’s staffs. on each train with some exceptions, but possible future plans to reduce train During the Working Group meetings, were overwhelmingly opposed to FRA’s crew size to less than the general ASLRRA indicated that the current draft rulemaking recommendation that current industry standard of at least two operations of shortline railroads would attempted to greatly accommodate all crewmembers. It appears that the major be greatly impacted by this rule because classes of passenger and freight railroads and some passenger railroads of the number of shortlines that utilize railroads. Several labor organizations are eager to use PTC alone, or with other a one-person operation. However, wanted FRA to scale back some of the technologies, to reduce train crew size survey information provided by exceptions FRA accepted as part of the to one person. There is also an ASLRRA does not suggest that a great agency’s attempt to reach a consensus. undercurrent of views that supports the many shortline railroads would be For example, these organizations idea that one day the major railroads impacted by the proposed rule. At the wanted to limit the shortline railroad could have ‘‘drone’’ locomotives, January 29, 2014, RSAC Working Group exceptions in 49 CFR 218.131(a) to a operated by one person or even by meeting, ASLRRA presented findings freight train operated on a railroad and computer that could allow operation of from a survey the association conducted a locomotive or train from a location by an employee of a railroad with 15 or via its Regional Vice Presidents in that is miles away from the actual train fewer employees, rather than the FRA December 2013. ASLRRA Single Person movement. The railroads appear to position of ‘‘a freight train operated on Operations Survey Findings TCWG–14– prefer that FRA does not regulate the a railroad and by an employee of a 01–29–05.pdf. ASLRRA estimated that safety of train operations by mandating railroad with less than 400,000 total there are approximately 558 Class II and a minimum train crew size and Class III railroads, 29 of 223 respondents employee work hours annually’’ (which establishing an FRA approval process so (13.0 percent) run one-person crews at is the equivalent of about 200 or fewer they can potentially consider piloting least part of the time, there are 13,468 employees). Labor organizations also use of less than one-person crews in annual one-person crew starts, one- expressed a preference for requiring additional operations. Without this person crews accumulated 481,936 each railroad to petition for a waiver to proposed rule, FRA has only narrow miles of train operations, the longest utilize less than two train crewmembers authority to take action—mainly distance operated by a one-person crew rather than recommend a special exercised through the agency’s is 119 miles, the shortest distance approval procedure that would propose emergency order authority after a operated by a one-person crew is 0.33 a much shorter FRA review period. serious accident or in FRA’s review of miles, and the average mileage per crew Thus, after five meetings, with labor and a passenger operation’s emergency start is 35.8 miles. Thus, according to management representatives taking preparedness plan. FRA’s current ASLRRA’s data, only about 13 of every polar opposite positions on large and approach, without a crew size 100 shortlines run any type of one- small issues, FRA decided not to accept requirement, permits railroads to have person operation. Certainly, some of some Working Group members’ the ability to reduce the number of those operations would not be impacted recommendation to extend the deadline crewmembers on any train operation based on the exceptions provided to a for negotiating a recommendation. without necessarily performing any two-person crew mandate in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13940 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

proposed rule. FRA’s analysis for this illusory and FRA would not have any a rule would include: (1) Class I proposed rule estimates that 16.35 reason to exercise oversight until after railroads, (2) railroads with inadequate percent of these one-person shortline an attention-getting accident. safety performance, and (3) railroad operations would not meet the proposed carriers that provide intercity rail B. The Proposal Is Complimentary to exceptions. passenger or commuter railroad Other Regulatory Initiatives, Not Considering that the shortline passenger transportation (passenger Duplicative community’s current operations are the railroads). Risk reduction is a most likely to be impacted by this This proposed rule is complimentary comprehensive, system-oriented proposed rule, FRA conducted its own to, rather than duplicative of, other approach to safety that determines an internal survey after the RSAC failed to recent regulatory initiatives FRA has operation’s level of risk by identifying reach a consensus recommendation in issued or is in the process of and analyzing applicable hazards and an attempt to more closely determine developing. These initiatives include: developing strategies to mitigate that the potential impact on current the implementation of PTC systems, the risk. operations. FRA Crew Size Shortline development of risk reduction and On December 8, 2010, FRA published Survey-Final.pdf. FRA’s internal survey system safety programs, the an Advance Notice of Proposed was conducted by requesting that the development and implementation of Rulemaking (ANPRM) that solicited operating practices personnel in each of comprehensive training programs for public comment on a potential FRA’s eight regional field offices safety critical employees, and the rulemaking that would require each estimate the operational picture development of fatigue management Class I railroad, each railroad with an regarding shortlines (Class II and III plans. Each of these initiatives will inadequate safety record, and each railroads) within their respective enhance safety in some manner, and passenger railroad to develop and regions in order to give FRA a nation- may either aid a railroad in transitioning implement a railroad safety risk wide view. FRA’s internal survey to an operation with fewer than two reduction program. 75 FR 76346. On approximated that there are a total of crewmembers or assist a railroad in September 7, 2012, FRA then proposed 752 shortlines in the U.S. 206 of the identifying risks and mitigating those requirements for a System Safety shortlines handle ‘‘key trains’’ (i.e., risks once such an operation is Program (SSP) rule that would partially trains with one or more loaded toxic-by- established. However, none of these satisfy the RSIA mandate by requiring inhalation (TIH) or poisonous-by- initiatives, either individually or each passenger railroad to develop and inhalation (PIH) cars, or 20 or more collectively, are designed to ensure that implement an SSP. 77 FR 55372. FRA loaded rail or tank cars or loaded a railroad engages in a proactive developed the SSP NPRM with the intermodal portable tanks of certain assessment of a change to an operation assistance of the RSAC. As proposed, an hazardous materials including crude such as reducing the size of a train crew SSP would be implemented by a written oil), an estimated minimum of 31,490 from two crewmembers to just one SSP plan that had been submitted to key trains are handled by shortlines crewmember. The purpose of this FRA for review and approval. If the each year, 115 shortlines operate one or regulatory action is to ensure that each NPRM becomes effective, a passenger more trains at over 25 mph, 14 railroad properly consider and evaluate railroad’s compliance with its SSP shortlines operate with one-person train the risks that will be introduced to an would be audited by FRA, and the crews, and an estimated minimum of operation by reducing the existing crew passenger railroad would also be 127,792 trains operate at over 25 mph size and that the railroad takes required to conduct internal on shortlines. appropriate steps to mitigate those risks assessments of its SSP. FRA is currently Comparing FRA’s survey to prior to implementing the operation. developing, also with the assistance of ASLRRA’s survey, it appears that a big Thus, this proposal is proactive and is the RSAC, a separate risk reduction rule, discrepancy is that ASLRRA is aware of aimed at reducing or eliminating risk referred to as the risk reduction program more than twice as many shortlines before it is introduced into actual (RRP), that would implement the RSIA utilizing one-person train operations operations, whereas many of the other mandate for Class I freight railroads and than FRA, even though ASLRRA regulatory initiatives being put in place railroads with inadequate safety received responses from what FRA are aimed at identifying and mitigating performance. Also under development found to be is less than 30 percent of the risks that already exist. This approach with the RSAC is a related Fatigue population of existing shortlines. will ensure that the nation’s safety Management Plan (FMP) rulemaking Although many of these shortline regulator is part of this decision-making that would meet the RSIA mandate as it operations are slow moving and will process and will ensure that safety and relates to fatigue management plans. likely be excepted from the proposed economic costs are not transferred to the Railroads do not have unlimited two-person crew requirements in this communities and public where these resources available to mitigate all proposed rule, the full extent of each of operations might take place. hazards and risks identified by an SSP. these shortline operations is unknown. A subset of this issue was raised The SSP NPRM therefore explains that It is because so much is unknown about during the RSAC process that did not railroads will be permitted to prioritize the extent of one-person train crew lead to a consensus recommendation. mitigating the most severe hazards shortline operations, including where Some RSAC members requested that associated with the greatest amount of they exist, that FRA believes the FRA address the application of a risk. If a railroad’s SSP does identify proposed approval process is necessary railroad safety risk reduction rule to crew size as a hazard, mitigating crew in order that the shortlines reveal train crew staffing issues during the size hazards and risks may depend on themselves for some level of Federal Working Group deliberations. Section how the railroad prioritizes them in safety oversight. Information revealing 103(a)(1) of the Rail Safety Improvement relation to other identified hazards and where and the extent of these one- Act of 2008 (RSIA) directed FRA to risks. Overall, an SSP is not required to person train crew operations would also require certain railroads to develop, mitigate specific hazards and risks, but permit FRA to potentially improve data submit to FRA for review and approval, must promote continuous safety collection and analysis of one-person and implement a railroad safety risk improvement over time. As such, a operations. Otherwise, a shortline reduction program. See 49 U.S.C. 20156. railroad’s decision regarding whether or railroad’s good safety record may be Railroads required to comply with such not to mitigate crew size hazards and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13941

risks might also depend on how a second crewmember may linger after C. Identifying How the NPRM Differs effectively that mitigation would an SSP, RRP, or FMP final rule is From FRA’s RSAC Suggested promote continuous safety implemented. Additionally, as Recommendations improvement, compared to mitigation of discussed previously, the SSP, RRP, and other identified hazards and risks. As FMP rules will not apply to all Some of the proposed rule text differs proposed in the SSP NPRM, a railroad railroads, which means that railroads from the last version FRA proposed as would be required to periodically other than Class I railroads, passengers recommendations to the Working Group review its program to determine railroads, and railroads with inadequate that failed to reach consensus on any whether the SSP goals are being met. As safety performance will not have to recommendations. Some of these part of this review, a railroad might perform risk analyses pursuant to these differences will be familiar to the identify new hazards and risks or re- rules that might identify crew size as a Working Group members because the prioritize hazards and risks that have hazard presenting certain risks. differences reflect rule text versions already been identified. In any case, In conclusion, the future hazards FRA proposed during earlier Working although a reduction in crew staffing posed by inadequate train crew staffing Group meetings. Other proposed rule would certainly not be expected as a are common across the general railroad text changes reflect FRA concerns mitigation measure, a change in crew system of transportation and should not identified since the Working Group staffing from two crewmembers to only be left to be mitigated piecemeal, meetings were concluded. one crewmember would be a significant dependent on a railroad choosing to In proposed section 218.121, the change. FRA would expect such a implement such a mitigation measure. purpose and scope section, FRA added change to generate a full review of the FRA has prioritized the risks posed by to the third sentence in paragraph (b) Risk Reduction Program and an update some one-person train operations over the words ‘‘and promotes safe and to the related hazard analysis. other potential hazards that a railroad effective teamwork.’’ Upon drafting the may choose to address through a risk Although FRA anticipates that it will NPRM, FRA realized that the issue of reduction-type program. This proposed succeed in implementing SSP, RRP, and the roles and responsibilities of the rule is necessary for FRA to protect FMP requirements in the foreseeable second crewmember, as well as the railroad employees and the general future, there is no guarantee that any ability of the second crewmember to public by considering the safety risks of particular railroad will use an SSP, RRP, communicate with the locomotive each type of one-person train crew or FMP to address the crew staffing engineer, was a key factor in how this operation and prohibiting operations proposed rule would make train issue once the FRA’s requirements are that pose an unacceptable level of risk effective. Railroads may try and address operations safe. The issue deserves as compared to operations utilizing a mention in the purpose and scope and issues that FRA believes could be solved two-person crew. Only specific crew by adding a second crewmember, but will hopefully aid each railroad in staffing requirements would resolve this considering whether its train instead attempt to address the problems dilemma. by finding other tangentially related crewmembers are adequately trained in Furthermore, this proposal would not working as an effective team. solutions. For example, some railroads impede the implementation of these In proposed section 218.123, FRA may choose to spend resources on other regulatory initiatives. As noted made a few minor changes to the technology that the railroad believes above, the objectives of this regulatory definitions from its RSAC suggestions. offers adequate redundancy rather than proposal are quite different than other The definitions of ‘‘Associate keeping a second crewmember. The recent regulatory initiatives being Administrator’’ and ‘‘FTA’’ were not technology may improve safety but, as advanced by FRA. This proposal is changed, but moved to the definitions FRA-sponsored research summarized aimed at identifying and mitigating risks earlier in this preamble explains, may before they occur and to ensure that section that applies to all of part 218. A create new tasks, methods of operation, FRA has an active role in ensuring that definition of ‘‘trailing tons’’ was added and other complications that are not a railroad has taken appropriate action because that term was used to help fully accounted for. In other instances, before modifying an existing operation define the work train exception in a railroad may tackle fatigue issues with that has the potential of introducing risk 218.127(d). Also, FRA changed the term one-person crews by reducing the into that operation. This proposed rule ‘‘switching operation’’ to ‘‘switching number of hours that a single person will in no way impede or prevent a service’’ for consistency so that the same operation can work on any given day or railroad from implementing the other term is used in this proposed rule as is providing for longer rest periods regulatory initiatives being advanced by used in three other Federal rail safety between tours of duty, but without FRA and will actually encourage the regulations. 49 CFR 229.5, 232.5, and regard to the fact that the lone implementation and application of 238.5. crewmember is mentally fatigued and those initiatives in order to ensure and In proposed section 218.125(c), FRA could benefit from another person’s monitor the continued safety of train made slight modifications to the assistance. Another concern is that SSP, operations where less than two person language describing the types of RRP, or FMP will not require railroads crews are utilized. The other initiatives hazardous materials a train may to address each and every risk. A will ensure that base-level technology is transport that would require the train to railroad could identify two-person train in place when it is installed, that be staffed with at least two crew staffing as an effective mitigation appropriate training is provided to any crewmembers without an exception for certain risks, but nevertheless choose locomotive engineer operating as a one- being applicable. The changes to this not to immediately address two-person person train crew, and that the risks paragraph closely follow FRA’s crews because the railroad decides to associated with such one-person train proposed rule regarding the securement prioritize other hazards and risks. Thus, crew operations are monitored and of unattended equipment. 79 FR 53356, as it will be up to each railroad to evaluated on an on-going basis. Thus, 53383, Sep. 9, 2014, proposed 49 CFR identify hazards, prioritize risks, and FRA views all of its recent significant 232.103(n)(6). The changes are intended develop mitigation strategies as part of regulatory safety initiatives as being to clarify the types and quantities of an SSP, RRP, or FMP, problems caused complimentary and necessary to this materials requiring at least a two-person by inadequate staffing or engagement of current proposal. train crew, unless the railroad receives

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13942 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

special approval to operate such trains Option 2 is closer to the RSAC- impact load detectors; enhanced under proposed section 218.135. suggested draft in this regard. scheduled track inspections with track In proposed section 218.125(d)(2), In both co-proposal options for inspection vehicles capable of detecting FRA added the word ‘‘directly’’ so that section 218.133, FRA added a new track geometry and rail flaws; it is clear that a second crewmember not paragraph, (a)(9), compared to the RSAC implementation of a fatigue in the operating cab of the controlling suggested draft. The proposed paragraph management system with set work locomotive when the train is moving in the co-proposal options requires that schedules; or procedures for providing a must be able to communicate with the a railroad that wishes to continue any one-person train operation with crewmember in the cab without having operations staffed without a two-person additional persons when necessary for to go through an intermediary. A train crew and existing prior to January en route switching, crossing protection, corresponding change has been made to 1, 2015, must include certain additional or any required train-related inspection. proposed section 218.131(a)(2)(ii) for information. Proposed paragraph (a)(9) As the Working Group members who the same reason. requires that the railroad provide wanted the PTC exception provision In proposed section 218.127(e), FRA ‘‘[i]nformation regarding other found FRA’s suggestion insufficient, had at one time suggested to the operations that travel on the same track and FRA finds the PTC exception Working Group that remote control as the one-person train operation or that provision unnecessary, there appears to operations with a one-person train crew travel on an adjacent track. Such be no reason to carry it forward in this should be specifically limited information shall include, but is not proposed rule. The other changes from operationally by restrictions that the limited to, the volume of traffic and the the RSAC suggested draft in the co- railroad industry had previously agreed types of opposing moves (i.e., either proposal options raise the question of with FRA to abide by as guidelines. passenger or freight trains hauling whether a railroad should be required to Those guidelines were specified in an hazardous materials).’’ FRA believes wait for explicit FRA approval before earlier draft of FRA’s suggested this information is readily available to initiating a new operation with less than recommendations to the Working host railroads, and estimates the time two train crewmembers. The co- burden per railroad for providing this Group, but then later removed in a late proposal options differ on the need for information will be 960 hours. FRA push to try and negotiate a consensus explicit FRA approval. Option 2 also requests comments on this estimate. The recommendation. Now that RSAC has contains an additional proposed previously numbered paragraphs (a)(9) failed to reach a consensus, FRA has requirement that the RSAC never and (a)(10) were renumbered as (a)(10) added these remote control operational discussed. That proposed requirement is and (a)(11). that the railroad officer in charge of restrictions back in because the agency In proposed section 218.135, FRA has is concerned with railroads trying to use operations attest that a hazard analysis deviated from its RSAC suggested draft of the operation has been conducted and remotely controlled locomotives beyond by putting forth two co-proposal options that the operation provides an the equipment’s designed limitations. with some different requirements. FRA appropriate level of safety. FRA would appreciate comments deleted some information in the version regarding whether this language limiting FRA suggested to the Working Group D. Electronic Submission and Approval remote control operations is necessary. that would have been contained in Process In proposed section 218.133, FRA has paragraph (b)(2). Some Working Group deviated from its RSAC suggested draft members insisted that FRA contain an If this proposed rule becomes final, by putting forth two co-proposal options explicit exception from the two-person non-exempt railroads that want to with some different requirements. The requirement whenever a railroad had operate with less than a minimum of co-proposals do more than just extend implemented a PTC system. Although two crewmembers will need to submit the date by 1 year for continuing FRA and other Working Group members information to FRA. The proposed rule operations, from 2014 to 2015. For disagreed with such an explicit provides an address for mailing such example, Option 1 co-proposes exception, FRA attempted to provide as submissions to the Associate requiring FRA’s explicit approval to much guidance as it believed was Administrator, and an electronic continue any operations staffed without possible in FRA’s suggested submission option. FRA plans to a two-person train crew and existing recommendation if it helped achieve a consider adding an electronic prior to January 1, 2015. In order to consensus RSAC recommendation. The submission requirement in the final rule encourage railroads to reach a language FRA suggested to the Working and would like to invite comments on consensus Working Group Group included a statement that ‘‘FRA this subject. recommendation, FRA had suggested would likely grant a petition for special FRA has recently created electronic that it would only issue notification if approval of a freight train operation submission requirements to facilitate it disapproved of a railroad’s one-person with a one-person crew that has a review of filings in other rulemakings. operation or thought that the operation positive train control system’’ with For example, under 49 CFR 272.105, could continue but with some certain capabilities. FRA believes, as a FRA is requiring each railroad to file additional restrictions. The change starting point for potential FRA- critical incident stress plans under proposed Option 1 puts a greater approval, the PTC system must meet all electronically through a Web site that burden on FRA to do a thorough review the requirements of part 236 of this FRA created. For the Training, of each one-person operation that chapter, have rear-end train monitoring Qualification, and Oversight for Safety- railroads will want to continue and to and enforcement capabilities, and have Related Railroad Employees final rule, normally provide notification within 90 some other combination of technologies FRA created a mandatory electronic days of receipt of the submission. and other operating safeguards. Other submission process to allow the agency However, it also provides clarity to each safeguards that would likely be to more efficiently track and review railroad wishing to continue an considered include: Electronically programs with the caveat that an operation and not having to wonder controlled pneumatic brakes; employer with less than 400,000 total whether FRA will announce that the appropriate installation of wayside employee work hours annually could operation is unsafe, without detectors, especially hot box, overheated opt to mail written materials rather than provocation, in the future. Co-proposal wheel, dragging equipment, and wheel an electronic submission. See 49 CFR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13943

