[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 115 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14377]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 16, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 214

FRA Docket No. ROS-2, Notice No. 4
RIN 2130-AA91

 

Bridge Worker Safety Rules

AGENCY:  Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Final Rule; correction and petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On June 24, 1992, FRA published safety standards for the 
protection of those who work on railroad bridges (49 CFR Part 214). FRA 
now corrects certain sections of that regulation, and changes or 
clarifies certain requirements in response to a petition for 
reconsideration filed by the Association of American Railroads (AAR). 
First, three sections have been corrected by adding citations to 
reflect the most recent American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
standards for personal protective equipment. Second, the rule now sets 
forth conditions under which employees specially-designated as bridge 
inspectors may work without fall protection. Third, the rule no longer 
requires toeboards on walkways, and in certain instances permits work 
without fall protection on roadways attached to a railroad bridge. 
Finally, FRA clarifies that railroads and their contractors must 
require the use of protective footwear, but need not necessarily 
furnish it, which reflects current practice in the railroad, 
construction, and other industries where such equipment is necessary.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of this regulation is on July 
18, 1994. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed 
in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register 
as of July 18, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for reconsideration should be submitted to the 
Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William O'Sullivan, Chief, Office of 
Safety Track Division, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 
(Telephone: 202-366-0499), Gordon Davids, Office of Safety Enforcement, 
FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-
0499), or Christine Beyer, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, 
FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-
0621).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 1992, FRA published the Bridge 
Worker Safety Rules (57 FR 28116) that established requirements for the 
protection of those railroad and railroad contractor employees who work 
on railroad bridges. The rule included provisions for personal fall 
arrest systems, safety nets, personal protective equipment (head, face, 
eye, and foot equipment), contingencies for working adjacent to water, 
and standards for walkways, railings, and scaffolds. The regulations 
went into effect on September 24, 1992. However, in order to provide 
the industry additional time to obtain complying equipment and 
adequately train workers, FRA suspended the effective date of the 
sections requiring fall protection (i.e., sections 214.103 and 214.105) 
until November 24, 1992. (57 FR 45326.)
    On August 10, 1992, the AAR filed a petition seeking 
reconsideration (petition) of the bridge worker safety rules. In that 
petition, the AAR sought reconsideration of 49 CFR 214.101(d), 
214.103(b), and 214.103(c). After careful consideration and for the 
reasons set forth below, FRA denied the AAR's request with respect to 
section 214.101(d), partially granted the request with respect to 
section 214.103(b), and granted the request with respect to section 
214.103(c). (FRA formally responded to the petition by letter to the 
AAR dated January 11, 1993, a copy of which is in the docket of this 
matter.)
    The AAR petition first suggests that section 214.101(d) violates 
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988 (RSIA) and the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA), and therefore should be withdrawn. Section 
214.101(d) states that ``[A]ny working conditions involving the 
protection of railroad employees working on railroad bridges not within 
the subject matter addressed by this Chapter'' shall be governed by the 
regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA). This section is merely a restatement of the law as it stands 
with respect to occupational safety and health matters in the railroad 
environment, and was added to the final rule in order to alleviate the 
jurisdictional confusion expressed by rail labor and management prior 
to promulgation of the rule. FRA has explained the complementary 
jurisdiction it shares with OSHA with respect to health and safety 
matters in the railroad industry in its Statement of Policy (Policy 
Statement) (43 FR 10583) published in 1978, more recently in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (56 FR 3434) in this proceeding, and on 
numerous other occasions. However, a discussion of the statutory 
jurisdiction each agency possesses and the exercise of that authority 
is necessary to explain the basis for FRA's response to this aspect of 
the AAR's petition.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) vests OSHA with 
responsibility for promulgating and enforcing workplace safety and 
health standards. However, in recognition that other Federal agencies 
possess parallel, industry-specific authority over occupational safety 
and health, section 4(b)(1) provides that no OSHA rules

shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which 
other Federal agencies . . . exercise statutory authority to 
prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational 
safety or health.