243.113. 79 FR 66460, 66506, Nov. 7, the type of operation. Currently, certain types of operations is intended 2014. railroads are determining that many to ensure that each railroad Another electronic submission option train operations can be safely staffed implementing one-person operations would be for FRA to utilize the already with less crewmembers than the has adequately identified potential existing docketing system available at industry standard of two: A locomotive safety risks and taken mitigation www.regulations.gov. For example, FRA engineer and a conductor. Although measures to reduce the chances of could create one docket for all requests FRA employs approximately 400 accidents, as well as the impact of any to continue existing operations under inspectors who regularly monitor accident that may still occur. proposed § 218.133 and a second docket compliance with every class of railroad This subpart also prescribes minimum for all special approval petitions and in the Nation, only about 1 out of every requirements for the roles and comments under proposed § 218.135. 5 of FRA’s inspectors monitor responsibilities of train crewmembers Again, as the regulated community and operational compliance while the rest on a moving train, and promotes safe the public have experienced using this focus on equipment, track, signal, and and effective teamwork. The public docketing system, FRA appreciates any grade crossing warning device perception may be that there are always feedback on the use of the existing maintenance and the transportation of at least two crewmembers, and that the electronic docketing system and hazardous materials. There is currently crewmembers are always in the whether it could work well for these no specific prohibition that would locomotive when the train is moving. purposes. prevent a railroad from choosing to The proposed rule recognizes the Certainly, FRA is not restricted from operate a train with only one realities of safe railroading practices sending written approval electronically. crewmember and, while FRA has while prohibiting railroads from FRA may choose to reply to submissions emergency order authority to shut down allowing the second crewmember to that include an email address with an unsafe operations, FRA would likely disengage, mentally or physically, from electronically served notice. In all have difficulty implementing its the train movement. As the FRA- instances of electronic submission or emergency order statutory authority in sponsored research in the preamble notices of approval/disapproval, the situations where the railroad alleges it found, just because multiple party serving notice has the burden of has been operating safely for years— crewmembers are present on the train ensuring that proper service is unbeknownst to FRA, unless it had does not mean that they have formed an completed. evidence that the railroad’s operation expert team. The proposed requirements created an unsafe condition or practice in this subpart would ensure that a VI. Section-by-Section Analysis causing ‘‘an emergency situation second crewmember who is located Section 218.5 Definitions involving a hazard of death, personal anywhere outside the cab of the injury, or significant harm to the controlling locomotive while the train is The NPRM proposes to add two moving must have the ability to directly definitions that will be applicable to all environment.’’ 49 U.S.C. 20104. Although it has done so indirectly, FRA communicate with the crewmember of part 218, not just the proposed operating the train. Having direct subpart G. The two terms are only used has rejected some one-person passenger operations based on the passenger train communication lines means that the in the proposed subpart G, and thus crewmembers do not have to work they do not pose any potential conflict emergency preparedness approval process required under 49 CFR 239.201. through an intermediary, such as the in the other current subparts. FRA has dispatcher, to communicate with one This proposed rule would provide decided to include these proposed another. Typically, direct passenger railroads that are considering definitions in this section because these communication will mean that the one-person operations with additional terms are unlikely to ever have any crewmembers are communicating by insight into the safety considerations other definition that would potentially radio or hand signals. conflict with another, future, proposed FRA deems essential before the agency Finally, proposed paragraph (b) of this subpart to this part. would approve such an operation. section would expressly allow each The proposed rule needs to define the Although railroading continues to railroad to prescribe additional or more term ‘‘Associate Administrator’’ so that trend as safer each year, FRA is stringent requirements in its operating it will be understood which FRA official concerned that some railroads are rules, timetables, timetable special would need to be served with a copy of removing a second crewmember instructions, and other instructions. certain documents required to be filed without reflecting on the safety risks Thus, the NPRM does not prohibit a under other sections of the NPRM. A posed to railroad employees and the railroad from requiring more than two proposed definition of ‘‘FTA’’ should general public by having one less crewmembers or from having additional come as no surprise to those railroads crewmember staffing each train. The or more stringent requirements that come under the Federal Transit second crewmember may prevent a lone governing the proper roles and Administration’s jurisdiction and would crewmember from suffering from task responsibilities of a second, or be expecting FRA to recognize FTA’s overload by monitoring and warning of additional, crewmembers as long as the authority to regulate certain types of temporary restrictions, acknowledging train operation is in compliance with operations. signal indications, communicating on this proposed subpart. the radio, protecting the public at Section 218.121 Purpose and Scope highway-rail grade crossings, and Section 218.123 Definitions This section states that the purpose of updating the train consist list or other The proposed rule offers a definition this proposed subpart is to ensure that required paperwork. Operations could for the phrase ‘‘tourist, scenic, historic, each train is adequately staffed and has also pose a higher risk to employees and or excursion operations that are not part appropriate safeguards in place when the general public due to the types of of the general railroad system of using fewer than two-person crews for commodities hauled, the speed or transportation’’ in order to explain the safe train operations. In order to ensure tonnage of the train, or other plain meaning of that phrase. The adequate staffing, the NPRM prescribes complexities of the operation. The phrase means a tourist, scenic, historic, minimum requirements for the size of decision to propose a requirement for a or excursion operation conducted only different train crew staffs depending on minimum number of crewmembers on on track used exclusively for that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13944 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

purpose (i.e., there is no freight, the second crewmember for both freight including anhydrous ammonia (UN intercity passenger, or commuter and passenger trains. The exceptions to 1005) and ammonia solutions (UN passenger railroad operation on the the general requirements are found in 3318). Loaded PIH tank cars pose a track). If there was any freight, intercity other sections of the proposed rule. tremendous safety risk to the general passenger, or commuter passenger Proposed paragraph (a) requires each public and a second crewmember’s railroad operation on the track, the track railroad to comply with the actions can certainly provide an would be considered part of the general requirements of this subpart, and additional safeguard to compliance with system. See 49 CFR part 209, app. A. In provides the railroad with the option to all railroad rules and operating the section-by-section analysis for adopt its own rules or practices to do so. practices. In paragraph (c)(2), FRA proposed § 218.127, there is an A railroad may want to adopt its own similarly addresses the safety issues that explanation for why FRA is proposing rules or practices that it instructs its are applicable to ‘‘key trains,’’ which not to exercise its jurisdiction over these employees to comply with rather than commonly refers to 20 or more loaded types of railroad operations. asking employees to directly comply freight cars, freight cars loaded with The proposed rule defines ‘‘trailing with a Federal regulation. As proposed bulk packages, or intermodal portable tons’’ to mean the sum of the gross in the purpose and scope section, each tank loads containing certain types of weights—expressed in tons—of the cars railroad is free to prescribe additional or hazardous materials, such as crude oil. and the locomotives in a train that are more stringent requirements as it sees The 20-car threshold follows FRA’s not providing propelling power to the fit. Regardless of whether a railroad or Emergency Order 28 and proposed train. This term has the same meaning any person fails to comply with this securement regulation and is based on as in 49 CFR 232.407(a)(5), which is a subpart, or the railroad’s rules or AAR’s definition of a ‘‘key train’’ in OT– regulation concerning end-of-train practices used to ensure compliance 55N. FRA is proposing a threshold of 20 devices. The NPRM needs this term in with the requirements of this subpart, cars instead of 5, 10, or 15 cars because order to help define what a work train that railroad or person shall be FRA is willing to allow one-person is in § 218.127(d). considered to have violated the operations when they pose less risk to The NPRM proposes a definition of requirements of this subpart and may be the public, and by virtue of fewer ‘‘train’’ that is consistent with the way subject to an FRA enforcement action. hazmat cars, the risk should be less. FRA has defined the term in other Although this would be true even Local trains, moving less than 20 cars, Federal rail regulations. See, e.g., 49 without this paragraph, FRA has will likely be operated at slower speeds CFR 229.5, 232.5 and 238.5. For proposed this paragraph because it gives and pose less risk. The greatest risk is purposes of this proposed rule, a train the regulated community an explicit with these key trains. Although a single means one or more locomotives coupled warning that FRA can take enforcement car of crude oil can be dangerous, a with or without cars, except during action under appropriate circumstances. single car does not pose nearly as great switching service. The term ‘‘switching Paragraph (b) proposes the essential a risk as a single loaded PIH tank car— service’’ is also defined in the section. requirement of the entire subpart. That which explains why the proposed rule The definition of train is not intended is, each train shall be assigned a requires that at least 20 of these types to contain all of the exceptions to the minimum of two crewmembers unless of cars must be in the train before the crew size and second crewmember role an exception is otherwise provided for ‘‘no exception’’ to the minimum of two and responsibility requirements; in this subpart. As explained in the crewmembers requirement is triggered. instead, those exceptions are found in preamble, a second crewmember can Thus, based on an RSAC consensus other sections, clearly identified as help prevent a single crewmember from recommending special securement exceptions, in the proposed rule text. experiencing task overload and losing procedures of unattended trains In order to clarify that a ‘‘train’’ does situational awareness. A lone not include switching operations, FRA crewmember that loses situational containing the types and quantities of proposes a definition for ‘‘switching awareness would not be able to benefit materials described in this proposed service’’ that is consistent with the way from a second crewmember who paragraph, FRA believes special care FRA has defined the term in other provides adequate warnings of should also be provided by a minimum Federal rail regulations. See, e.g., 49 operational restrictions and can of two crewmembers during rail CFR 229.5, 232.5 and 238.5. Switching complete some of the tasks that may be transport. FRA would appreciate service means the classification of rail causing the lone crewmember to be comments regarding whether this cars according to commodity or overloaded. Even if an exception proposed requirement is too stringent or destination; assembling of cars for train applies, a railroad may choose to assign not stringent enough. movements; changing the position of a minimum of two crewmembers to Proposed paragraph (d) contains the cars for purposes of loading, unloading, each of its trains and would certainly be general requirements pertaining to the or weighing; placing of locomotives and in compliance with this proposed roles and responsibilities of a second cars for repair or storage; or moving of subpart if it did so. crewmember when the train is moving. rail equipment in connection with work Paragraph (c) contains the proposed The NPRM is written under the premise service that does not constitute a train requirement that two crewmembers are that the locomotive engineer is the first movement. FRA has not limited always necessary when the train crewmember and is always located in switching service to yard limits, contains certain quantities and types of the cab of the controlling locomotive although switching service often takes hazardous materials. It is proposed that when the train is moving, unless the place within a rail yard. this requirement be applicable controlling locomotive is being operated regardless of whether an exception remotely. FRA uses the term ‘‘second Section 218.125 General Crew Staffing somewhere else in the subpart appears crewmember’’ largely to mean a and Roles and Responsibilities of the to apply. In paragraph (c)(1), FRA conductor, under 49 CFR part 242, but Second Crewmember for Freight and proposes to mandate a minimum of two with the understanding that since a Passenger Trains crewmembers assigned to a train that single crewmember could hold multiple This proposed section includes the contains even just one loaded freight car operating crew certificates, it is possible general crew staffing requirements, as of poisonous by inhalation material that a second crewmember could be well as the roles and responsibilities of (PIH), as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, designated as having a job title other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13945

than conductor and not require a not considering all the exceptions in the 31–04.pdf. The second train locomotive engineer or conductor other sections, is for that crewmember crewmember would then need another certificate. See 49 CFR 242.213. to be on the train when it is moving way to catch up to the train to get back The proposed requirement in except when it is necessary for that on it. As stated previously, FRA believes paragraph (d) is written with an crewmember to temporarily disembark. all of the operations described in that expectation that, in many operations, The proposed general requirement is AAR document are acceptable under the best location for the conductor is in intended to exclude a situation where this proposed rule, as long as the second the cab of the controlling locomotive the conductor is either never on the train crewmember that is separated from when the train is moving. When a train, or spends significant periods of the train can directly communicate with conductor is in the cab, the time disassociated from physically the crewmember in the cab of the crewmembers can easily communicate being on or near the train. Thus, if a controlling locomotive pursuant to about upcoming restrictions, signal second assigned crewmember is ordered proposed § 218.125(d). Meanwhile, FRA indications, and methods of operation. to stay in a yard tower, or other fixed anticipates that there may be These job briefings and other timely location not on the train, for the circumstances where direct communications help ensure that the majority of the time that the train is communication is temporarily lost due locomotive engineer is operating safely moving, the second crewmember would to radio malfunctions or other and in compliance with all applicable not be in compliance with this proposed communication failures. Sometimes the rules and procedures. Knowing that the general requirement that only permits loss of communication will be due to conductor can provide reminders of ‘‘temporarily disembarking from the circumstances within the control of the restrictions or a level of assurance that train.’’ The relaxation of the crewmembers or will be due to known the engineer has called the signal requirement that the second radio signal obstacles (e.g., geographical correctly may reduce the stress level of crewmember be on the train is intended obstacles such as mountains). FRA the engineer. As FRA explained in the to permit only temporary situations, i.e., accepts that direct communication may preamble, it is when employees are movements of short time or duration be lost temporarily due to a variety of under stress and overloaded with tasks, that are necessary in the normal course factors, and will be looking to see that that a one-person operation is more of train operations. For example, a a railroad has implemented procedures likely to lose situational awareness and conductor may get off a train to throw or practices to reduce any potential loss make a mistake, i.e., a human factor a switch and then the train is moved of direct communication by failure. with the conductor on the ground so crewmembers to a minimum before Although FRA believes the optimal that the conductor can get back in the considering a potential enforcement location for a second crewmember controlling locomotive cab without action. FRA would appreciate safety-wise is usually in the operating having to walk the entire length of the comments on this issue. cab of the controlling locomotive when train. In other instances, a conductor the train is moving, FRA certainly Proposed paragraph (d)(2) contains might have to throw a switch but the recognizes that safe operations can be the requirement that, when the second train cannot easily be moved to pick up conducted when the second crewmember is anywhere outside of the the conductor so a workaround practice crewmember is located somewhere else operating cab of the controlling or procedure has been developed to on the train. For example, FRA is aware locomotive when the train is moving, drive the conductor in a motor vehicle, that some operations are designed so the second crewmember has the ability or on a following train, several miles that the second crewmember is on a to directly communicate with the away where the conductor can then caboose at the back of the train, which crewmember in the cab of the safely reboard the assigned train. FRA can facilitate train movements that controlling locomotive. FRA is not require manually operating switches at considers these both examples of proposing to prescribe the methods of the rear of the train. Other operations temporarily disembarking from the train communication in this regulation. may be designed or require that a even though the latter example results Deciding appropriate methods of direct second crewmember ride in a in the train moving for several miles communication between crewmembers locomotive that is not the controlling without the second crewmember on the is left to each railroad. Typically, locomotive. FRA does not intend to train. To the contrary, if a railroad’s crewmembers that are visible to one propose a rule that would prohibit a practice is to stop the train many miles another will communicate by hand second crewmember from safely away from the switch, after passing signals as the employees’ voices cannot performing his or her duties from multiple places where the train could be be heard over the locomotive engine somewhere else on or near the moving stopped safely for the conductor to from any distance outside the cab. Most train. board, FRA would view the practice as other times, crewmembers will In proposed paragraphs (d)(1) through more than a temporary situation and it communicate with one another by radio (d)(4), the general requirement in would appear to violate the proposed or other wireless electronic devices in proposed paragraph (d) is refined to general requirement. accordance with railroad rules and allow for the second crewmember to be Previously in the background section procedures and FRA’s railroad located anywhere outside of the (see IV. No Recommendation From the communications regulation found at 49 operating cab of the controlling RSAC Working Group), FRA advised CFR part 220. The important aspect of locomotive when the train is moving that a document prepared by AAR has this proposed general requirement is under certain conditions. been submitted to the docket which that the assigned crewmembers are in In paragraph (d)(1), it is proposed that describes six situations where a second direct contact with one another and do the normal location of the second train crewmember would need to be not have to communicate through an crewmember be on the train ‘‘except located outside of the operating cab of intermediary; otherwise, it would be when the train crewmember cannot the controlling locomotive when the hard to justify any perceived safety perform the duties assigned without train is moving in order to continue to benefit to having a detached second temporarily disembarking from the perform the duties assigned, and then crewmember that lacks the ability to train.’’ That is, the proposed general lists seven additional examples. AAR communicate with the crewmember in requirement for a second crewmember, Discussion Document TCWG–14–03– the cab of the controlling locomotive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13946 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