29 U.S.C. Sec. 653(b)(1). The exercise of authority contemplated by 
this provision is one that results in a Federal regulation for on-the-
job protection of worker safety or health or a determination that a 
particular form of regulation is not appropriate.
    The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (``FRSA'') grants FRA broad 
authority to prescribe standards in ``all areas of railroad safety.'' 
45 U.S.C. Sec. 431(a). Pursuant to that authority, in 1975, FRA 
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking indicating its 
intention to develop its own set of occupational safety and health 
standards that would, in toto, displace OSHA's regulatory program. 40 
FR 10693 (March 7, 1975). After consideration of the record developed, 
however, FRA reduced the scope of its efforts.
    In 1976, FRA published in that docket a notice of proposed 
rulemaking stating its intention to issue specific occupational safety 
and health standards on only three subjects for railroad employees 
(egress from structures, general environmental controls, and fire 
protection) that would displace otherwise applicable OSHA standards. 41 
FR 29153 (July 15, 1976). FRA also indicated its intention to 
incrementally issue a comprehensive code of such standards for railroad 
employees that would gradually displace OSHA standards. FRA 
contemplated that these FRA standards would apply on a territorial 
instead of a hazard-specific basis.
    In 1978, FRA sharply changed course: it terminated the regulatory 
proceeding and issued a Policy Statement instead of pursuing a 
comprehensive code of FRA occupational safety and health standards. 43 
FR 10583 (March 14, 1978). In explaining its action, FRA stated:

* * * Written comments in response to [the 1976] proposal were 
received, and a public hearing was conducted. The FRA has reviewed 
not only these comments, but also the entire original concept as to 
the adoption of a comprehensive code of occupational safety and 
health standards for the railroad industry paralleling the existing 
OSHA regulations.
* * * * *
    * * * [G]iven the present staffing level for field investigation 
and inspection, the FRA has determined that, at this time, it would 
not be in the best interests of the public and of railroad safety 
for this agency to become involved extensively in the promulgation 
and enforcement of a complex regulatory scheme covering in minute 
detail as do the OSHA standards, working conditions which, although 
located within the railroad industry, are in fact similar to those 
of any industrial workplace. Rather, we believe that the proper role 
for FRA in the area of occupational safety in the immediate future 
is one that will concentrate our limited resources in addressing 
hazardous working conditions in those traditional areas of railroad 
operations in which we have special competence.

Id. at 10584-85.
    Thus, contrary to its original intent, FRA's determination in 1978 
was generally to leave OSHA standards in place in the railroad 
industry.
    The Policy Statement defined ``railroad operations'' as the 
``movement of equipment over rails'' (Id.), and rejected a 
``territorial'' approach to delineating those working conditions over 
which FRA would exercise its jurisdiction from those that would remain 
under OSHA's control. Id. at 10587. FRA did not want to duplicate 
capabilities ``already possessed by OSHA'' and stated:

FRA recognizes that OSHA is not precluded from exercising 
jurisdiction with respect to conditions not rooted in railroad 
operations nor so closely related to railroad operations as to 
require regulation by FRA in the interest of controlling predominant 
operational hazards.