while the train is moving. The proposed train include the locomotive, the definitions section, the regulatory text requirement focuses on the second train passenger cars, the caboose, the side of contains sufficient information to crewmember’s ability to communicate a freight car when protecting a move, explain what the term means. The with the locomotive engineer, but the and on the ground either throwing proposed paragraph states that a train is expectation is that the engineer would switches or inspecting the train. performing helper service when it is also have the ability to directly Finally, with regard to proposed using a locomotive or group of communicate with the second paragraph (d), FRA’s main concern is locomotives to assist another train that crewmember and request assistance, with adequately staffed moving trains, has incurred mechanical failure or lacks and that the second crewmember would not stopped trains. The proposed the power to traverse difficult terrain. be able to quickly respond. regulatory text is silent regarding any Helper service is a common service Passenger and commuter locomotives requirements for the location of a performed in the railroad industry as a do not always have room for a second second crewmember on a stopped train one-person operation. It is typically not crewmember in the locomotive control as FRA suggests that this is an issue that considered a complex operation as the compartment, but a second crewmember should be left for each railroad to locomotive engineer would be required may be necessary to provide assistance decide. Of course, any person may to operate to the train needing for shoving or pushing movements, or to address this issue in a comment if it is assistance, and then couple to the train otherwise assist the routine operation of believed that FRA has missed a safety in order to provide assistance pushing the train. If the second crewmember is issue and should regulate the roles and or pulling it. The proposed paragraph a conductor, that conductor may not responsibilities of crewmembers on a clarifies that helper service is not always have a view of upcoming signal stopped train. FRA believes that the limited to the time that the helper indications. For that reason, even proposed definition of ‘‘roles and locomotive or locomotives are attached though the passenger or commuter responsibilities’’ reflects the operational to the train needing assistance. That is, railroad conductor has some operating status quo and will not result in any helper service also includes the time duties, the conductor may feel some costs or benefits. FRA requests public spent traveling to or from a location disassociation with the operation of the comment on this assumption. where assistance is provided. As with train. FRA believes railroads should Section 218.127 General Exceptions to all these exceptions, a railroad may look closely at the operating duties that Two-Person Crew Requirement decide that a certain helper service a second person not located in the cab operation is more complex and that This proposed section is the first of can perform, as long as the second more than one crewmember should be several sections explaining operational crewmember has the ability to directly assigned to the helper service train; exceptions to the general requirements communicate with the locomotive however, considering that cars are not for assigning a minimum of two engineer. For example, before leaving attached and a railroad has an incentive each station stop, the conductor could crewmembers on each train specified in proposed § 218.125(b) and the location to not dispatch a helper service train remind the locomotive engineer of any from a great distance away from the upcoming restrictions that will be requirements for the second crewmember found in proposed train needing assistance, FRA does not reached before arriving at the next believe this type of operation poses a station stop. Such job briefings between § 218.125(d). In the analysis for each paragraph, FRA explains why each of great risk to railroad employees or the crewmembers have long been general public. considered an effective practice by these operations are not considered expert teams. complex, traveling short distances, at Proposed paragraph (b) excludes a Proposed paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) low speeds, or under special operating train that is a tourist, scenic, historic, or contain the last general requirements rules, and therefore that they pose a low excursion operation that is not part of that apply when the second risk of causing a catastrophic accident the general railroad system of crewmember is anywhere outside of the with a one-person crew. As a reminder, transportation from the two-person crew operating cab of the controlling the introductory paragraph of this requirement. In § 218.123, FRA defined locomotive when the train is moving. section reiterates that the exceptions in these operations as ‘‘a tourist, scenic, The proposed paragraphs require that this section do not apply when a train historic, or excursion operation the second crewmember must be able to is transporting the hazardous materials conducted only on track used continue to perform the duties assigned of the types and quantities described in exclusively for that purpose (i.e., there even though the crewmember is outside § 218.125(c). This proposed section is is no freight, intercity passenger, or of the operating cab of the controlling intended to cover those general commuter passenger railroad operation locomotive when the train is moving exceptions that apply to both passenger on the track).’’ Excluding these types of and, under these circumstances, the and freight trains. operations from this proposed rule is location of the second crewmember In this proposed section, five general consistent with FRA’s jurisdictional must not violate any Federal railroad exceptions are identified. The policy that already excludes these safety law, regulation, or order. These exceptions are written in such a way operations from all but a limited proposed general requirements are that all of the operations can easily be number of Federal safety laws, catch-all provisions intended to ensure described in three words or less. As regulations, and orders. Because these that each railroad and second FRA has been able to describe the operations are off the general system, crewmember does not conclude that the operation in such shorthand, the the general public does not have to provisions in this regulation can regulatory text uses those descriptions worry that the train could collide with somehow be used to avoid complying at the beginning of each paragraph to a train carrying hazardous materials or with a person’s assigned duties or any help convey to the reader where the a commuter passenger train. Proposed Federal requirement. FRA understands exception can be found. paragraph (b) would exclude tourist that passenger train conductors will In paragraph (a), the proposed rule operations from the two-person crew normally be in the body of the train, not would except trains performing helper requirement regardless of whether the in the locomotive cab with the engineer. service from the two-person crew operations are ‘‘insular’’ or ‘‘non- In passenger train operations, normal minimum requirement. Rather than insular.’’ If the tourist operation is ‘‘non- areas for a conductor to occupy on a define what helper service means in the insular,’’ it is possible that the train

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13947

could collide with a motorist at a the same as the definition FRA provided customers’ facilities, with or without highway-rail grade crossing. However, for in 49 CFR 232.407(a)(4), in a cars. Typically, RCL operations these ‘‘non-insular’’ operations would regulation requiring end-of-train (EOT) involved in switching will have a crew generally involve relatively short devices. FRA considered whether it is consisting of either one or two tourist-type trains operating at slow necessary for the work train exception crewmembers. However, in switching, speeds thereby reducing the probability to have a trailing tons limitation. FRA an RCL operation with two of an accident with a motorist or even considered that a work train with 4,000 crewmembers is not a traditional a serious derailment. Additionally, trailing tons would allow a railroad to locomotive engineer and conductor tourist operations usually have plenty of operate a work train with potentially up train crew arrangement. Instead, each paid or volunteer train crewmembers to 50 cars attached to locomotives. A crewmember would have a remote that can assist any passengers in case of work train that contains up to 50 cars control transmitter and would alternate an emergency. provides a railroad with a lot of taking turns controlling the RCL when Similar to the safety rationale for the flexibility in permitting such trains to be the RCL was in close proximity to that proposed helper service exception, operated without a minimum of two crewmember. This ‘‘pitch and catch’’ proposed paragraph (c) would exempt crewmembers. Again, some railroads arrangement is more like having two lite locomotives or a lite locomotive may voluntarily choose to assign two independent one-person crews who can consist from the two-person crew crewmembers even where the proposed do all the duties of both a locomotive requirement. That is, when a locomotive rule does not require it. Meanwhile, a engineer and a conductor. or a consist of locomotives is not work train with more than 4,000 trailing Although FRA has long perceived attached to any piece of equipment, or tons appears to be getting so long that RCL operations as being best utilized for attached only to a caboose, the railroad additional operational complexities are switching services, it is understandable is conducting a type of limited likely to arise where a second that a railroad might need to move an operation that generally poses less of a crewmember would be extremely RCL from one location to another where safety-risk to railroad employees or the beneficial for safety purposes. For the RCL can be more efficiently used. general public. Lite locomotives would example, if a train had to stop so a FRA has recently become aware that mainly be operating as a train in order crewmember could throw a hand- more railroads appear to find it an to move the locomotives to a location operated switch, and the switch had to acceptable practice to use a one-person where the locomotives could be better be returned after use, it is possible that RCL job to service customers. FRA does utilized for revenue trains that are the train could be blocking a highway- not find the practice inherently unsafe taking or delivering rail cars to rail grade crossing for twice as long if a given the limitations of the technology. customers, or to other railroad yards one-person operation required walking However, FRA might be more concerned where the locomotives can be used in the length of the train round-trip versus if railroads tried to operate the one- switching operations. Additionally, lite a second crewmember being dropped off person RCL jobs at speeds greater than locomotives may be operating as a train and only walking one way. Finally, the 15 mph, and with increased complexity in order to take more than one proposed exception for work trains beyond the known acceptable locomotive to a repair shop for engaged in maintenance and repair limitations previously acknowledged by servicing. The proposed paragraph activities on the railroad includes when the industry. The NPRM reflects these includes a definition of ‘‘lite the work train is traveling to or from a acceptable limitations and a copy of the correspondence reflecting those agreed locomotive’’ rather than including the work site. Work trains mainly haul definition in the subpart’s definition’s upon limitations has been added to the materials and equipment used to build section. The definition proposed is docket. or maintain the right-of-way and signal consistent with the definition in FRA’s The RCL operations limitations do not systems. Work trains are unlikely to be Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards contain a distance restriction, although hauling hazardous materials (unless regulation found in 49 CFR 229.5. FRA’s guidance on the issue explained extra fuel is needed to power However, this NPRM includes a further that the agency expected that an added machinery) and are generally not clarification that lite locomotive limitation would be for these operations considered complex operations. They ‘‘excludes a diesel or electric multiple to be restricted to main track terminal often travel at restricted speed, which is unit (DMU or EMU) operation.’’ The operations. Considering the 15 mph a slow speed in which the locomotive reason for this additional clarification is speed restriction, FRA did not that a DMU or EMU is a locomotive that engineer must be prepared to stop anticipate that RCL operations would is also a car that can transport before colliding with on-track expand beyond main track terminal passengers, and if the proposed rule did equipment or running through operations. Although FRA does not not contain this clarification then it misaligned switches. FRA would believe that RCL operations that are so could be interpreted that a passenger appreciate comments on the range of limited need a distance restriction, FRA train containing either a single or safety risks posed by work trains and would appreciate any comments on this multiple DMUs or EMUs would not the 4,000 trailing tons limitation to see issue. need a minimum of two crewmembers. if it is too expansive. Section 218.129 Specific Passenger FRA has further clarified DMU/EMU Proposed paragraph (e) would permit Train Exceptions to Two-Person Crew exceptions for passenger trains in an exception to the two-person Requirement proposed § 218.129. crewmember requirement whenever Proposed paragraph (d) would exempt remote control operations are conducted This proposed section permits work train operations from the two- under certain circumstances. Because specific passenger train exceptions to person crew requirement. ‘‘Work train’’ the general requirement for a two- the general requirements for assigning a is defined in this paragraph as person crew minimum only applies to minimum of two crewmembers on each operations where a non-revenue service trains, and the definition of train train. Three exceptions that apply only train of 4,000 trailing tons or less is used excludes switching service, this to passenger trains have been identified for the administration and upkeep exception applies to the use of a in this proposed section. Although no service of the railroad. This portion of remotely controlled locomotive (RCL) consensus was reached during the the proposed definition of work train is that is traveling between yards or RSAC deliberations, FRA believes the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13948 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

passenger railroad community was operations that FRA has previously concerns of tourist railroads that would satisfied that these exceptions would be determined could potentially be not be subject to the § 239.201 adequate to prevent serious disruptions operated safely with a one-person crew. emergency preparedness plan FRA in passenger train service without taking The exception to the two-person crew approval requirement. Tourist railroads, on great safety risks. general requirement is for a passenger including general system tourist roads, In paragraph (a), the proposed rule train operation involving a single self- are not subject to 49 CFR part 239, as would allow a passenger train operation propelled car or married-pair unit, e.g., that passenger train emergency with less than two crewmembers in a DMU or EMU operation, where the preparedness regulation is expressly which the passenger train’s cars are locomotive engineer has direct access to inapplicable to ‘‘[t]ourist, scenic, empty of passengers and are being the passenger seating compartment and historic, or excursion operations, moved for purposes other than to pick (for passenger railroads subject to 49 whether on or off the general railroad up or drop off passengers. The CFR part 239) the passenger railroad’s system.’’ See 49 CFR 239.3(b)(3). exception clearly does not apply just emergency preparedness plan for this Therefore, general system and non- because a passenger train happens to be operation is approved under 49 CFR general tourist operations are not subject empty of passengers. Passenger trains 239.201. As previously addressed in the to § 239.201. In proposing this might need to be moved without analysis for the lite locomotive exception, FRA certainly did not mean passengers for repairs or for the exception in § 218.127(c), a DMU or to create a new requirement for a tourist convenience of the railroad. EMU is a locomotive that is also a car railroad to comply with the passenger Although empty passenger trains pose that can transport passengers. These train emergency preparedness some of the same safety concerns as self-propelled cars may be coupled regulation in part 239. Thus, this trains loaded with passengers (e.g., together to form a train but are often exemption expressly requires FRA excessive speed, compliance with signal designed so that a person cannot walk approval under § 239.201 only for indications, and safety at highway-rail to another car without getting off the passenger railroads subject to 49 CFR grade crossings), many commuter train. A married-pair unit is about the part 239. operations are designed for only one length of two cars, but allows a person In proposed paragraph (c), an person in the cab of the controlling to walk between the two cars/units locomotive. In proposing this exception, exception from the two-person crew without getting off the train. In only one requirement is offered for a rapid transit FRA is showing a willingness to instance has FRA approved the recognize the reduced safety concerns of operation in an urban area that is emergency preparedness plan for a one- connected with the general railroad these empty passenger train operations person crew passenger train operation and leave it to each railroad to system of transportation under certain with the consideration that the sole conditions. The exception itself clarifies determine whether there are other crewmember could stop the train and adequate safeguards in place to ensure that a rapid transit operation in an assist the passengers without stepping that the one-person operation is safe. urban area means an urban rapid transit off the train in an emergency. In Certainly, FRA does not expect this system or a light rail transit operator. deciding whether to approve an proposed rule will encourage those For the exception from the two-person emergency preparedness plan, FRA will railroads that operate with a minimum crew requirement to be used, a railroad also consider the physical of a two-person crew on empty operating a rapid transit operation in an characteristics of the territory and how passenger trains to take undue risk by urban area connected with the general the operation would have the potential taking the second crewmember off this system must ensure that all three listed to put passengers in danger in case of a assignment. Instead, FRA is trying to conditions are met. First, the biggest train breakdown, accident, or avoid a situation where the proposed safety concern with these rapid transit rule would require adding a second evacuation. For example, FRA will operations on the general system is that crewmember who is essentially not consider whether passengers could they have the potential to collide with performing any safety functions. The easily evacuate from the train with much heavier freight or passenger exception is geared more to address the minimal assistance. Some passenger trains. In such a collision, the rapid lack of a need for more than one cars have door thresholds that are 48 to transit train is likely to suffer significant crewmember on a train with no 51 inches above the top of the rail. With equipment damage and the potential for passengers. On passenger trains, one of the door that high off the ground, a catastrophic injuries to passengers the central safety concerns is how the ladder would need to be deployed and would be great. By requiring that these crew will protect the passengers when some passengers would likely need operations be ‘‘temporally separated getting on or off the train, or in case of assistance evacuating down the ladder from any conventional railroad an emergency. If the train does not have to an area of safety. Even with good operations,’’ the NPRM clarifies that the any passengers on board and will not be signage, passengers who are not trained rapid transit operations could not picking up any passengers, a second to know what to do in an emergency potentially collide with heavier, crewmember is not needed to address might not realize the ladder is available, conventional train operations unless the any passenger’s safety concerns. On the might not know how to deploy it, or operations were not properly temporally other hand, if passenger trains may might assume additional risk by rushing separated. A temporally separated light encounter freight trains on the same to evacuate without deploying it. This is rail operation on the general system is track or an adjacent track, if switches exactly the type of situation where a required to obtain an FRA-approved need to be thrown, or if the train will trained second person could provide waiver demonstrating an acceptable be engaging in shoving or pushing valuable assistance. Thus, if an level of safety, so FRA would have movements, it may be beneficial to add emergency preparedness plan is assurances that the operation can be a second crewmember to address these required, FRA approval of that plan conducted safely. See 49 CFR part 211, operating conditions or any potential utilizing a one-person operation is an app. A, V. Waivers That May Be emergency situations. essential element of being able to utilize Appropriate For Time-Separated Light In proposed paragraph (b), an this proposed exception. Rail Operations. The second and third exemption from the two-person crew In the proposed paragraph (b) conditions that must be met relate to the minimum is permitted to recognize exception, FRA has considered the fact that these rapid transit operations in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13949

an urban area on the general system may crewmembers if the operation’s safety section can be found in paragraph (b). be subject to the U.S. Department of would be compromised by using only The title of this proposed paragraph Transportation, Federal Transit one person. indicates that it is intended to apply to Administration’s (FTA) jurisdiction. The second excepted small railroad what are commonly referred to as mine FRA does not want to assert jurisdiction operation would take place at speeds load-out or plant dumping operations. over an operation where FTA is already not exceeding 25 mph and where a Even if the railroad does not use one of asserting adequate jurisdiction to assure second train crewmember is assigned, those terms, any similar operation safety for railroad employees and the but is not continuously on or observing which involves a freight train being general public. the moving train as would be expected loaded or unloaded in an assembly line of a second crewmember. Instead, the manner at an industry while the train Section 218.131 Specific Freight Train second crewmember is assigned to moves at 10 mph or less would be Exceptions to Two-Person Crew intermittently assist the train’s excepted from the two-person crew Requirement movements at critical times. For requirement. The exception is generous This proposed section permits example, the second train crewmember in that it allows these operations to be specific freight train exceptions to the may be ‘‘shadowing’’ the train by conducted at up to 10 mph. FRA general requirements for assigning a traveling alongside the train in a motor expects that most of these loading or minimum of two crewmembers on each vehicle. The second crewmember could unloading operations will take place at train. As a reminder, the introductory assist with flagging a highway-rail grade under 6 mph, but has expanded the paragraph of this section reiterates that crossing, throwing hand-operated maximum speed to 10 mph in order to the exceptions in this section do not switches, or switching service when the give each railroad plenty of leeway apply when a train is transporting the train enters a yard or customer’s facility. without impacting the efficiency of the hazardous materials of the types and The second crewmember must also have loading or unloading operation. Some of quantities described in § 218.125(c). the ability to directly communicate with these operations are overseen by a Three exceptions that apply only to the crewmember in the cab of the person in a tower or on the ground that freight trains have been identified in controlling locomotive. Such can provide oversight into whether the this proposed section. communication is essential to holding cars are being loaded or unloaded Proposed paragraph (a) identifies two any required job briefings to exchange properly. That person would be specific freight train exceptions that are critical information about upcoming expected to be able to communicate only applicable for small railroads restrictions or difficult operational with the locomotive engineer operating known as Class III railroads. These concerns. Most commonly, the train. As these operations are most exceptions are FRA’s attempt to provide communication in this context will be likely being conducted at a railroad yard additional relief to small businesses in by radio (or other wireless electronic or a customer’s facility, and at low the railroad industry, in addition to the devices in accordance with railroad speeds, the railroad and its customer are relief granted by the exceptions in the rules and procedures and FRA’s railroad assuming the risk of not having a second other sections of this proposed rule. As communications regulation found at 49 crewmember engaged or not operating at a prerequisite to using either of the CFR part 220), and direct a safe speed. Considering the low small railroad exceptions, the railroad communication means that the speeds and low safety risk to railroad must determine whether the train will crewmembers have the ability to employees and the general public, FRA be operated on a railroad and by an communicate with one another without believes an exception to the two-person employee of a railroad with less than going through an intermediary, such as crew requirement is warranted. 400,000 total employee work hours a dispatcher. The proposed requirement annually. If that is the case, there are focuses on the second train Section 218.133 Continuance of two types of operations identified where crewmember’s ability to communicate Freight Operations Staffed Without a a train can be operated with less than with the locomotive engineer, but the Two-Person Train Crew Prior to January the required two-person crew. expectation is that the engineer would 1, 2015 The first excepted small railroad also have the ability to directly This is the first of two proposed operation would take place at speeds communicate with the second sections in which FRA is co-proposing not exceeding 25 mph and at locations crewmember and request assistance, two options. In this proposed section, where there are no heavy grades. For and that the second crewmember would each railroad may continue any one- this exception to be used, FRA has be able to quickly respond. In this person train operations that were described heavy grade as being equal to exception, a small railroad operation is conducted prior to January 1, 2015, as or more than 1 percent over 3 assigning a second crewmember but has long as (1) the train is not transporting continuous miles or 2 percent over 2 the flexibility to have the second the hazardous materials of the types and continuous miles. In FRA’s experience, crewmember travel separately from the quantities described in § 218.125(c) and, Class III railroads that operate trains train. During the RSAC deliberations, (2) after submitting a description of the over their own track, at relatively slow shortline railroad representatives operations, FRA does not find that the speeds, and over territory without steep expressed a request for this type of operation poses unacceptable safety hills or mountains, do not pose an flexibility. As these operation are to be risks and the railroad has implemented unacceptable safety risk to the general conducted at relatively low speeds and or agreed to implement off-setting public or railroad employees if under conditions where the one-person actions required by FRA. FRA is not conducted with only one crewmember. crew on board the train is intermittently proposing to include in the regulatory Most Class III railroads maintain their assisted, it appears that the second text the ‘‘unacceptable safety risks’’ own track to no greater than Class 2 crewmember can play a critical role in standard described here, or make track standards, which allow freight improving the safety of the operation approval decisions using a set of trains to be operated at speeds no even if the person is not on board or conditions or performance standard(s). greater than 25 mph anyway. See 49 observing the moving train at all times. FRA does not believe a one-size-fits-all CFR 213.9. Again, this is a minimum The third specific freight train approach will work. Each railroad will standard and a Class III railroad could exception to the two-person crew need to present its particular one-person certainly require two or more train general requirement in this proposed operations and make the case that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13950 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

safety concerns added by reducing crew 2. 49 CFR Part 214—Railroad extent they should be used as a model staff have been addressed in some Workplace Safety (§§ 214.113, 214.115, for this rule. reasonable manner. FRA is not willing and 214.117): Adopting American A railroad may review its one-person to say that PTC by itself is enough National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) operations and find that most or all of because even PTC has its limitations. standards for protective headwear and these operations are already acceptable FRA wants to see that a railroad has footwear for industrial workers in the to FRA as indicated by other sections in built in contingencies for expected, context of railroad bridge workers. ANSI this proposed rule. Obviously, if FRA routine problems (e.g., flagging or standards also adopted for occupational has proposed a blanket exception to the blocking grade crossings) and rare, but and educational eye and face protection two-person train crewmember possibly catastrophic, accidents/ when workers face physical, chemical, requirement for a particular type of incidents. or radiant agents. 57 FR 28127, Jun. 24, operation industry-wide, it would be In determining whether a request 1992, RIN 2130–AA48. unnecessary for the railroad to comply poses unacceptable risks, FRA will look 3. 49 CFR Part 218—Railroad with this proposed section. FRA has at acceptable industry standards and Operating Practices, Subpart F: This encountered difficulty understanding available mitigating practices. FRA subpart was based on a Secretarial the scope of all the one-person train railroad safety data will be reviewed initiative to reduce human factor-caused operations currently being used even and FRA may use a focused inspection. accidents. The rule adopted certain though FRA made repeated requests to FRA requests public comments on ways universally accepted railroad operating the RSAC Working Group members for to differentiate acceptable safety risk rules related to the handling of information, AAR and ASLRRA have versus unacceptable safety risk. equipment, switches, and fixed derails provided some generalized information, FRA intends to begin its assessment of with the goal that making the operating and FRA has surveyed its own regional a request to continue using a one-person rules Federal requirements would bring staff. Each time FRA met with the RSAC crew operation believing that there are greater accountability. FRA emphasized Working Group, it seemed that FRA few one-person operations existing that an enforcement mechanism is learned about a new type of one-person currently, and that those operations necessary ‘‘because prior reliance on the operation, but without much detail that have not yet raised serious safety railroad to ensure employee compliance would allow FRA to determine that any concerns. Thus, FRA expects to approve with railroad operating rules without a particular operation was actually safe. existing operations as long as the Federal enforcement mechanism has Thus, the purpose of this proposed railroads with existing operations make repeatedly proven to be inadequate to section is to provide FRA with some a reasonable showing that the safety protect the public and employee safety.’’ needed oversight to ensure that concerns of reducing crew size were 73 FR 8442, 8446, 8449, Feb. 13, 2008, railroads are not conducting operations addressed by taking other off-setting RIN 2130–AB76. that pose significant safety risks to actions that likely formed the basis railroad employees or the general 4. 49 CFR Part 224—Reflectorization supporting the operation’s safe public. compliance history. A railroad can of Rail Freight Rolling Stock (§ 224.15): If a railroad wants to continue a one- satisfy FRA’s concerns by showing that Adopting standards for the person operation begun prior to January the railroad has taken a sensible characteristics of retroreflective sheeting 1, 2015, proposed paragraph (a) in both business approach to analyzing the developed by ASTM International, options requires that the railroad submit operation and reducing the risks and formerly known as the American a description of the operation to the hazards associated with reducing train Society for Testing and Materials Associate Administrator within 90 days crews to less than two crewmembers. (ASTM), which is a globally recognized of the effective date of this rule. Eleven However, FRA considers this an leader in the development and delivery numbered items are listed under approach that puts safety interests of international voluntary consensus proposed paragraph (a) that a railroad ahead of business cost considerations. standards. 70 FR 62166, Oc. 28, 2005, would be required to address in its The expectation is that the approval RIN 2130–AB68. description of the operation it would process will largely pin down the status 5. 49 CFR Part 229—Railroad like to continue. A railroad should quo for current one-person train Locomotive Safety Standards provide a thorough description of the operations that are methodically (§§ 229.205 and 229.217): Adopting operation, and the 11 numbered items implemented. FRA will be critical of AAR’s locomotive crashworthiness are intended to solicit a complete operations that fail to show careful standard. 71 FR 36912, Jun. 28, 2006, picture of the risks associated with the planning to reduce the likelihood of RIN 2130–AB23. operation as well as how much thought mishaps and reduce collateral damages 6. 49 CFR Part 238—Passenger the railroad’s operations managers have in the event of an accident. FRA has Equipment Safety Standards given to whether the operation can promulgated other rules that seek to (§§ 238.115, 238.121, 238.125, 238.127, provide an appropriate level of safety. freeze the status quo, including the 238.229, 238.230, and 238.311): FRA proposes to require railroads to following, and expect the approval Adopting the American Public provide the location of the continuing process contemplated in this rule to Transportation Association’s (APTA) operation with as much specificity as work similarly: standards for emergency lighting, can be provided as to industries served 1. 49 CFR Part 232—Brake System emergency intercom communication, and territories, divisions, or Safety Standards for Freight and Other emergency signage for egress/access of subdivisions operated over. Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; passenger rail equipment, low-location Documentation supporting the locations End-of-Train Devices, (§§ 232.103, emergency exit path marking, any repair of prior operations will be favorably 232.305, and 232.603): Adopting AAR’s to a safety appliance bracket or support reviewed, although not required. This standard for single car air brake tests considered to be part of the car body or provision goes to proving that an and ECP braking systems, as well as other structural repair, and single car air operation is going to be continued, and AAR’s general requirements for all train brake tests. 64 FR 25660, May 12, 1999, that a railroad is not falsifying that an brake systems except where noted. 66 RIN 2130–AA95. operation is in existence when it is FR 4193, Jan. 17, 2001; 74 FR 25174, FRA seeks comments on the successes actually a completely new operation. May 27, 2009, RIN 2130–AB16. and challenges of these rules and the For example, documentation could

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13951

show that the railroad has run a have a fairly predictable schedule or one poor safety record compared with the particular one-person train for 3 days that minimizes fatigue, and would not industry average or compared with per week for 5 years without incident. contain any variables suggesting a similar operations with one or multiple That kind of information would show catastrophic accident is foreseeable. For crewmembers. Other evidence of a poor the operation actually existed and was example, FRA would expect to approve safety culture on the railroad might safe. A railroad that could not provide the continuation of a freight operation trigger the need for FRA to conduct an any documentation of a supposedly under Option 1, or not issue a investigation to support a existing operation would be viewed disapproval under Option 2, under the determination. If FRA is unsure about with skepticism. Maybe, FRA would following circumstances: (1) 70 Percent any of the other risk factors, FRA will need to interview employees and or more of the railroad’s carload traffic want to initiate its own investigation to supervisors to determine whether the is non-hazardous materials; (2) the assess the likelihood that the operation operation actually existed, and to railroad has adopted crew staffing rules can be implemented safely. Although develop the parameters of the operation. and practices to ensure compliance with FRA is not proposing a requirement that If the railroad has not previously all Federal rail safety laws, regulations, FRA investigate the safety concerns of conducted a safety analysis of the one- and orders; (3) the maximum authorized each one-person operation a railroad person train operation that it can use for track speed for the operation is 40 mph; wishes to continue, FRA expects to use its submission to FRA, it will be (4) the one-person train crewmembers its discretion and conduct some required to do one to comply with this have set daytime schedules with little investigations when FRA is unfamiliar proposed rule under either option. The fluctuation; (5) the one-person train with the operation or wants to ensure difference between the co-proposals is crewmembers average on-duty time is that the railroad has identified all of the that Option 1 requires the safety less than 9.5 hours per shift; (6) the hazards. In addition to reviewing analysis to be submitted to FRA with operation is structured so that the one- records, such an investigation would the description of the one-person train person crewmember would not have to likely involve FRA personnel operation while Option 2 requires that leave the locomotive cab except in case interviewing railroad employees, the railroad conduct the safety analysis of emergency; (7) the railroad has a rule supervisors, managers, and customers. and make it available to FRA upon or practice requiring the one-person FRA might want to ride along the route request. Railroads that do not maintain crew to contact the dispatcher whenever to observe the operation in progress, or separate records on the safety of their it can be anticipated that consider what members of the general one-person crew operations will have to communication could be lost, e.g., prior public along the right-of-way might be describe the one-person crew operation to entering a tunnel; (8) the railroad has impacted in the case of an accident/ and should be able to approximate the a rule or practice requiring the one- incident, especially at public highway- relevant data. For example, a railroad person crew to test the alerter on the rail grade crossings. Furthermore, FRA might describe that on the route under lead locomotive and confirm it is personnel might also have information consideration: Five one-person trains working before departure; (9) the through current or prior observations operate per week on average, each train railroad has a rule or practice requiring and audits that could shed light on the operates a distance of about 50 miles, dispatcher confirmation with the one- safety of a railroad’s operations, only one train per week carries any person crew that the train is stopped equipment maintenance procedures, or hazardous materials, and the one-person before issuing a mandatory directive; condition of the railroad’s track and operation has resulted in two reportable (10) the railroad has a rule or practice signal infrastructure. Evaluating a accidents in 10 years, providing the requiring a one-person crew have an railroad’s safety record and safety dates of the accidents. A railroad might operable cell phone and radio, and both culture follow from the TSB of Canada’s add that there are no other train ´ must be tested prior to departure; and report following the Lac-Megantic operations in the vicinity of these one- (11) the railroad has a method of accident described in the Background person operations when they are active, determining the train’s approximate section of this NPRM, and from and that includes on the same track or location when communication is lost international norms described in the adjacent track. FRA requests public Regulatory Impact Analysis that with the one-person crew unexpectedly comments on the extent to which accompanies this rulemaking and can be and a protocol for determining when railroads have sufficient records to found in the docket. search-and-rescue operations must be provide FRA reliable safety analysis or FRA does not expect to request or data of their one-person crew initiated. FRA is providing this example require existing one-person crew operations. for illustrative purposes, to spur operations to implement additional risk The requirement for a railroad to understanding of the agency’s position mitigating actions in order to obtain provide the eleven numbered items and encourage public feedback. FRA approval unless the process reveals listed under proposed paragraph (a) is Although FRA feels strongly that the unexpectedly that the operations intended to solicit significant example would meet FRA approval, achieved good safety records based on information that FRA will need to make there may be other facts or sheer luck and inadequate planning. If an objective decision on whether to circumstances about an operation an existing operation was actually allow the continuance of an operation beyond the description provided that severely lacking in existing mitigation established prior to January 1, 2015. would change how FRA viewed a measures and the railroad was Sometimes, FRA should be able to look particular operation. FRA encourages unwilling to address serious safety at the collected information and the submission of comments describing concerns, FRA would be justified to determine that the operation is in one-person operations so that FRA can deem the operation unsuitable for compliance on its face with all provide additional examples in a final continuance as provided for in applicable rail safety regulations and rule. paragraph (b) of both co-proposal does not appear to pose any FRA would be unlikely to approve the options. unacceptable risks. Generally, these continuation of an operation under In proposed paragraph (b) Option 1, operations would be low-speed Option 1, or would likely disapprove an FRA has taken the approach that an operations, on well-maintained track operation under Option 2, when a explicit approval process for each and where the one-crewmember train would railroad’s one-person operation has a every submission is necessary. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13952 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

proposed paragraph indicates that FRA modifications are necessary for concerns. In closing, FRA believes a expects to issue feedback within 90 days continuing the operation or an railroad that is in compliance with all of receipt of the submission. Under explanation for why FRA has decided rail safety laws, regulations, and orders, some circumstances, FRA may allow the the operation is patently unsafe and and has addressed foreseeable safety operation to continue but with cannot be continued even with hazards created when a train has less additional conditions attached. For modifications. than two crewmembers by making example, a Class III railroad may want Although FRA is uncertain about changes to the railroad’s operating rules, to continue an operation that permits a whether any existing operations would procedures, or practices, can expect to one-person train to travel 100 miles be inadequate, the background section receive FRA approval to continue its each day over flat territory where the of this proposal suggests concerns that one-person operation. railroad is maintaining the track to Class an operation should address, if it does Proposed paragraph (b) Option 2 3 standards. As the track class permits not already. FRA’s overall concerns are differs from Option 1 in that it does not speeds for freight trains up to 40 mph, (1) whether a railroad’s operations with require explicit FRA approval prior to the railroad would like the train to less than two crewmembers are in continuing one-person train operations operate at over 25 mph up to the compliance with all Federal rail safety that were conducted prior to January 1, maximum authorized speed for the track laws, regulations, and orders and (2) 2015. However, Option 2 proposes a even though the specific freight train whether the railroad implemented requirement that the railroad file a exception under proposed § 218.131(a) appropriate measures to reduce safety description of the operation with FRA prior to continuing the operation. FRA only permits a blanket exception up to hazards likely to be created by the understands that some one-person 25 mph. During the RSAC Working reduction in crewmembers. With regard operations may be seasonal, and others Group meetings, some railroad members to the first concern, FRA must enforce year-round. It is proposed that those suggested that the 25-mph limitation in compliance with rail safety railroads that will be operating at the the blanket exception in § 218.131(a) requirements. For example, has the time of the effective date of the rule will could be a disincentive for a railroad to railroad ensured that each person who be required to file its description either maintain its track to a higher standard serves as a one-person crew is certified no later than the effective date of the than Class 2. As proposed, § 218.133 as both a locomotive engineer and final rule or prior to the first day that would provide FRA an opportunity to conductor? 49 CFR 242.213(d). FRA the operation is continued after the consider all the circumstances, to would be surprised to find such blatant exercise some flexibility in permitting effective date of the final rule. Option 2 noncompliance in existing operations, differs from Option 1 in that one-person safe operations with less than two but it is certainly possible that FRA has assigned crewmembers, and assure operations that were operating prior to not detected the noncompliance through January 1, 2015, will be presumed to railroad employees and the general its regular inspection and investigation public that railroads are not placing have been operating with an adequate program. Currently a railroad does not level of safety, unless FRA determines them at unnecessary risk. This approach have a duty to report to FRA on the strikes a balance between rubber- otherwise. An FRA determination aspects of its one-person train crew disapproving the continuation of any stamping the status quo and prohibiting operations. With regard to the second any operation that does not meet one of operation would need to contain the concern involving a railroad’s plans to facts and rationale relied upon in the blanket exceptions to the two-person reduce foreseeable safety hazards likely making that determination. FRA crew requirement. to be created by the reduction in certainly realizes that any final agency Although proposed paragraph (b) crewmembers, FRA suggests that each decision is an action that is potentially Option 1 does not contain detailed railroad look to the regulatory safety reviewable in Federal court and would procedures for how FRA will conduct hazards FRA described in the need to contain sufficient information to reviews, a detailed procedural process background section of this proposal to survive legal scrutiny. seems unnecessary. In most instances, see if it addressed those same hazards. FRA is considering how to provide an FRA expects to review all of the details For example, a railroad should electronic way to file a description of an in the submission and issue written anticipate that trains will need operation that a railroad would like to notification that the railroad may assistance protecting certain highway- continue without a two-person crew. continue the operation ‘‘as is.’’ rail grade crossings because of the One option is for FRA to require the However, FRA recognizes that some inconvenience to highway users, submission of all the descriptions to one operations may pose safety risks for emergency responders, or the general docket created for the purpose, or to which a railroad has not accounted by public if those crossings are blocked. A create a docket for each description, at implementing mitigation measures. railroad that can show FRA that it has DOT’s Docket Operations and at Under those circumstances, FRA an established procedure to quickly http://www.regulations.gov. Another intends for the Associate Administrator unblock or protect crossings that would option is to add to the proposed rule an to initiate a discussion with the railroad normally be protected by a second option to electronically file by email or about the operation before making a crewmember would satisfy FRA’s by uploading a document to a secure determination. There may be details of concern. FRA also raised the concern in Web site. Under this second option, the operation that the railroad can the background section of this proposal FRA would need to create an internal expand upon from its submission that that a one-person crew would have electronic database to track all of the would alleviate FRA’s concerns. In greater opportunities to operate descriptions and FRA notifications, if other instances, a railroad might offer to impaired by alcohol, drugs, or electronic any. FRA may consider other options to modify its operations and submission device distraction. A railroad that electronically file or maintain databases request voluntarily after a thorough requires a one-person train crew to of these descriptions. A third option is discussion of FRA’s concerns. In still report to a supervisor at the beginning to publish information available via other instances, FRA and the railroad or end of a tour of duty, or that FRA’s public Web site. FRA has chosen may not be able to resolve their periodically stops trains during this third option as its proposal in differences and FRA will issue written efficiency testing to check for potential paragraph (b) of Option 2. In Option 2, notification explaining what distractions, would allay those FRA also has proposed a requirement