Id. Therefore, until FRA exercises its statutory authority with respect 
to given working conditions through promulgation of a standard or 
through an expression that regulation is unnecessary or would be 
counterproductive, existing OSHA standards apply in the railroad 
workplace.
    In support of its claim to withdraw section 214.101(d), the AAR 
alleges that because section 19 of the RSIA requires FRA to issue 
rules, as necessary, for the protection of maintenance-of-way employees 
on railroad bridges, FRA is the exclusive Federal agency to regulate 
this subject matter. Also, the AAR states that FRA does not have the 
discretion ``to delegate to OSHA a portion of its responsibility to 
regulate bridge worker safety.'' FRA has not delegated any authority to 
OSHA through publication of section 214.101(d); characterizing section 
214.101(d) as a delegation is simply a misstatement of FRA's 
relationship with OSHA and OSHA's existing authority to regulate 
occupational safety and health matters in every American workplace. 
Rather, FRA has purposefully chosen not to exercise its authority over 
certain working conditions that OSHA also has the authority to 
regulate, and over which OSHA has comprehensively exercised its 
authority.
    The AAR also argues that FRA violated the APA by not seeking public 
comment on section 214.101(d), and that this section represents ``a 
radical departure'' from the NPRM and long-standing policy. On the 
contrary, this section accurately reflects an extensive discussion in 
the preamble of the NPRM and its inclusion in the rule text is in 
direct response to written comments submitted to the docket during the 
rulemaking. Clearly, those commenters knew the matter was at issue. 
Notice and comment would be required if section 214.101(d) represented 
a new regulatory scheme for the enforcement of occupational safety and 
health standards in the railroad workplace. Clearly, that is not the 
case. Section 214.101(d) is a statement of FRA's interpretation of the 
law and is wholly consistent with FRA's previous interpretive 
statements.
    From as long ago as publication of the Policy Statement in 1978, 
FRA has stated that it will exercise authority over working conditions 
intrinsic to or closely related to railroad operations requiring FRA's 
unique expertise, and has exercised its authority in some of those 
areas. All other occupational safety and health matters continue to be 
governed by OSHA where that agency has exercised its authority over a 
specific working condition. The AAR concludes that the Policy Statement 
makes ``the regulation of areas along railroad operating rights-of-way 
* * * exclusively the province of FRA.'' This conclusion is incorrect, 
as it embodies the very ``territorial'' approach to jurisdiction FRA 
rejected in 1978. The AAR chooses to misconstrue the functional 
distinction drawn by the Policy Statement as a territorial division of 
jurisdiction (``fixed facilities such as offices and shops'' as OSHA's 
versus ``areas along railroad operating rights-of-way'' as FRA's), 
which it explicitly is not. For instance, as the NPRM in this 
proceeding clearly states (56 FR 3435), the Policy Statement divested 
OSHA of authority to regulate the surfaces on railroad bridges, such as 
track and signal structures, but did not oust OSHA entirely from 
regulating any working condition that arises on a railroad bridge, as 
the AAR argues. Also, the plain language of the Policy Statement left 
the regulation of personal protective equipment with OSHA until FRA 
chose to exercise its authority in that regard. 43 FR 10583, 10588 
(March 14, 1978).
    In promulgating the initial final rule, FRA methodically considered 
the hazards bridge work poses; exercised its authority to regulate the 
use of certain personal protective equipment; and left other working 
conditions (for instance, exposure to airborne toxins and attendant 
respirator use) under existing applicable OSHA standards. The areas 
left to OSHA are those in which FRA neither has, nor can quickly 
acquire, the expertise necessary for effective implementation of 
relevant standards. Were FRA to include such matters within its rule 
without the ability to enforce the relevant standards, it would, as a 
practical matter, be creating a gap in the protection of railroad 
workers, which it does not want to do. Moreover, but for respiratory 
protection, which FRA proposed to include in its rule but ultimately 
decided to leave to OSHA, FRA never even proposed standards on the 
matters section 214.101(d) specifies as being included within the areas 
left to OSHA (i.e., hazard communications, hearing protection, welding 
and lead exposure standards).
    Section 214.101(d) merely states the relationship between FRA's 
substantive standards and OSHA's; it does not impose a new substantive 
burden. Whatever substantive burdens OSHA's rules place on railroads 
are the result of OSHA's exercise of its authority prior to issuance of 
FRA's rule. This section only attempts to clarify which of those pre-
existing standards still apply even after the issuance of FRA's final 
rule, which displaces some of them. Section 214.101(d) imposes no new 
substantive burdens and, accordingly, notice and comment was not 
necessary prior to issuance of this essentially interpretive rule.
    Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the NPRM invited comment 
on where the jurisdictional lines should be drawn and demonstrated 
FRA's intent to clarify it. FRA stated:

Thus, one question is whether the occupational safety issues 
presented by work on railroad bridges are so inherent to the 
railroad environment that FRA alone should regulate them, or whether 
they cut across industry lines without raising special concerns in 
the railroad context and thus are properly addressed by general OSHA 
standards.