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13953

that specifies that a railroad has a duty railroad to initiate a train operation with FR 62166, Oct. 28, 2005, RIN 2130– to adhere to any conditions FRA less than two crewmembers as long as: AB68. imposes on the railroad’s one-person (1) The railroad provides FRA a 3. Railroad Safety Appliance operation. FRA would appreciate any complete description of the operation Standards, 49 CFR 231.33: Procedure comments suggesting preferences for and (2) the railroad officer in charge of for special approval of existing industry any particular methods of filing and the operations signs a statement attesting a safety appliance standards that ‘‘provide need to specify that a railroad must safety analysis of the operation has been at least an equivalent level of safety.’’ 76 adhere to any conditions imposed by completed and that the operation FR 23726, Apr. 28, 2011, RIN 2130– FRA. provides an appropriate level of safety. AB97. FRA is proposing a cut-off period of In Option 2 under paragraph (e), FRA 4. Brake System Safety Standards for January 1, 2015, to differentiate existing would not have a need to issue approval Freight and Other Non-passenger Trains operations from new operations because decisions as approval would be and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices, it wants to freeze the timeframe based presumed after the descriptive 49 CFR 232.17: Special approval on when the RSAC meetings were held. information and attestation is submitted procedure (found in 49 CFR part 232, FRA seeks comments on whether a to FRA. FRA would be able to subpart A), provides for requests for different date should be used and why. investigate such operations to evaluate special approval of a variety of whether they are providing appropriate requirements including a plan for the Section 218.135 Special Approval movement of defective equipment and Procedure safety. FRA may halt or attach conditions to the continuance of such any alternative standard or test This is the second of two proposed operations if it determines that an procedure for conducting single car air sections in which FRA is co-proposing operation is not providing an brake tests. The alternative must be two options. This proposed section appropriate level of safety. FRA will ‘‘consistent with the guidance . . . and would offer each railroad a procedure to consider the benefits and costs of will provide at least an equivalent level obtain FRA-approval for a start-up conditions, as well as safety impacts, of safety or otherwise meet the method of train operation that does not and provide the basis for halting or requirements contained in this part.’’ 66 meet the requirements of the general adding conditions to operations to the FR 4193, Jan. 17, 2001, RIN 2130–AB16. two-person crew requirements, any of railroad and the public. This 5. Passenger Equipment Safety the blanket exceptions, or the information can be used by other Standards, 49 CFR 238.21: Special continuance of operations prior to railroads considering initiating train approval procedure (found in subpart January 1, 2015, exception. The special operations with less than two A—General), provides for requests for approval procedure has been used in crewmembers. An FRA determination special approval of a variety of other FRA regulations with success (see, disapproving a petition for special requirements including fire safety, e.g., 49 CFR 232.17), and is, therefore, approval would need to contain the locomotive fuel tanks, safety appliances, a proven method for receiving FRA- facts and rationale relied upon in and periodic brake equipment approval in much less time than the making that determination. FRA maintenance. The alternative must waiver process provided for in 49 CFR certainly realizes that any final agency ‘‘provide at least an equivalent level of part 211 and § 218.7. For a waiver, FRA decision is an action that is potentially safety.’’ 64 FR 25660, May 12, 1999, RIN may need up to 9 months to issue a reviewable in Federal court and would 2130–AA95. decision. 49 CFR 211.41(a). In contrast, need to contain sufficient information to In Option 1, the proposed special proposed paragraph (f) in Option 1 survive legal scrutiny. approval procedure contains three states that FRA intends to normally Even with the shorter turnaround safeguards to ensure that interested issue a decision under this section’s time compared to the waiver process, parties are involved in the review special approval procedure within 90 FRA envisions the special approval process. First, proposed paragraph (b)(4) days. If a railroad submits a petition for process contemplated in Option 1 will requires a statement affirming that the special approval of an operation with work similarly to other special approval railroad has served a copy of the less than two crewmembers based on a processes used in existing regulations, petition on the president of each labor sensible business plan that adequately although the standard in both co- organization that represents the addresses the safety hazards, FRA proposal options of this rule are an railroad’s employees subject to this part, anticipates the agency’s analysis would appropriate level of safety and FRA’s if any, together with a list of the names be routine in nature and a decision can rules generally require an equivalent and addresses of the persons served. quickly be issued. However, if a level of safety for a special approval to Second, proposed paragraph (d) requires passenger railroad intends to reduce be granted. The following are examples FRA to publish a notice in the Federal crew staffing, it must have an approved of existing special approval processes: Register concerning each petition. passenger train emergency preparedness 1. Rules of Practice, 49 CFR 211.55: Third, proposed paragraph (e) provides plan or file a waiver request with FRA FRA has an overarching special a 30-day comment period for any person regarding part 239, passenger train approval procedure for any requests who wishes to file a comment on the emergency preparedness, in this pertaining to safety not otherwise petition. chapter; however, rather than wait until provided for in any FRA rule. These Under paragraph (b) of both co- FRA approves the part 239 plan or requests will be considered by FRA’s proposal options, the petition for special waiver request, a passenger railroad is Railroad Safety Board. 41 FR 54181, approval of a train operation with less encouraged in proposed paragraph (a) to Dec. 13, 1976, No RIN found. than two crewmembers must contain file a request for special approval of an 2. Reflectorization of Rail Freight certain basic information regarding the operation with less than two Rolling Stock, 49 CFR 224.15: This petitioner’s contact information. Both crewmembers at the same time that it special approval procedure provides a co-proposal options contain the files the part 239 waiver request. FRA mechanism for FRA review of requests requirements for what the substantive can certainly consider both requests at to apply, inspect, or maintain portion of the petition must contain. All the same time. retroreflective sheeting ‘‘in accordance of the information requested in Under paragraphs (b) and (e) in with an alternative standard providing proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of Option 2, FRA proposes to allow a at least an equivalent level of safety.’’ 70 Option 1 are intended to give FRA a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13954 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

detailed understanding of the operation not to include this term in the Option specific evidence—of how the operation and why the railroad believes the 2 proposal because FRA believes it falls short of the appropriate level of operation is safe. would place too high of an evidentiary safety standard. In the decision The proposed requirements for a burden on FRA and would create statement, FRA will identify the specific railroad’s submission under Option 2 significant uncertainty as to what FRA hazard(s) that are presented by the differs from Option 1 in that a safety must establish in order to attach introduction of the operation that would analysis must be completed, but does conditions to or halt an operation. not exist if the operation used a second not have to be submitted with the While FRA provides a presumption that crewmember meeting the proposed description of the one-person operation. the specifically identified one-person ‘‘roles and responsibilities’’ definition, Under Option 2, FRA proposes to more operations contained in §§ 218.127 or the specific hazard(s) that already greatly rely on each railroad’s judgment through 218.131 of the proposal provide existed for that operation which would and incentives to provide safe an appropriate level of safety, FRA does be exacerbated if the operation did not operations. A safety officer would be not believe such a presumption is use a second crewmember meeting the required to provide a statement that the appropriate under either Option 1 or 2 proposed ‘‘roles and responsibilities’’ railroad had conducted a safety analysis of the proposal as operations utilizing definition. Sometimes the specific of the start-up operation which would either option have never existed and hazard(s) will be self-evident and it will address potential safety hazards and have never been operated with less than be unnecessary for FRA to provide in regulatory compliance concerns at least two crewmembers. With that the decision statement empirical, associated with the one-person said, FRA agrees that under either statistical, or other types of similar operation and that the officer believes Option 1 or 2, FRA would need to evidence to justify the safety problem. the operation would have an provide statistical, empirical, or other One such example is stopping and appropriate level of safety. Because of similar types of specific evidence to flagging highway-rail grade crossings the proposed attestation, FRA is justify a determination that a particular where there has been an activation proposing to allow start-up one-person operation does not provide an failure and no second crewmember is operations prior to FRA’s review and appropriate level of safety. Such available to dismount from the approval as proposed in Option 1. evidence must be able to withstand locomotive and flag the crossing for the However, FRA may request that safety judicial review under an ‘‘arbitrary and protection of highway users. FRA would analysis and a railroad will be obligated capricious’’ standard established by the want to see that the railroad had a plan to provide it. Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. for addressing that situation, especially Option 2 is proposed to permit 706. Nevertheless, Option 2 may elevate if the train will traverse crossings in railroads to begin operations with less FRA’s evidentiary burden. Interested populated areas where the train could than two crewmembers without FRA parties should provide their views on potentially block highway user traffic approval and places the burden on FRA what FRA’s evidentiary burden should for extended periods of time. An when reviewing railroads’ applications be under the two proposed options and existing FRA regulation found at 49 CFR to justify that the operation does not whether the suggested language is part 234 contains the restrictions and provide an appropriate level of safety. adequate or whether FRA should requirement for a railroad to handle Under Option 2, in response to a instead include the language that FRA signal activation failures and the railroad’s application to use less than ‘‘demonstrate’’ that an operation would circumstances when a flagger must be two crewmembers on an operation, not provide an appropriate level of present. That FRA grade crossing safety which would include a certification safety, or whether there is alternative regulation also requires a timely from the railroad that it has conducted language which should be included response by the railroad to such a safety analysis and has determined instead. malfunctions. 49 CFR 234.103. Thus, that the operation provides an Under both options 1 and 2, if FRA FRA would expect that a railroad’s plan appropriate level of safety, FRA would determines that an existing or start-up would identify operating rules and need to identify specific safety hazards operation with less than two procedures that it has in place and created by or exacerbated by use of less crewmembers requires additional would describe its staging or location of than two crewmembers—supported by conditions for it to attain an appropriate personnel to ensure that proper specific empirical, statistical, or other level of safety, or that an operation personnel are present in a timely similar types of evidence—in order to cannot attain an appropriate level of overcome the railroad’s certification. safety regardless of additional fashion to flag the crossing before Option 2 may place a slightly higher conditions and therefore cannot operate permitting a train to traverse the burden on FRA than Option 1 or must be halted, FRA will provide the crossing. Currently, if an existing one- depending on the involved safety specific empirical, statistical, or other person operation is involved in an hazard and because FRA may need to similar evidence justifying FRA’s activation failure circumstance the train review and observe the actual operation determination in a decision statement. could not proceed across the crossing and will need to consider information The statement will also document the until someone appropriately trained in gathered on the already existing benefits and costs of conditions and flagging arrives to flag the crossing (in operation. alternatives that FRA considered, as current two-person operations the In addition, because under Option 2 well as the safety risk factors associated second crewmember is trained and FRA would be overriding a railroad’s with the operation. would flag the crossing). safety certification if FRA were to attach Under both options, the proposed rule Other hazards may not be self- conditions to or halt an operation, FRA requires that FRA provide ‘‘the specific evident. In such cases, FRA’s decision considered including language in the reason(s) and rationale for the statement would include the specific Option 2 proposal which would require decision.’’ The proposal thus requires empirical, statistical, or other type of FRA to ‘‘demonstrate’’ instead of make that any FRA decision to attach similar evidence justifying FRA’s a ‘‘determination’’ that the operation conditions to or halt or prevent an determination. For example, if FRA does not provide an appropriate level of operation must include a detailed were to decide to halt or attach safety to capture a higher evidentiary description—supported by empirical, conditions to an operation due to a burden on FRA. However, FRA chose statistical or other similar types of concern about the train’s speed (and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13955

train’s speed does not exceed maximum also be documented in the decision decision statement effectively justifies limits established for the class of track), statement. FRA’s determinations and provides FRA’s decision statement would include Whether an existing hazard or newly railroads meaningful guidance on how the empirical or other similar evidence created potential hazard, FRA’s decision train operations using less than two to justify why the less than two person statement will identify whether the crewmembers can provide an train traveling at its desired speed operation would likely be approved if appropriate level of safety. would not provide an appropriate level specific conditions are met. FRA may Under Option 1, FRA wants to collect of safety. Moreover, and as described need to add a disclaimer to a decision sufficient information to be assured that further below, if FRA were to condition that additional conditions may be added the railroad has considered how a one- approval based on the operation if not met within a certain timeframe, in person crew could potentially perform lowering speed (or any other condition), the rare situation that additional tasks typically performed by a second the decision statement would address hazards are identified between the time crewmember, either with or without the costs and benefits of the lower speed of the original special approval technological safeguards. Certainly, FRA condition, as well as alternatives application and a revised application. is concerned with preventing or considered by FRA. Similarly, if FRA At this time, FRA does not foresee that significantly mitigating the were to decide to halt or attach any particular existing or start-up consequences of accidents, and each conditions to an operation due to a operation could not meet the railroad petitioner should focus on concern about the crew’s work appropriate level of safety standard with addressing accident prevention issues in schedule, FRA’s description would some conditions added, although some a petition. When a railroad files a identify the specific statistical, railroads may choose not to accept petition for special approval, attention empirical, or other similar types of FRA’s conditions and could certainly should be given to not just what the evidence to justify why the operation’s suggest to FRA a counter-proposal. In technology can do, but that the railroad schedule would not provide an each case, FRA’s decision statement will has considered the additional burden appropriate level of safety. If FRA were include the justification for halting or placed on the one-person crew. to condition approval based on the adding conditions to operations, explain Railroads are also advised to consider operation using a different work how particular safety and operational task overload, situational awareness schedule (or any other condition), the factors are weighed in making the concerns, as well as fatigue factors. A decision statement would address the decision, and provide evidence that is railroad that can show it has taken a costs and benefits of the condition, as relied upon. sensible business approach to analyzing well as alternatives considered by FRA. FRA’s decision statement will also the operation and reducing the risks and These examples are not exhaustive. In document the benefits and costs that hazards associated with reducing train FRA considered in making its all cases where safety hazards are not crews to less than two crewmembers determination. The level of detail and self-evident, FRA would provide in the will likely satisfy FRA’s concerns and analysis of benefits and costs will decision statement the empirical, can expect to have a special approval depend upon the magnitude of cost of statistical, or other type of evidence petition approved. FRA will certainly any condition(s) that FRA attaches to a justifying its determinations, and the look more favorably on petitions that particular operation. For example, if benefits and costs of the condition(s) take a holistic approach to the safety of FRA requires an operation with imposed on a railroad and alternatives the operation when deciding whether to significant resources to use a particular approve a petition for special approval. considered. technology that has a one-time cost of In the preamble discussion of how In addition, if FRA were to decide to $500 and minimal maintenance costs, this proposed rule differs from FRA’s require an operation to use a particular the decision statement would include suggested recommendations to the technology or adopt a practice (or any an estimate of that cost, at least a RSAC, FRA explained that it considered combination of technology or practice) qualitative discussion of the whether to adopt an explicit exception as a condition for operating with less technology’s benefits supported by from the two-person crew staffing than two crewmembers, the decision evidence, and an explanation for why requirement whenever a railroad had statement would identify the specific FRA believes those benefits justify the implemented a PTC system with certain hazard that the technology or practice is cost of the technology. On the other capabilities, or some other combination intended to address and cite the hand, if FRA requires an operation to of technologies and other operating evidence that justifies the technology or adopt a practice that would impose a safeguards. FRA indicated during the practice as an effective means for significant cost, the statement would RSAC discussions that it was willing to addressing the risks of the hazard. If provide a detailed analysis of the consider safeguards such as: FRA were to decide to halt or prevent benefits and costs of the technology or Electronically controlled pneumatic an operation because FRA believes it practice, and an explanation for why brakes; appropriate installation of cannot provide an appropriate level of FRA believes the condition(s) result in wayside detectors, especially hot box, safety even with additional conditions, net societal benefits. FRA will allow overheated wheel, dragging equipment, the decision statement would describe railroads an opportunity to respond to and wheel impact load detectors; the specific hazard(s) that present the the benefit and cost information that enhanced scheduled track inspections risk, the specific interventions that FRA FRA considers in making its with track inspection vehicles capable considered to address the hazard(s) determinations. If FRA does not use or of detecting track geometry and rail (including the benefits and costs of the agree with the information provided by flaws; implementation of a fatigue interventions), and an explanation for railroads, FRA will explain why in its management system with set work why FRA decided that no intervention decision statement. Economic schedules; and procedures for providing could effectively address the hazard(s) information would ideally be used by a one-person train operation with and provide for an appropriate level of the railroad to provide more cost- additional persons when necessary for safety. FRA will engage the railroad in effective alternatives to address FRA’s en route switching, crossing protection, making any such determination and safety concerns. FRA seeks public or any required train-related inspection. consider alternatives and analysis comments on better ways to ensure that FRA estimates the cost to railroads from provided by the railroad, which will the information presented in the adding these safeguards as a condition

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13956 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

of FRA approval of starting up a one- locomotive engineer when complying FRA’s special approval for a one-person person crew operation would be with ‘‘restricted speed,’’ which requires train crew operation when the railroad $580,000, and benefits are unquantified. a locomotive engineer to stop the train has established that it: (1) Is in Of course, the problem with any list like within one half the engineer’s range of compliance with all rail safety laws, this one is that it would likely not be vision to avoid on-track equipment and regulations, and orders related to the inclusive of all the various types of misaligned switches; or (9) assist the proposed one-person operation; (2) has mitigation measures a railroad could train if the PTC system fails en route or set forth plans to address foreseeable implement that have the potential to enters non-PTC territory. Furthermore, safety hazards created when a train has compensate for the loss of a second the research described previously less than two crewmembers by making crewmember. Additionally, without suggests that because the PTC changes to the railroad’s operating rules, FRA evaluations, it would be difficult to technology may require locomotive procedures, or practices as necessary; assess whether a railroad has engineers to focus more of their and (3) has an established strong safety established effective training and a attention on in-cab displays, it will culture and favorable compliance/ strong safety culture, which are reduce their ability to monitor activity accident history. essential for improving safety reliability outside the cab and raises a question Moreover, the proposed special when technology cannot ensure a high about whether the engineers will lose approval procedure is sufficiently degree of safety. any situational awareness in relation to flexible that it would allow a railroad to tailor its petition to address the specific FRA is reluctant to rely solely on the the coherent mental picture (i.e., the operation for which it seeks approval. presence of PTC to ensure new one- situation model) of where the engineer The NPRM does not suggest that PTC is person crews are safe in all types of perceives the train to be based on prior a pre-condition for seeking special operations and environments because experience. However, FRA believes that approval of a train operation with less there are a number of situations where PTC offers a considerable increase in the than two crewmembers, and FRA is PTC technology will demand more tasks level of safety of railroad operations and wary of creating a list where certain from the train crew, not substitute for there may be some types of operations items may not be applicable to assuring the tasks that would be carried out by for which the use of PTC provides an that a particular operation reached an a second crewmember, or fail to make adequate level of safety with a single appropriate level of safety. Each railroad full use of crew resource management person crew. FRA’s approval of a one- person operation with PTC would most should have the ability to make its case principles. In the background section, that it has considered the unique research is described that explains how likely hinge on whether the railroad addressed foreseeable safety hazards circumstances of its operation and has PTC cannot account for all the physical tailored safeguards accordingly. The and cognitive functions that a conductor created when a train has less than two crewmembers or when PTC fails to work above listing of technologies and currently provides. Based on the safeguards merely provides examples of research already described and FRA’s properly. FRA suggests that each railroad look to the regulatory safety items a railroad might consider understanding of PTC systems, PTC implementing or utilizing based on the does not: (1) Check the engineer’s hazards FRA described in the background section of this proposal to complexity and nature of the operation alertness, which includes ensuring that for which an exception is sought. A the engineer is not fatigued, under the see if it addressed those same hazards. For example, a railroad should railroad’s safety analysis of its own influence of any controlled substance or operation will help identify operational anticipate that trains will need alcohol, or distracted by using a weaknesses and allow the railroad to assistance protecting certain highway- prohibited electronic device; (2) fill in choose the remedies that will allow it to rail grade crossings because of the the knowledge or experience gaps of the assure FRA that an appropriate level of inconvenience to highway users, sole crewmember about the physical safety can be maintained with less than emergency responders, or the general characteristics of the territory the train two train crewmembers. is operating over, how to address a public if those crossings are blocked. A Last year, BNSF and the United particularly difficult operating problem, railroad that can show FRA that it has Transportation Union (UTU) developed or help in diagnosing and responding to an established procedure to quickly the concept for a one-person operation, train problems and other exceptional unblock or protect crossings that would but the operation was voted down by situations; (3) review, comprehend, and normally be protected by a second UTU’s members. The concept contained accept consist and authority data while crewmember would satisfy FRA’s several positive attributes such as (1) the train is in motion; (4) assist in the concern. FRA also raised the concern in limiting the operations to defined physically demanding task of securing a the background section of this proposal territories, (2) providing one-person train with hand brakes, typically at the that a one-person crew would have crewmembers with regular and end of a tour of duty when the crew is greater opportunities to operate predictable work schedules, and (3) looking forward to going off-duty; (5) impaired by alcohol, drugs, or electronic designing the schedules so that one- assist in protecting highway-rail grade device distraction. A railroad that person crews would not have to spend crossings or breaking up the train at requires a one-person train crew to any time away from a home terminal, such crossings to avoid blocking them report to a supervisor at the beginning thus allowing the person to sleep at from highway users for extended or end of a tour of duty, or that home when off duty. Although FRA was periods; (6) update train consist periodically stops trains during consulted on this potential operation, information arising from the set out and efficiency testing to check for potential FRA did not have an enforcement pickup of cars; (7) protect the point, i.e., distractions, would allay those mechanism to require the parties to the leading end of the train movement, concerns. It will certainly help a discuss it with FRA prior to during shoving or pushing movements railroad if it can present evidence of a implementation. FRA had some where the locomotive engineer is not strong safety culture and a compliance/ concerns with the logistics of the operating from the leading end of the accident history that compares well to operation and whether all aspects of the leading locomotive in a position to other railroads in its class. operation would be in compliance with visually determine conditions in the In closing, under Option 1, FRA all Federal rail safety laws, regulations, direction of movement; (8) assist a believes a railroad can expect to receive and orders. Potentially, one or more

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13957

obstacles could be overcome by increasing the speed of the one-person process be? Should such a requirement issuance of waivers or changes to the operation have been addressed in its apply only to certain types of concept. The parties had not completely safety analysis. operations? If so, which ones? Should thought through some aspects of this FRA is considering whether it would public notice be provided by a Federal potential operation and how potentially be helpful to specify an electronic way Register notice, a posting on FRA’s foreseeable emergency events would be to file special approval petitions and public Web site, or in some other way? addressed with only one crewmember. comments with FRA. One option is for What impacts would such a requirement FRA viewed these obstacles as FRA to require the submission of all the have on railroad operations? If FRA uses temporary roadblocks that the parties petitions to one docket created for the the Federal Register to provide public could overcome with planning and purpose, or to create a docket for each notice, it could take FRA up to 60 days implementation of new processes. petition, at DOT’s Docket Operations from receiving the description from FRA’s approach to the BNSF/UTU and at http://www.regulations.gov. railroads as proposed in § 218.133(a) concept exemplifies how FRA views its Another option is to add to the and § 218.135(b) of option 2 to post the role in this proposed rule. That is, FRA proposed rule an option to notice. If FRA uses its Web site to will ensure that each railroad has electronically file by email or by provide public notice, FRA expects that adequately addressed the safety uploading a document to a secure Web it would ordinarily provide public concerns associated with using less than site. Under this second option, FRA notices within two weeks of receiving two crewmembers on a train before would need to create an internal the description from railroads as issuing special approval for such an electronic database to track all of the proposed in § 218.133(a) and operation. As BNSF and UTU showed petitions, comments, and FRA § 218.135(b) of option 2. Should there be some flexibility on considering certain notifications. A third option is to a requirement that FRA publicly post aspects of the proposed operation, FRA publish information available via FRA’s the railroad’s submission within a does not believe that its concerns would public Web site. FRA has chosen this certain amount of time of receiving it? have prevented the project from going third option as its proposal in paragraph If so, what is the appropriate amount of forward had the UTU’s members (d) of Option 2. In paragraph (f) of time? approved the operation. Option 2, FRA has also proposed a Although an absolute assurance of requirement that specifies that a railroad Appendix A to Part 218—Schedule of FRA approval would certainly have has a duty to adhere to any conditions Civil Penalties benefits, the proposed requirements for FRA imposes on the railroad’s one- If this proposed rule becomes a final petitioning FRA are not overly person operation. FRA may consider rule, FRA intends to amend appendix A, burdensome. FRA plans to approve other options to electronically file or the schedule of civil penalties, operations with less than two maintain databases of petitions for accordingly. This rule proposes to add crewmembers where a railroad provides special approval. FRA would appreciate a subpart to existing part 218. The a thorough description of that operation, any comments suggesting preferences existing part explains when FRA may has sensibly assessed the risks for any particular methods of filing and assess a civil penalty. 49 CFR 218.9. associated with implementing it, and the need to specify that a railroad must FRA has also published the agency’s has taken appropriate measures to adhere to any conditions imposed by policy concerning the enforcement of mitigate or address any risks or safety FRA. However, in all instances under the Federal railroad safety laws. 49 CFR hazards that might arise from it. A both co-proposal options, FRA will part 209, app. A. prudent railroad would consider such a contact the petitioner and other safety analysis prior to implementation, interested parties whenever it denies a VII. Regulatory Impact and Notices with or without this proposed rule. This petition or reopens consideration of the A. Executive Order 12866, Executive rulemaking merely provides FRA with petition. In addition, under co-proposal Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory the opportunity to confirm that each Option 1, FRA will also contact the Policies and Procedures railroad is following a sensible business petitioner and other interested parties model. FRA seeks comments on its whenever it grants a petition. This proposed rule has been special approval procedure options and FRA is considering whether option 2 evaluated in accordance with existing would appreciate suggestions for should prohibit railroads from starting policies and procedures, and improving this proposed process or operations that use fewer than two determined to be significant under suggesting alternatives. crewmembers until a public notice and Executive Order 12866, Executive Order Once approved, a petition would comment process has occurred. For 13563, and DOT policies and likely be valid indefinitely. FRA does instance, for new operations, option 2 procedures. 44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979. not plan to require a railroad to come in could include a 30 day delay between FRA has prepared and placed in the at regular intervals for extensions of the public notice of an operation with fewer docket a Regulatory Impact Analysis approval, as FRA does in the waiver than two crewmembers and the addressing the economic impacts of this context. A railroad that wishes to initiation of that operation. Such a proposed rule. The RIA presents deviate from an FRA-approved petition, requirement would ensure the public estimates of a cost range likely to occur however, will need to come back to FRA has had an opportunity to raise safety over the first ten years of the proposed and request approval for any concerns before a new operation starts. rule as well as estimates of the benefits modification to the operation that is not However, it could also delay the start of that would be will be necessary for the covered by the prior approval. For more efficient train operations that do proposed rule to breakeven over the example, if FRA has approved a one- provide appropriate safety. FRA same timeframe. Non-quantifiable person operation at 25 mph and the requests public comment on whether benefits are also presented. Informed by railroad has invested resources to including such a prohibition in option its analysis of the economic effects of improve the track, the railroad would 2 is justified. Specifically, what are the this proposed rule, FRA believes that need special approval to increase the advantages and disadvantages of this proposed rule will result in positive speed of that operation. The railroad including such a requirement? If a delay net benefits. FRA believes that the would need to consider in its new is imposed to allow for public comment, proposed rule will help ensure that train petition how the dangers of possibly how long should the public comment crew staffing does not result in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13958 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

inappropriate levels of safety risks to mitigation benefits in each year of the of any necessary mitigation to help railroad employees, the general public, analysis based on forecasts from the ensure risk is appropriately mitigated and the environment, while allowing Congressional Budget Office of a 1.18 will yield safety benefits that will technology innovations to advance percent annual growth rate in median exceed the costs. industry efficiency and effectiveness real wages over the next 10 years. FRA FRA conducted sensitivity analysis of without compromising safety. The also adjusted wage based labor costs in its first co-proposal using a 20-year time proposal contains minimum each year of the analysis accordingly. requirements for roles and Real wages represent the purchasing horizon. FRA estimates that the cost responsibilities of the second train power of nominal wages. Non-wage range of its co-proposal would be $7.44 crewmember on certain operations and inputs are not impacted. Labor costs and million to $36.25 million over this promotes safe and effective teamwork. avoided injuries and fatalities, both of timeframe using a 7-percent discount FRA does not expect the requirements which in turn depend on wage rates, are rate, and $11.94 million to $50.71 for roles and responsibilities will have key components of the costs and million using a 3-percent discount rate. any impact on existing operations benefits of this proposed rule. FRA is Alternatives because all operations that use two- confident that the benefits outlined in person crews are compliant, however this document would exceed the costs. FRA invites public comments on FRA requests comments on this This rule is expected to at least break alternatives to the co-proposals and expectation. even. Preventing a single fatal injury information collection proposals. One Compliance costs associated with this would exceed the break-even point in alternative is for FRA to not require proposed rule include the addition of the low range and 5 fatalities at the high railroads using or aspiring to use less the labor hour equivalent of about one range. Eighteen moderate injuries or than two person crews to attest but to two additional crewmembers four severe injuries or two critical establish a data-collection process in nationwide to certain train movements injuries would also result in at least which FRA would collect the data for existing (an estimated cost of break even at the low range. Seventeen roughly $120,000 to $200,000 annually severe or eight critical would be the necessary to identify problematic one- over 10 years), off-setting actions break-even minimum at the high range. person operations, conduct further implemented by railroads because of The proposed rule will help ensure that review of an operation if warranted by this rule in order to use fewer than two- train crew staffing does not result in the data, and use existing emergency person crew operations, and inappropriate levels of safety risks to authority to take action against an information submission and data railroad employees, the general public, unsafe one-person crew operation. The analysis. FRA estimated a 10-year cost and the environment, while allowing advantages of this alternative is that it range which would be between $7.65 technology innovations to advance would provide FRA comprehensive million and $40.86 million, industry efficiency and effectiveness information about one-person crew undiscounted. Discounted values of this without compromising safety. The operations and allow railroads the range are $5.19 million and $27.72 proposal contains minimum flexibility to continue or start up less million at the 7-percent level. requirements for roles and than two-person crews without FRA expects benefits to result from responsibilities of the second train incurring the cost of FRA approval. improved post-accident/incident crewmember on certain operations and emergency response and management Another alternative is to adopt the promotes safe and effective teamwork. above alternative and also require FRA due to the actions of crewmembers This rule would break even through approval only for one-person operations nationwide, sustained safety resulting prevention of a fatal injury or high- carrying certain amounts of hazardous from the additional crew reporting consequence accident, any one of which troubled employees due to drug and alone occurring over a 10-year period materials. Transport Canada adopted a alcohol use, and compliance with would justify the costs. Other accident similar approach except that it banned restrictions on electronic device use in damages may also be contained. There use of less than two-person crews on all place to prevent distraction, and are several post-accident situations in trains carrying dangerous goods. The potential avoidance of a high- which the actions of a second advantage of this alternative is that it consequence train accident. FRA crewmember resulted in more timely would provide FRA comprehensive estimates the benefit associated with and appropriate emergency response, information about one-person crew sustained drug and alcohol safety levels which in turn likely contained the operations and require FRA approval of and the level of improved emergency damages resulting from the accident. the most high risk trains: Those carrying response necessary to break even. In FRA also conducted a sensitivity hazardous materials. addition there may be business benefits analysis using VSL of $5.2 million and A third alternative is to adopt the first from allowing the use of innovative $13 million. Applying a VSL of $5.2 alternative and also require a special practices and technology to reduce crew million, avoidance of 2 fatalities, 4 approval process for all aspiring less size when safety is not compromised. severe injuries, or 7 serious injuries than two person crew operations As railroads methodically go through would justify the 10-year operating in high-threat urban areas and the rigor of analyzing the risk posed by implementation costs. In contrast, carrying certain amounts of hazardous crew size reductions they may also applying a VSL of $13 million, identify a larger pool of train operations avoidance of 1 critical injury, 1 fatality, materials. The advantages of this for crew size reduction. 2 severe injuries, or 4 serious injuries alternative is that it would provide FRA In analyzing the proposed rule, FRA would justify the 10-year comprehensive information about one- has applied ‘‘Guidance on the Economic implementation costs. person crew operations, allow FRA to Value of a Statistical Life in US Given the risk associated with single intervene against problematic crews, Department of Transportation train crews operating trains carrying and allow one-person crew operations Analyses,’’ July 2014. This policy high risk commodities, FRA believes it to continue or start up without FRA updates the Value of a Statistical Life is reasonable to expect that approval as long as they do not operate (VSL) to $9.2 million and provides consideration of crew staffing level in places where large numbers of people guidance used to compute casualty impacts on safety and implementation congregate.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13959

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and field of operation. Additionally, section with single-person crews that do not Executive Order 13272 601(5) defines ‘‘small entities’’ as qualify for an exception and will incur To ensure that the impact of this governments of cities, counties, towns, regulatory costs associated with an rulemaking on small entities is properly townships, villages, school districts, or estimated average of an additional 241 considered, FRA developed this special districts with populations less labor-hours per year to add a second proposed rule in accordance with than 50,000. crewmember. The actual level of Executive Order 13272 (‘‘Proper Federal agencies may adopt their own increase would vary proportionally with Consideration of Small Entities in size standards for small entities in the level of riskier products carried and consultation with SBA and in Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s may represent a different portion of total conjunction with public comment. policies and procedures to promote operations depending on the level of Pursuant to that authority, FRA has compliance with the Regulatory overall operations. Information from published a final policy that formally Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). FRA’s internal survey indicates that the The Regulatory Flexibility Act establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as railroads 14 Class III railroads with single-crew which meet the line haulage revenue operations have annual operations requires an agency to review regulations 5 to assess their impact on small entities. requirements of a Class III railroad. The totaling an average of 73,491 labor- An agency must conduct a regulatory revenue requirements are currently $20 hours. Based on the 241 labor-hours per flexibility analysis unless it determines million or less in annual operating year average cost this means that revenue. The $20 million-limit (which and certifies that a rule is not expected impacted railroads would have to is adjusted by applying the railroad to have a significant economic impact increase train crew costs by 0.33 percent revenue deflator adjustment) 6 is based on a substantial number of small (0.33 percent increase in labor hours) on on the Surface Transportation Board’s entities. average. Based on information available As discussed in the preamble above, (STB) threshold for a Class III railroad regarding eligibility for exception, and FRA is proposing to establish a carrier. FRA is using the STB’s crew size coupled with information in regulation with minimum requirements threshold in its definition of ‘‘small the 2011 waybill sample regarding for the size of train crew staffs entities’’ for this rule. railroads with one-person operations There are about 671 Class III railroads depending on the type of operation. A carrying crude oil or ethanol, FRA on the general system of rail minimum requirement of two believes that three to five Class III transportation that this proposed rule railroads would thus be impacted by the crewmembers is proposed for those would apply to resulting in costs operations that pose significant safety proposed rulemaking. These results associated with adding a second indicate that the proposed rulemaking risks to railroad employees, the general crewmember to train operations under public, and the environment. This will not result in a significant economic proposed § 218.125 if they do not impact on a substantial number of small proposed rule would also establish qualify for an exception under proposed entities. minimum requirements for the roles and §§ 218.127 or 218.131. Based on responsibilities of the second train information available from the internal In addition, FRA notes that several of crewmember on a moving train, and regional survey regarding railroad the 14 Class III railroads with single- promote safe and effective teamwork. eligibility for exception, and crew size person operations are subsidiaries of FRA is certifying that this proposed rule for Class III railroads, coupled with much larger Class I railroads or well- will result in ‘‘no significant economic information in the 2011 waybill sample established holding companies that impact on a substantial number of small regarding railroads with one-person have revenues in excess of the adjusted entities.’’ The following section explains operations carrying high hazard $20 million threshold for this analysis. the reasons for this certification. commodities, FRA estimates that at least Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Description of Regulated Entities and 88.9 percent of the affected Class III Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FRA Impacts railroads would be able to qualify for Administrator certifies that this The ‘‘universe’’ of the entities under one of the proposed exceptions. Class III proposed rule would not have a consideration includes only those small railroads moving the high-risk significant economic impact on a entities that can reasonably be expected commodities in quantities described in substantial number of small entities. to be directly affected by the provisions proposed § 218.125(c)(1)–(2) would not FRA requests comment on both this of this rule. In this case, the ‘‘universe’’ qualify for the exception and would be analysis and this certification, and its will be Class III freight railroads that required to add a second crewmember estimates of the impacts on small carry out train operations with one- and be impacted by the proposed railroads. regulation. person crews. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The U.S. Small Business Seventy-five Class III railroads (11.1 Administration (SBA) stipulates in its percent) would not qualify for an The information collection ‘‘Size Standards’’ that the largest a exception based on operating speed and requirements in this proposed rule are railroad business firm that is ‘‘for- key train operations. Fourteen Class III being submitted for approval to the profit’’ may be, and still be classified as railroads operate with single-person Office of Management and Budget a ‘‘small entity,’’ is 1,500 employees for crews and could be impacted to the (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction ‘‘Line Haul Operating Railroads’’ and extent they carry high risk commodities. Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 500 employees for ‘‘Switching and FRA estimates that Class III railroads sections that contain the current and Terminal Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small new information collection 5 See 68 FR 24891, May 9, 2003; 49 CFR part 209, requirements are detailed below, and entity’’ as defined by the SBA is a small app. C. business that is independently owned 6 For further information on the calculation of the the estimated time to fulfill each and operated, and is not dominant in its specific dollar limit, please see 49 CFR part 1201. requirement is as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13960 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Average time per Total annual CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses response burden hours