56 FR 3434. FRA noted that there was considerable confusion about which 
OSHA standards applied and that it had placed in the docket various 
legal memoranda from railroads and railroad associations on this issue. 
FRA then stated: ``[T]he appropriate federal standards for personal 
protection, and the identity of the agency responsible for their 
enforcement, must be crystal clear.'' 56 FR 3435. No participant in the 
rulemaking can be heard to complain about FRA's having provided the 
clarification it promised. Therefore, although notice of this 
interpretive rule was not required, it was effectively provided.
    Section 214.101(d) does not reverse long-standing policy or law, 
does not violate the RSIA or APA and, therefore, will not be withdrawn.
    Second, the AAR's petition asserts that the exemption in section 
214.103(b) for instances where the installation of fall protection 
poses a greater risk than working without protection should be expanded 
to include instances where the installation and use of fall protection 
poses a greater risk. FRA does not believe there are compelling reasons 
to enlarge this exception to the fall protection requirement with 
respect to all railroad bridge workers. The examples cited by the AAR 
in their petition (fire fighting, re-railing cars, working with moving 
equipment) as instances where the use of fall protection equipment may 
pose a greater risk than completing the work without fall protection 
are not persuasive. FRA believes that for each of these situations 
installation of fall protection equipment is the most difficult part of 
the process, and that once installed does not interfere in the work to 
be done. In other words, if installation can be accomplished, the 
duties to be performed once protection is in place can also be 
accomplished. The AAR states that workers need to be able to move away 
from these hazards quickly and easily. However, once installed, safety 
nets, walkways, and fall arrest systems provide ample freedom of 
movement. The only fall protection device that may present questions in 
this regard is the personal fall arrest system, and given new designs 
that encompass the peculiarities of railroad bridge structures and 
points of attachment, these devices can be installed to allow prompt 
and careful movement. Therefore, FRA is not willing to expand the fall 
protection exception set out in section 214.103(b) for all bridge 
workers. However, FRA does believe that this exception should be 
broadened to permit railroad bridge inspectors to work without 
installing or using fall protection systems, so long as certain 
criteria are met.
    Employees performing inspections of railroad bridges must climb to 
all points above and below the bridge deck, as well as along the deck, 
and must be free to reach points on the structure that are accessed 
infrequently and with difficulty, and then only for inspection 
purposes. FRA believes that in some instances the use of fall 
protection could heighten the chance of injury for the inspector. Also, 
a blanket fall protection requirement could result in incomplete bridge 
inspections, a fact that raises additional safety concerns for fellow 
employees and the public. Therefore, persons who are capable of 
climbing on bridges, and who have been specifically qualified and 
designated by the railroad or railroad contractor, may perform bridge 
inspections without the installation and use of fall protection 
required under this regulation, provided the conditions set forth below 
are met.
    In order to qualify for the installation and use exception now set 
forth in section 214.103(b)(2), the railroad or contractor using the 
exception must have a comprehensive written program in place that 
addresses pertinent climbing techniques and applicable safety 
equipment. The employee to whom the exception applies must be trained 
and qualified according to that program to conduct bridge inspections. 
Also, this employee must be formally designated by the railroad or 
contractor as one who will perform bridge inspections and voluntarily 
accepts the designation. The reason for this requirement is to prevent 
an employer from maintaining an informal bridge inspection program 
typified by on-the-spot designations of employees who lack training and 
who are uncomfortable working at heights without protection. Section 
214.103(b)(2)(D) requires that the employee must actually be engaged in 
the inspection of the bridge or its components while the exception 
applies. Should this employee move to another duty on the bridge, fall 
protection would be required. Finally, the employee to whom the 
exception applies must be familiar with the appropriate climbing 
technique needed to scale safely the structure involved, and must be 
provided any generic, alternative or specialized equipment needed to 
complete the climb efficiently and safely. For instance, some railroads 
are training their bridge inspectors in rock climbing techniques and 
systems. If rock climbing techniques are used by a bridge inspector 
during the inspection, the appropriate equipment must also be provided.
    The AAR also requests that FRA eliminate the requirement of 
toeboards on bridge walkways found in section 214.103(c). In support of 
its request, the AAR states that toeboards are not normally found on 
railroad bridges, and because they would permit snow, ice, and debris 
to accumulate on walkways, will present tripping or falling hazards. 
FRA agrees, and is removing the toeboard requirement from section 
214.103(c). Therefore, fall protection will no longer be required where 
a bridge is equipped with secure walkways and railings that meet the 
remaining criteria set forth in section 214.103(c). Toeboards are used 
traditionally as a method to prevent tools from falling rather than as 
a fall protection device. Recognizing that falling tools present 
hazards to those who work at levels below the walkway, FRA believes 
that the dangers created by the presence of toeboards exceed those 
associated with not requiring them. Also, nearly all railroad bridges 
equipped with secure walkways and railings do not also possess 
toeboards. Therefore, the substitution of walkways for personal fall 
arrest systems and safety nets permitted by section 214.103(c) as 
originally written is largely unusable.
    FRA also makes a clarification with respect to walkways in section 
214.103(c). Many railroad bridges now include vehicular roadways 
replacing second or multiple railroad tracks that have been removed. 
For the purposes of this rule, FRA views these roadways as walkways. 
These roadways are at least as stable as the typical walkway built 
beside track on a railroad bridge, and footing and movement on these 
roadways is as secure as on a walkway or on the track portion of the 
railroad bridge. Because of these safety factors, FRA believes that 
employees working or moving at least six feet from the edge of such a 
roadway are not at risk of falling over the side of the bridge. 
Therefore, where employees are six or more feet from the edge of a 
vehicle roadway, fall arrest systems, safety nets, railings and 
handrails are not required. Section 214.103(c)(2) now permits work 
without fall protection on roadway bridges so long as employees remain 
at least six feet from the edge of the roadway.
    Also, FRA is clarifying the rule with respect to personal 
protective equipment. FRA has received questions from the regulated 
community concerning the interplay of sections 214.111 and 214.115. To 
alleviate any confusion, section 214.111 has been clarified by stating 
that railroads and their contractors must require the use of protective 
footwear, but need not necessarily furnish that equipment. As written, 
section 214.115 of the final rule clearly states that employers must 
require workers to wear foot protection, but does not contain the 
requirement present in the other personal protective equipment sections 
stating the ``employees shall be provided'' such equipment. Section 
214.111, which sets out personal protection standards generally, 
appears to contradict section 214.115 by stating that the railroads and 
contractors ``must provide and require the use of'' the equipment 
required by Subpart B of the rule, including footwear. That 
contradiction is now removed. The practical difference involved here, 
as in other industries, is that footwear is a personal item that the 
employer cannot reasonably be required to retain in stock, while other 
safety items are easily supplied with a store of backup units should 
they be required. Therefore, section 214.111 is amended to exclude 
protective footwear from the group of personal protective devices that 
the railroads and their contractors must provide. This change reflects 
the status of protective footwear in the railroad, construction, and 
other industries where the equipment is needed, reiterates FRA's 
original intent, and does not in any way interfere with collective 
bargaining agreements that address who ultimately bears the expense for 
personal protective equipment.
    Finally, FRA is correcting sections 214.113, 214.115, and 214.117 
by replacing outdated ANSI references with the most recent standards 
for head, foot, and eye and face protection. As noted by commenters to 
the NPRM, these new standards were generally used in industry when the 
NPRM and final rule were published, but FRA erroneously printed 
outdated standards.

Regulatory Impact

E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This correction of the final rule has been evaluated in accordance 
with existing policies and procedures and is not considered significant 
under Executive Order 12866 or under DOT policies and procedures. The 
minor technical changes made in this amendment will not increase the 
costs or alter the benefits associated with this regulation to any 
measurable degree.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small entities. 
This amendment to the final rule removes a requirement originally 
placed on railroads and their contractors and clarifies an existing 
requirement. The changes will have no new direct or indirect economic 
impact on small units of government, businesses, or other 
organizations. Therefore, it is certified that this rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no paperwork requirements associated with this amendment 
of the final rule.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this amendment in accordance with its procedures 
for ensuring full consideration of the environmental impact of FRA 
actions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders, 
and DOT Order 5610.1c. The amendment meets criteria establishing this 
as a nonmajor action for environmental purposes.

Federalism Implications

    This amendment will not have a substantial effect on the states, on 
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 214

    Bridges, Incorporation by reference, Occupational safety and 
health, Personal protective equipment, Railroad operating practices, 
Railroad safety, Scaffolding.

The Final Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, Part 214, Title 49, Code of 
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
    1. The authority for this part continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  45 U.S.C. 431, 438, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49(m).

    2. By amending Sec. 214.103 to revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 214.103  Fall protection, generally.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) This section shall not apply if the installation of the fall 
arrest system poses a greater exposure to risk than the work to be 
performed. In any action brought by FRA to enforce the fall protection 
requirements, the railroad or railroad contractor shall have the burden 
of proving that the installation of such device poses greater exposure 
to risk than performance of the work itself.
    (2) This section shall not apply to employees engaged in inspection 
of railroad bridges conducted in full compliance with the following 
conditions:
    (i) the railroad or railroad contractor has a written program in 
place that requires training in, adherence to, and use of safe 
procedures associated with climbing techniques and procedures to be 
used;
    (ii) the employee to whom this exception applies has been trained 
and qualified according to that program to perform bridge inspections, 
has been previously and voluntarily designated to perform inspections 
under the provisions of that program, and has accepted the designation;
    (iii) the employee to whom this exception applies is familiar with 
the appropriate climbing techniques associated with all bridge 
structures the employee is responsible for inspecting;
    (iv) the employee to whom this exception applies is engaged solely 
in moving on or about the bridge or observing, measuring, and recording 
the dimensions and condition of the bridge and its components; and
    (v) the employee to whom this exception applies is provided all 
equipment necessary to meet the needs of safety, including any 
specialized or alternative systems required.
    (c) This section shall not apply where employees are working on a 
railroad bridge equipped with walkways and railings of sufficient 
height, width, and strength to prevent a fall, provided that the 
employee does not work beyond the railings, over the side of the 
bridge, on ladders or other elevation devices, or where gaps or holes 
exist through which a body could fall. Where used in place of fall 
protection as provided for in Sec. 214.105, this paragraph (c) is 
satisfied by:
    (1) Walkways and railings meeting the standards set forth in the 
American Railway Engineering Association's Manual for Railway 
Engineering; and
    (2) Roadways attached to railroad bridges, provided that employees 
on the roadway deck work or move at a distance of six feet or more from 
the edge of the roadway deck, or from an opening through which a person 
could fall.
* * * * *
    3. By revising Sec. 214.111 to read as follows:


Sec. 214.111  Personal protective equipment, generally.

    With the exception of foot protection, the railroad or railroad 
contractor shall provide and the employee shall use all appropriate 
personal protective equipment described in this subpart in all 
operations where there is exposure to hazardous conditions, or where 
this subpart indicates the need for using such equipment to reduce 
hazards to railroad employees. The railroad or railroad contractor 
shall require the use of foot protection when the potential for foot 
injury exists.
    4. By amending Sec. 214.113 to revise paragraph (b) to read as 
follows and by removing paragraph (c):


Sec. 214.113  Head protection.

* * * * *
    (b) Helmets for the protection of railroad employees against impact 
and penetration of falling and flying objects, or from high voltage 
electrical shock and burns shall conform to the national consensus 
standards for industrial head protection (American National Standards 
Institute, American National Standard Z89.1-1986, Protective Headwear 
for Industrial Workers). This incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American 
National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. 
Copies may be inspected at the Federal Railroad Administration, Docket 
Clerk, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC, or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, 
DC.
    5. By amending Sec. 214.115 to revise paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 214.115  Foot protection.

* * * * *
    (b) Safety-toe footwear for railroad employees shall conform to the 
national consensus standards for safety-toe footwear (American National 
Standards Institute, American National Standard Z41-1991, Standard for 
Personal Protection--Protective Footwear). This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be 
obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd 
Street, New York, NY 10036. Copies may be inspected at the Federal 
Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    6. By amending Sec. 214.117 to revise paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 214.117  Eye and face protection.

* * * * *
    (b) Eye and face protection equipment required by this section 
shall conform to the national consensus standards for occupational and 
educational eye and face protection (American National Standards 
Institute, American National Standard Z87.1-1989, Practice for 
Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection). This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 11 West 
42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. Copies may be inspected at the Federal 
Railroad Administration, Docket Clerk, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

    Issued this 8th day of June, 1994.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-14377 Filed 6-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P