217.7—Copy—FRA—Operating rules, time- 2 new railroads ...... 2 submission ...... 1 hour ...... 2 tables, Class I & II RRs. —Amendments/Revisions ...... 55 railroads ...... 165 revisions ...... 20 minutes ...... 55 —Copy of operating rules/timetables, etc. 5 new railroads ...... 5 submission ...... 55 minutes ...... 5 by Class III. —Amendments/Revisions by Class III Rail- 673 railroads ...... 2,019 rev./amendments 15 minutes ...... 505 roads. 217.9—RR Testing Officer Qualification. —Records of Qualification ...... 722 railroads ...... 4,732 records ...... 2 minutes ...... 158 —Written Prog. of Operational Tests ...... 5 new railroads ...... 5 programs ...... 9.92 hours ...... 50 —Records of Operational Tests/Inspections 722 railroads ...... 9,188,700 rcd ...... 5 minutes ...... 765,725 —Amendments/Revisions ...... 55 railroads ...... 165 revisions ...... 70 minutes ...... 193 —Quarterly Review of Accident/Incident 722 railroads ...... 140 reviews ...... 2 hours ...... 280 Data/Prior Op. Tests/Inspections. —Designated Officers & Conduct of 6 722 railroads ...... 70 IDs + 140 reviews ... 5 seconds + 2 hours .... 280 Month Review. —Designated Officers & Conduct of Six Amtrak + 23 Railroads 27 IDs + 54 Reviews ... 5 second + 2 hours ...... 108 Month Review by Passenger/Commuter Railroads. —Records of Periodic Reviews ...... 722 railroads ...... 334 records ...... 1 minute ...... 6 —Annual Summary on Operational Tests/ 61 railroads ...... 97 summary records .... 61 minutes ...... 99 Insp. —FRA Disapproval of RR Program of Oper- 722 railroads ...... 5 supporting documents 1 hour ...... 5 ational Tests/Insp. & Response by RR. —Amended Program Documents ...... 722 railroads ...... 5 amended documents 30 minutes ...... 3 217.11—Periodic Instruction of Program Em- 722 railroads ...... 130,000 instr. employ- 8 hours ...... 1,040,000 ployees on Oper. Rules. ees. —New RR—Development of Program of 5 new railroads ...... 5 Programs ...... 8 hours ...... 40 Operating Rules Instruction. —Amendments/Revisions to Operating 722 railroads ...... 110 revisions ...... 30 minutes ...... 55 Rules Instruction Program. 218.95—Instruction, Training, Examination— 722 railroads ...... 98,000 record ...... 5 minutes ...... 8,167 Records. —Response to FRA Disapproval of Pro- 722 railroads ...... 5 responses ...... 1 hour ...... 5 gram (Written or Oral Submission). —Programs Needing Amendment ...... 722 railroads ...... 5 amended programs ... 30 minutes ...... 3 218.97—Written Procedures on Good Faith 722 railroads ...... Already completed ...... N/A ...... N/A Challenges by Employees Re: Actions. —Employee Copy of Written Procedures .... 722 railroads ...... 4,732 copies ...... 6 minutes ...... 473 —Good Faith Challenges by RR Employees 98,000 Employees ...... 15 challenges ...... 10 minutes ...... 3 —RR Responses to Employee Challenge ... 722 railroads ...... 15 responses ...... 5 minutes ...... 1 —Immediate Review of Employee Chal- 722 railroads ...... 5 immediate reviews .... 30 minutes ...... 3 lenge. —RR Officer Explanation of Federal Law 722 railroads ...... 5 explanation ...... 1 minute ...... 08 Protection Against Retaliation. —Documented Protest by RR Employee ..... 722 railroads ...... 10 written protests ...... 15 minutes ...... 3 —Copies of Protests ...... 722 railroads ...... 10 copies ...... 1 minute ...... 17 —Further Reviews ...... 722 railroads ...... 3 reviews ...... 15 minutes ...... 1 —Written Verification Decision to Employee 722 railroads ...... 10 decisions ...... 10 minutes ...... 2 —Copy of Written Procedures at RR Head- 722 railroads ...... 722 copies of proce- 5 minutes ...... 60 quarters. dures. —Copy of Verification Decision at RR 722 railroads ...... 20 copies ...... 5 minutes ...... 2 Headquarters & Division Headquarters. 218.99—Shoving or Pushing Movements. —Operating Rule Modifications ...... 722 railroads ...... 36 revisions ...... 1 hour ...... 36 —Locomotive Engineer Job Briefing Before 100,000 Employees ..... 180,000 job briefings ... 1 minute ...... 3,000 Movement. —Point Protection Determinations & Sig- 100,000 Employees ..... 87,600,000 decisions + 1 minute + 1 minute ..... 2,920,000 nals/Instructions to Control Movements. 87,600,000 signals. —Remote Control Movements- Verbal Con- 100,000 Employees ..... 876,000 oral confirma- 1 minute ...... 14,600 firmation. tions. —Remote Control Determinations That 100,000 Employees ..... 876,000 RC determina- 1 minute ...... 14,600 Zone Is Not Jointly Occupied/Track Clear. tion. —Dispatcher Authorized Train Movements 6,000 Railroad Dis- 30,000 auth. move- 1 minute ...... 500 patchers. ments. 218.101—Operating Rule Re: Leaving Rolling & 722 railroads ...... 36 amended op. rules .. 30 minutes ...... 18 On-Track MOW Equipment in the Clear. 218.103—Hand-Operated Switches—RR Oper- 722 railroads ...... 36 modified operating 1 hour ...... 36 ating Rule That Complies w/49 CFR 218.103. rules. —Specification of Minimum Job Briefing Re- 722 railroads ...... 5 modified op. rules ..... 30 minutes ...... 3 quirements. —Employee Operating or Verifying Position 722 railroads ...... 1,125,000 job briefings 1 minute ...... 18,750 of Hand-operated Switches: Job Briefings.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13961

Average time per Total annual CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses response burden hours

218.105—Additional Requirements for Hand Op- 722 railroads ...... 60,000 job briefings ..... 1 minute ...... 1,000 erated Main Track Switches—Job Briefing. —Roadway Worker Report on Position of 722 railroads ...... 100,000 reports + 1 minute + 1 minute ..... 3,334 Switches to Roadway Worker in Charge 100,000 conveyances. (RWIC) or Designated Employee Con- veying Information to RWIC. —Dispatcher Acknowledgment of Switch 722 railroads ...... 60,000 acknowledg- 30 seconds + 5 sec- 583 Position and Employee Confirmation to ments + 60,000 con- onds. Train Dispatcher. firmations. 218.109—Hand Operated Fixed Derails: Job 722 railroads ...... 562,500 job briefings ... 30 seconds ...... 4,688 Briefings. Subpart G—New Requirements: —218.125—Adoption/Revision of RR Rules/ 722 railroads ...... 10 adopted/revised 3 hours ...... 30 Practices to comply with this Subpart. rules. —218.133—Continuance of Operations 629 railroads (FRA ob- 7 description ...... 960 hours ...... 6,720 Staffed without a Two-Person Crew Prior tained this number by to Jan. 1, 2015—Description by RR of consulting with the One-Person Crew Operation. ASLRRA, AAR, and APTA.). —218.135—Request for Special Approval of 629 railroads ...... 10 petitions ...... 384 hours ...... 3,840 a Start-Up Method of Operation that Does not Meet Subpart G Requirements. —Request for Special Approval of a Start- 629 railroads ...... 5 petitions ...... 192 hours ...... 960 Up Method of Operation that Does not Meet Subpart. —Comments Sent to FRA on Petitions for General Public/RR 30 comments ...... 22 hours ...... 660 Special Approval. Community/Interested Parties. —Commenter Certification that Copy of General Public/RR 30 statement + 450 30 minutes + 2 minutes 30 Comment has been Served on Each Peti- Community/Interested copies of comment. tioner. Parties.

All estimates include the time for addresses: [email protected] or have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies reviewing instructions, searching [email protected]. that have federalism implications’’ are existing data sources, gathering or OMB is required to make a decision defined in the Executive Order to maintaining the needed data, and concerning the collection of information include regulations that have reviewing the information. Pursuant to requirements contained in this proposed ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits rule between 30 and 60 days after on the relationship between the national comments concerning: whether these publication of this document in the government and the States, or on the information collection requirements are Federal Register. Therefore, a comment distribution of power and necessary for the proper performance of to OMB is best assured of having its full responsibilities among the various the functions of FRA, including whether effect if OMB receives it within 30 days levels of government.’’ Under Executive the information has practical utility; the of publication. The final rule will Order 13132, the agency may not issue accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the respond to any OMB or public a regulation with federalism burden of the information collection comments on the information collection implications that imposes substantial requirements; the quality, utility, and requirements contained in this proposal. direct compliance costs and that is not clarity of the information to be FRA is not authorized to impose a required by statute, unless the Federal collected; and whether the burden of penalty on persons for violating government provides the funds collection of information on those who information collection requirements necessary to pay the direct compliance are to respond, including through the which do not display a current OMB costs incurred by State and local use of automated collection techniques control number, if required. FRA governments, the agency consults with or other forms of information intends to obtain current OMB control State and local governments, or the technology, may be minimized. numbers for any new information agency consults with State and local Organizations and individuals collection requirements resulting from government officials early in the process desiring to submit comments on the this rulemaking action prior to the of developing the regulation. Where a collection of information requirements effective date of the final rule. The OMB regulation has federalism implications or associated estimates detailed above control number, when assigned, will be and preempts State law, the agency should direct them to Mr. Robert announced by separate notice in the seeks to consult with State and local Brogan, Information Collection Officer, Federal Register. officials in the process of developing the Office of Railroad Safety, or Ms. regulation. D. Federalism Implications Kimberly Toone, Records Management This NPRM has been analyzed in Officer, Office of Administration, Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ accordance with the principles and Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires criteria contained in Executive Order New Jersey Avenue SE., 3rd Floor, FRA to develop an accountable process 13132. This NPRM would not have a Washington, DC 20590. Comments may to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input substantial effect on the States or their also be submitted via email to Mr. by State and local officials in the political subdivisions; it would not Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following development of regulatory policies that impose any compliance costs; and it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13962 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

would not affect the relationships Considering Environmental Impacts’’ details the effect on State, local, and between the Federal government and (FRA’s Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May tribal governments and the private the States or their political subdivisions, 26, 1999). FRA has determined that this sector. For the year 2010, this monetary or the distribution of power and NPRM is categorically excluded from amount of $100,000,000 has been responsibilities among the various detailed environmental review pursuant adjusted to $143,100,000 to account for levels of government. Therefore, the to section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures, inflation. This NPRM would not result consultation and funding requirements ‘‘Promulgation of railroad safety rules in the expenditure of more than of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. and policy statements that do not result $143,100,000 by the public sector in any However, this NPRM could have in significantly increased emissions of one year, and thus preparation of such preemptive effect by operation of law air or water pollutants or noise or a statement is not required. under certain provisions of the Federal increased traffic congestion in any mode railroad safety statutes, specifically the of transportation.’’ See 64 FR 28547, H. Energy Impact former Federal Railroad Safety Act of May 26, 1999. Categorical exclusions are Executive Order 13211 requires 1970, repealed and recodified at 49 actions identified in an agency’s NEPA Federal agencies to prepare a Statement U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106 provides implementing procedures that do not of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant that States may not adopt or continue in normally have a significant impact on energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355, May 22, effect any law, regulation, or order the environment and therefore do not 2001. Under the Executive Order, a related to railroad safety or security that require either an environmental ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as covers the subject matter of a regulation assessment (EA) or environmental any action by an agency (normally prescribed or order issued by the impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR published in the Federal Register) that Secretary of Transportation (with 1508.4. promulgates or is expected to lead to the respect to railroad safety matters) or the In analyzing the applicability of a promulgation of a final rule or Secretary of Homeland Security (with categorical exclusion, the agency must regulation, including notices of inquiry, respect to railroad security matters), also consider whether extraordinary advance notices of proposed except when the State law, regulation, circumstances are present that would rulemaking, and notices of proposed or order qualifies under the ‘‘essentially warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant local safety or security hazard’’ Id. In accordance with section 4(c) and regulatory action under Executive Order exception to section 20106. (e) of FRA’s Procedures, the agency has 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is In summary, FRA has analyzed this further concluded that no extraordinary likely to have a significant adverse effect circumstances exist with respect to this final rule in accordance with the on the supply, distribution, or use of regulation that might trigger the need for principles and criteria contained in energy; or (2) that is designated by the a more detailed environmental review Executive Order 13132. As explained Administrator of the Office of (EA or EIS). The purpose of this above, FRA has determined that this Information and Regulatory Affairs as a rulemaking is to establish minimum NPRM has no federalism implications, significant energy action. FRA has requirements for the size of train crew other than the possible preemption of evaluated this NPRM in accordance staffs depending on the type of State laws under Federal railroad safety with Executive Order 13211. FRA has operation. FRA does not anticipate any statutes, specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106. determined that this NPRM is not likely environmental impacts from this Accordingly, FRA has determined that to have a significant adverse effect on requirement and finds that there are no preparation of a federalism summary the supply, distribution, or use of impact statement for this NPRM is not extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this NPRM. energy. Consequently, FRA has required. determined that this NPRM is not a E. International Trade Impact G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of ‘‘significant energy action’’ within the Assessment 1995 meaning of Executive Order 13211. The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 Pursuant to section 201 of the I. Privacy Act prohibits Federal agencies from Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 engaging in any standards or related (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Anyone is able to search the activities that create unnecessary Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise electronic form of any written obstacles to the foreign commerce of the prohibited by law, assess the effects of communications and comments United States. Legitimate domestic Federal regulatory actions on State, received into any of our dockets by the objectives, such as safety, are not local, and tribal governments, and the name of the individual submitting the considered unnecessary obstacles. The private sector (other than to the extent comment (or signing the document, if statute also requires consideration of that such regulations incorporate submitted on behalf of an association, international standards and where requirements specifically set forth in business, labor union, etc.). See http:// appropriate, that they be the basis for law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice U.S. standards. 1532) further requires that ‘‘before for the privacy notice of regulations.gov This NPRM is purely domestic in promulgating any general notice of or interested parties may review DOT’s nature and is not expected to affect proposed rulemaking that is likely to complete Privacy Act Statement in the trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing result in the promulgation of any rule Federal Register published on April 11, business overseas or for foreign firms that includes any Federal mandate that 2000 (65 FR 19477). In accordance with doing business in the United States. may result in expenditure by State, 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments local, and tribal governments, in the from the public to better inform its F. Environmental Impact aggregate, or by the private sector, of rulemaking process. DOT posts these FRA has evaluated this NPRM in $100,000,000 or more (adjusted comments, without edit, including any accordance with the National annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and personal information the commenter Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. before promulgating any final rule for provides, to www.regulations.gov, as 4321 et seq.), other environmental which a general notice of proposed described in the system of records statutes, related regulatory rulemaking was published, the agency notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can requirements, and its ‘‘Procedures for shall prepare a written statement.’’ This be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13963

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 218 of operation. The minimum crew hazardous material as defined in 49 CFR Occupational safety and health, staffing requirements reflect the safety 171.8 is not considered a loaded car. Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad risks posed to railroad employees and None of the exceptions provided in safety, Reporting and recordkeeping the general public. This subpart also §§ 218.127 through 218.135, which requirements. prescribes minimum requirements for permit a train to be staffed with less the appropriate roles and than two crewmembers, is applicable The Proposed Rule responsibilities of train crewmembers when any train is transporting: For the reasons discussed in the on a moving train, and promotes safe (1) One or more loaded freight cars preamble, FRA proposes to amend and effective teamwork. Each railroad containing materials poisonous by chapter II, subtitle B of title 49 of the may prescribe additional or more inhalation as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: stringent requirements in its operating including anhydrous ammonia (UN rules, timetables, timetable special 1005) and ammonia solutions (UN PART 218—[AMENDED] instructions, and other instructions. 3318); or (2) Twenty or more loaded freight cars ■ 1. The authority citation for part 218 § 218.123 Definitions. or freight cars loaded with bulk is revised to read as follows: Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion packages as defined in 49 CFR 171.8 or Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 operations that are not part of the intermodal portable tanks containing U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89. general railroad system of any combination of materials listed in transportation means a tourist, scenic, paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or any Subpart A—General historic, or excursion operation Division 2.1 flammable gases, Class 3 conducted only on track used ■ flammable liquids, Class 1.1 or 1.2 2. Section 218.5 is amended by adding exclusively for that purpose (i.e., there explosives, or hazardous substances definitions in alphabetical order for is no freight, intercity passenger, or listed in 49 CFR 173.31(f)(2). ‘‘Associate Administrator’’ and ‘‘FTA’’, commuter passenger railroad operation (d) Roles and responsibilities of the to read as follows: on the track). second crewmember when the train is § 218.5 Definitions. Trailing tons means the sum of the moving. A train crewmember that is not gross weights—expressed in tons—of * * * * * operating the train may be located the cars and the locomotives in a train Associate Administrator means the anywhere outside of the operating cab of that are not providing propelling power Associate Administrator for Railroad the controlling locomotive when the to the train. Safety and Chief Safety Officer of the train is moving as long as: Train means one or more locomotives Federal Railroad Administration or that (1) For each train, the train coupled with or without cars, except person’s delegate as designated in crewmember is on the train, except during switching service. writing. when the train crewmember cannot Switching service means the perform the duties assigned without * * * * * classification of rail cars according to temporarily disembarking from the FTA means the Federal Transit commodity or destination; assembling train; Administration. of cars for train movements; changing (2) The train crewmember has the * * * * * the position of cars for purposes of ability to directly communicate with the ■ 3. Add subpart G to part 218 to read loading, unloading, or weighing; placing crewmember in the cab of the as follows: of locomotives and cars for repair or controlling locomotive; Subpart G—Train Crew Staffing storage; or moving of rail equipment in (3) The train crewmember can connection with work service that does continue to perform the duties assigned; Sec. 218.121 Purpose and scope. not constitute a train movement. and (4) The location does not violate any 218.123 Definitions. § 218.125 General crew staffing and roles 218.125 General crew staffing and roles and Federal railroad safety law, regulation or and responsibilities of the second order. responsibilities of the second crewmember for freight and passenger crewmember for freight and passenger trains. § 218.127 General exceptions to two- trains. person crew requirement. 218.127 General exceptions to two-person (a) General. Each railroad shall crew requirement. comply with the requirements of this Except as provided for in § 218.125(c), 218.129 Specific passenger train exceptions subpart, and in doing so may adopt its the following general exceptions apply to two-person crew requirement. own rules or practices. When any to the two-person crew staffing and 218.131 Specific freight train exceptions to person as defined in § 218.9 (including, roles and responsibilities requirements two-person crew requirement. but not limited to, each railroad, in § 218.125. A passenger or freight train 218.133 Continuance of freight operations railroad officer, supervisor, and does not require a minimum of two staffed without a two-person train crew employee) violates any requirement of a prior to January 1, 2015. crewmembers under the following 218.135 Special approval procedure. railroad rule or practice that ensures conditions: compliance with the requirements of (a) Helper service. The train is Subpart G—Train Crew Staffing this subpart, that person shall be performing helper service, thereby using considered to have violated the a locomotive or group of locomotives to § 218.121 Purpose and scope. requirements of this subpart. assist another train that has incurred (a) The purpose of this subpart is to (b) Two-person crew staffing mechanical failure or lacks the power to ensure that each train is adequately requirement. Except as provided for in traverse difficult terrain. Helper service staffed and has appropriate safeguards this subpart, each train shall be assigned includes traveling to or from a location in place when using fewer than two a minimum of two crewmembers. where assistance is provided; person crews for safe train operations. (c) Hazardous material two (b) Tourist. The train is a tourist, (b) This subpart prescribes minimum crewmember minimum requirement. For scenic, historic, or excursion operation requirements for the size of different the purposes of this paragraph, a tank that is not part of the general railroad train crew staffs depending on the type car containing a ‘‘residue’’ of a system of transportation;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13964 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(c) Lite locomotive. A locomotive or a emergency preparedness plan for this operations that were conducted prior to consist of locomotives not attached to operation is approved under 49 CFR January 1, 2015, and that are not any piece of equipment or attached only 239.201; or otherwise covered by the general or to a caboose. This exception excludes a (c) A rapid transit operation in an specific exceptions detailed in diesel or electric multiple unit (DMU or urban area, i.e., an urban rapid transit §§ 218.127 through 218.131 may EMU) operation; system or a light rail transit operator continue to be conducted as long as the (d) Work train. During work train that is connected with the general railroad conducting the one-person operations where a non-revenue service railroad system of transportation under operation submits a description of the train of 4,000 trailing tons or less is used the following conditions: operation to the Associate for the administration and upkeep (1) The operation is temporally Administrator for Railroad Safety and service of the railroad. The exception for separated from any conventional Chief Safety Officer, Federal Railroad work trains engaged in maintenance and railroad operations; Administration, 1200 New Jersey repair activities on the railroad includes (2) There is an FTA-approved and Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 no when the work train is traveling to or designated State Safety Oversight (SSO) later than [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER from a work site; or Agency that is qualified to provide EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL (e) Remote control operations. The safety oversight; and RULE]. The description of the operation train is remotely controlled using the (3) The light rail operator has an FTA/ shall, at a minimum, include the operator control unit assigned to the SSO approved System Safety Plan in following: receiver on the controlling locomotive accordance with 49 CFR part 659. (1) The location of the continuing and the following conditions apply: § 218.131 Specific freight train exceptions operation with as much specificity as (1) The locomotive consist does not to two-person crew requirement. can be provided as to industries served, exceed 6,000 total working horsepower Except as provided for in § 218.125(c), and territories, divisions, or and is utilizing no more than 12 the following specific freight train subdivisions operated over. powering axles; Documentation supporting the locations (2) The train length, excluding operations are exceptions from the two- person crew staffing and roles and of prior operations will be favorably locomotives, does not exceed 3,000 feet; reviewed, although not required; (3) The train tonnage, excluding responsibilities requirements in § 218.125. (2) The class of tracks operated over; locomotives, does not exceed 4,000 (3) The locations of any track where tons; (a) Small railroad exceptions. A freight train is operated on a railroad the average grade of any segment of the (4) The train does not exceed a total track operated over is 1 percent or more of 50 conventional cars or platforms, in and by an employee of a railroad with less than 400,000 total employee work over 3 continuous miles or 2 percent or any combination; more over 2 continuous miles; (5) The train does not contain more hours annually and the train is being operated under the following (4) The maximum authorized speed of than 20 multilevel cars, e.g., autorack the operation; cars, regardless of whether they are conditions: (1) The maximum authorized speed of (5) The approximate average number loaded or empty. Any continuous block of miles and hours a single person of more than five multilevel cars must the train is limited to 25 miles per hour or less; and operates as a one-person train crew; be placed at the rear of the train; (6) Whether any limitations are placed (6) The maximum authorized train (2)(i) The average grade of any segment of the track operated over is on a person in a one-person train crew speed is 15 miles per hour; operation. Such limitations may (7) Movements are restricted from less than 1 percent over 3 continuous include, but are not limited to, a operating on any grade greater than 1.0 miles or 2 percent over 2 continuous maximum number of miles or hours percent that extends for more than half miles; or during a single tour of duty; a mile; and (ii) A second train crewmember, other (7) The maximum number of cars and (8) The controlling railroad has than the locomotive engineer, is tonnage, if any; developed air brake and train handling intermittently assisting the train’s instructions governing these operations, movements and has the ability to (8) Whether the one-person operation and the remote control operator is directly communicate with the is permitted to haul hazardous materials required to comply with those crewmember in the cab of the of any quantity and type, other than instructions. controlling locomotive. The second those types expressly prohibited for train crewmember cannot meet the one-person train crew operations in § 218.129 Specific passenger train requirements in § 218.125 regarding the accordance with § 218.125(c); exceptions to two-person crew requirement. roles and responsibilities of the second (9) Information regarding other The following passenger train crewmember because this person is operations that travel on the same track operations do not require a minimum of frequently in transit and cannot as the one-person train operation or that two crewmembers: continuously remain with the train. travel on an adjacent track. Such (a) A passenger train operation in (b) Mine load out, plant dumping, or information shall include, but is not which cars are empty of passengers and similar operation. A freight train is limited to, the volume of traffic and the are being moved for purposes other than being loaded or unloaded in an types of opposing moves (i.e., either to pick up or drop off passengers; assembly line manner at an industry passenger or freight trains hauling (b) A passenger train operation while the train moves at 10 miles per hazardous materials); involving a single self-propelled car or hour or less. (10) Any information the railroad chooses to provide describing married-pair unit, e.g., a diesel or Option 1 electric multiple unit (DMU or EMU) protections provided in lieu of a second operation, where the locomotive § 218.133 Continuance of freight train crewmember; and engineer has direct access to the operations staffed without a two-person (11) A safety analysis of the one- passenger seating compartment and (for train crew prior to January 1, 2015. person train operation, including any passenger railroads subject to 49 CFR (a) Except as provided for in information regarding the safety history part 239) the passenger railroad’s § 218.125(c), one-person freight train of the operation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13965

(b) FRA intends to issue written if any, together with a list of the names (4) Following the approval of a notification of approval or disapproval and addresses of the persons served. petition, FRA may reopen consideration within 90 days of receipt of the (c) Service. Each petition for special of the petition for cause. submission. FRA reserves the right to approval under paragraph (b) of this (5) When FRA grants or denies a notify a railroad if a described operation section shall be submitted to the petition, or reopens consideration of the that was in existence prior to January 1, Associate Administrator for Railroad petition, written notice is sent to the 2015, is deemed unsuitable for Safety and Chief Safety Officer, Federal petitioner and other interested parties. continuance, or may continue with any Railroad Administration, 1200 New Option 2 additional conditions attached. FRA Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC will consider the benefits and costs of 20590. § 218.133 Continuance of freight actions it requests railroads to make as (d) Federal Register notice. FRA operations staffed without a two-person a condition for FRA approval. Unless will publish a notice in the Federal train crew prior to January 1, 2015. FRA notifies a railroad that an operation Register concerning each petition under (a) Except as provided for in is deemed unsuitable for continuance or paragraph (b) of this section. § 218.125(c), one-person freight train may only continue with any additional (e) Comment. Not later than 30 days operations that were conducted prior to conditions attached, the railroad may from the date of publication of the January 1, 2015 and that are not continue the operation as described. If notice in the Federal Register otherwise covered by the general or FRA notifies a railroad that an operation concerning a petition under paragraph specific exceptions detailed in may not continue, FRA will provide the (b) of this section, any person may §§ 218.127 through 218.131 may railroads the specific reason(s) and comment on the petition. continue to be conducted as long as the rationale for any such decision. (1) A comment shall set forth railroad conducting the one-person specifically the basis upon which it is operation submits a description of the § 218.135 Special approval procedure. made, and contain a concise statement operation to the Associate (a) General. The following procedures of the interest of the commenter in the Administrator for Railroad Safety and govern consideration and action upon proceeding. Chief Safety Officer, Federal Railroad requests for special approval of a start- (2) The comment shall be submitted Administration, 1200 New Jersey up method of train operation that does to the Associate Administrator for Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 no not meet the requirements and Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer, later than [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER conditions of §§ 218.125 through Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 218.133. Passenger railroads seeking to New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, RULE]. The description of the operation start-up a one-person train operation DC 20590. shall, at a minimum, include the must have an approved passenger train (3) The commenter shall certify that a following: emergency preparedness plan or apply copy of the comment was served on (1) The location of the continuing for a waiver under part 239 of this each petitioner. operation with as much specificity as chapter but may apply to FRA for (f) Disposition of petitions. (1) If FRA can be provided as to industries served, special approval under this section in finds that the petition is acceptable and and territories, divisions, or the same filing. justified, the petition will be granted, subdivisions operated over. (b) Petitions for special approval of a normally within 90 days of its receipt. (2) The class of tracks operated over; (3) The locations of any track where train operation with less than two FRA’s decision may attach additional the average grade of any segment of the crewmembers. Each petition for special conditions that a railroad must meet or track operated over is 1 percent or more approval of a train operation with less exceed before implementing the over 3 continuous miles or 2 percent or than two crewmembers that does not operation as described. FRA will meet the requirements and conditions of more over 2 continuous miles; consider the benefits and costs of any (4) The maximum authorized speed of §§ 218.125 through 218.133 shall actions it requests a petitioner to make contain: the operation; as a condition for FRA approval, as well (5) The approximate average number (1) The name, title, address, telephone as the expected safety impacts. If FRA of miles and hours a single person number, and email address (if available) attaches conditions, it will provide the operates as a one-person train crew; of the primary person to be contacted petitioner and the public, via its public (6) Whether any limitations are placed with regard to review of the petition; Web site, with the specific reasons and on a person in a one-person train crew (2) A detailed description of the train rationale for those conditions. operation. Such limitations may operation proposed, including a (2) If the petition is neither granted include, but are not limited to, a description of any technology that could nor denied within 90 days, the maximum number of miles or hours potentially perform tasks typically petitioner may file a request for FRA to during a single tour of duty; performed by a second crewmember or decide the petition by no later than 30 (7) The maximum number of cars and that could prevent or significantly days from the date FRA receives such a tonnage, if any; mitigate the consequences of request. If this additional 30 days lapses (8) Whether the one-person operation catastrophic accidents; without FRA issuing a decision, the is permitted to haul hazardous materials (3) Appropriate data or analysis, or railroad may implement the operation of any quantity and type, other than both, for FRA to consider in as described. those types expressly prohibited for determining whether the train operation (3) If FRA finds that the petition does one-person train crew operations in proposed will provide at least an not comply with the requirements of accordance with § 218.125(c); appropriate level of safety to a train this section and that the proposed train (9) Information regarding other operation with two crewmembers; and operation is not acceptable or justified, operations that utilize the same track as (4) A statement affirming that the the petition will be denied. FRA will the one-person train operation or that railroad has served a copy of the provide the petitioner and the public, travel on an adjacent track. Such petition on the president of each labor via its public Web site, with the specific information shall include, but is not organization that represents the reasons and rationale for denying the limited to, the volume of traffic and the railroad’s employees subject to this part, petition. types of opposing moves (i.e., either

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 13966 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules

passenger or freight trains hauling (b) Description of a train operation start-up operation with less than two hazardous materials); with less than two crewmembers. A crewmembers has been conducted and (10) Any information the railroad railroad initiating a train operation with that the operation provides an chooses to provide describing less than two crewmembers that does appropriate level of safety. The safety protections provided in lieu of a second not meet the requirements and analysis shall be made available to FRA train crewmember; and conditions of §§ 218.125 through upon request. (11) A safety analysis of the one- 218.133 shall provide FRA with the (c) Service. This information shall be person train operation shall be name, title, address, telephone number, submitted to the Associate conducted and made available to FRA and email address (if available) of the Administrator for Railroad Safety and upon request during an investigation primary person to be contacted with Chief Safety Officer, Federal Railroad described in paragraph (b) of this regard to the operation. The railroad section, including any information Administration, 1200 New Jersey shall submit a detailed description of Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. regarding the safety history of the each train operation with less than two operation. crewmembers prior to beginning such (d) Public notice. FRA will post the (b) A railroad may continue any one- service, which covers: information identified in paragraph (b) person train operations that were (1) Any technology that could of this section on its public Web site to conducted prior to January 1, 2015, potentially perform tasks typically permit interested parties an opportunity upon filing the description of each performed by a second crewmember or to provide additional information or operation with FRA. FRA will use the that could prevent or significantly comment on the operation identified by description as part of an evaluation to mitigate the consequences of the railroad. determine whether the railroad is catastrophic accidents; (e) Review Process. A railroad may providing an appropriate level of safety. (2) The class of tracks operated over; initiate a start-up train operation with Depending on a variety of factors, (3) The locations of any track where less than two crewmembers after the including FRA’s familiarity with the the average grade of any segment of the railroad submits the information railroad’s one-person operation and the track operated over is 1 percent or more identified in this section to FRA unless risk factors associated with the over 3 continuous miles or 2 percent or FRA informs the railroad that the operation, FRA may initiate an more over 2 continuous miles; information is incomplete. Depending investigation to aid in the (4) The maximum authorized speed of on a variety of factors, including FRA’s determination. If FRA determines that the operation; familiarity with the railroad’s operation an operation is not providing an (5) The approximate average number and the risk factors associated with the appropriate level of safety, FRA will of miles and hours a single person operation, FRA may initiate an notify the railroad that the operation operates as a one-person train crew; investigation to aid in the shall not continue or shall only (6) Whether any limitations are placed determination. If FRA determines that continue under certain conditions. FRA on a person in a one-person train crew an operation is not providing an will consider the benefits and costs of operation. Such limitations may appropriate level of safety, FRA will actions it requests railroads to make as include, but are not limited to, a notify the railroad that the operation a condition for the operation to maximum number of miles or hours shall not continue or shall only continue. If FRA notifies a railroad that during a single tour of duty; continue under certain conditions. FRA an operation shall not continue, or shall (7) The maximum number of cars and will consider the benefits and costs of continue only if conditions are met, tonnage, if any; conditions it requires railroads to meet FRA will provide the railroad and the (8) Whether the one-person operation to continue a start-up train operation public, via its public Web site, the is permitted to haul hazardous materials with less than two crewmembers. If FRA specific reason(s) and rationale for the of any quantity and type, other than notifies a railroad that an operation decision. those types expressly prohibited for (c) A railroad shall adhere to the one-person train crew operations in shall not continue, or shall continue restrictions, limitations, and procedures accordance with § 218.125(c); only if conditions are met, FRA will it identifies in its submission to FRA as (9) Information regarding other provide the railroad and the public, via well as any condition imposed by FRA. operations that utilize the same track as its public Web site, the specific the one-person train operation or that reason(s) and rationale for the decision. § 218.135 Special approval procedure. travel on an adjacent track. Such (f) Compliance. A railroad shall (a) General. The following procedures information shall include, but is not adhere to the restrictions, limitations, govern a start-up method of train limited to, the volume of traffic and the and procedures it identifies in its operation that does not meet the types of opposing moves (i.e., either submission to FRA as well as any requirements and conditions of passenger or freight trains hauling condition imposed by FRA. §§ 218.125 through 218.133. Passenger hazardous materials); Issued in Washington, DC, on March 8, railroads seeking to start-up a one- (10) Any information the railroad 2016, under the authority set forth in 49 CFR person train operation must have an chooses to provide describing 1.89(b). approved passenger train emergency protections provided in lieu of a second preparedness plan or apply for a waiver train crewmember; and Sarah Feinberg, under part 239 of this chapter but may (11) A statement signed by the Administrator. apply to FRA for special approval under railroad officer in charge of operations [FR Doc. 2016–05553 Filed 3–14–16; 8:45 am] this section in the same filing. attesting that a safety analysis of the BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:09 Mar 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS