[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24223]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 30, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Railroad Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 212 and 234
Grade Crossing Signal System Safety; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 212 and 234
[FRA Docket No. RSGC-5; Notice No. 7]
RIN 2130--AA70
Grade Crossing Signal System Safety
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is issuing a final rule requiring that railroads comply
with specific maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements for
active highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. FRA is also
requiring that railroads take specific and timely actions to protect
the travelling public and railroad employees from the hazards posed by
malfunctioning highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. This action
is taken in part, in response to a statutory requirement that FRA
``issue rules, regulations, orders, and standards to ensure the safe
maintenance, inspection, and testing of signal systems and devices at
railroad highway grade crossings.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: These rules will become effective January 1, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Goodman, Chief, Signal and
Train Control Division, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-2231), or Mark Tessler,
Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-0628).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 20, 1994, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in which FRA proposed to require that railroads comply with
specific maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements for active
highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. FRA also proposed to
require that railroads take specific and timely actions to protect the
travelling public and railroad employees from the hazards posed by
malfunctioning highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. A public
hearing was held in Washington, D.C. on March 1, 1994. The comment
period in this rulemaking closed on March 21, 1994. The final rule
issued today reflects many of the comments and the testimony presented
by 25 parties.
FRA had issued an earlier NPRM on June 29, 1992 (57 FR 28819), in
which FRA proposed rules requiring specific and timely response in
situations involving malfunctioning highway-rail grade crossing warning
systems. A public hearing was held in Washington, D.C. on September 15,
1992. This prior NPRM did not address maintenance, inspection and
testing of such warning systems. Due to comments received and an
intention to widen the scope of the rulemaking to include proposed
standards for maintenance, inspection, and testing pursuant to the
mandate of 49 U.S.C. 20134(b), (formerly Sec. 202(q) of the Federal
Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 431(q)) (Safety Act) as amended
by section 2 of the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act (Pub. L.
102-365)), an open meeting was held on December 11, 1992. Among the
comments received was a joint submission from the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen, the Association of American Railroads, and The
American Short Line Railroad Association. In addition to commenting on
the prior NPRM, the labor/management group proposed specific regulatory
language addressing both timely response and maintenance, inspection,
and testing.
The NPRM issued on January 20, 1994 reflected the consolidation
into one rulemaking docket of the timely response rulemaking with
proposed standards for maintenance, inspection, and testing of grade
crossing warning systems. The NPRM generated a wide range of comments.
Individual comments were received from: thirteen state regulatory
agencies representing eleven states; five commuter rail authorities;
three freight railroads; one union; and two industry associations.
Additionally, a joint submission was received from the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen, the American Short Line Railroad Association and
the Association of American Railroads (``labor/management group'').
This final rule amends 49 CFR Part 234, ``Grade Crossing Signal
Safety'', and to a lesser extent, 49 CFR Part 212, ``State Safety
Participation Regulations.''
This rule is a vital component of DOT's Rail-Highway Grade Crossing
Action Plan which details six major Departmental initiatives addressing
highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. These
initiatives include: enhanced enforcement of traffic laws at crossings;
enhanced rail corridor crossing reviews and improvements; expanded
public education and Operation Lifesaver activities; increased safety
at private crossings; improved data and research efforts; and
prevention of rail trespassing. These initiatives are comprised of
fifty-five separate actions the Department proposes to take.
Part 234 was issued in 1991 (56 FR 33728, July 23, 1991) primarily
as a reporting rule by which FRA received data pertaining to
malfunctions of highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. Part 234
is being amended by restructuring the existing Part 234 into two new
subparts, ``Subpart A--General'' and ``Subpart B--Reports'' and by
adding two subparts, ``Subpart C--Response to Reports of Warning System
Malfunction'' and ``Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing.''
Additionally, 49 CFR Part 212 is being amended to provide for the
participation of qualified state highway-rail grade crossing inspectors
and apprentices within the State Participation Program.
As we stated in the preamble to the early NPRM, we believe the
risks to the travelling public and railroad employees from grade
crossing accidents resulting from system failures can be reduced. The
active grade crossing warning systems in place at the nation's highway-
rail grade crossings are designed to fail in a ``fail-safe'' mode. If a
component or circuitry fails, the device fails in such a manner that
the warning is activated, thus in theory preventing a highway user from
entering onto the tracks in front of a train. This system has worked
successfully for many years. FRA does not take issue with the basic
design theory of ``fail-safe'' warning devices--they are true
lifesaving devices. However, the fail-safe feature loses its
effectiveness as time goes by without repair of the warning system and
its return to fully functioning status.
Failure of a device to activate when a train is approaching creates
an obvious and acute risk. Indeed, an otherwise cautious highway user
could be entrapped by the failure to warn. Although activation failures
are rare events and railroads typically respond with appropriate
dispatch, adding further impetus to appropriate diagnosis and response
is warranted by the critical nature of the risk.
Therefore, FRA is issuing these amendments to 49 CFR part 234 in
which railroads are required to take certain steps when they are
notified of either activation failures or false activations. These
steps, designed to assure the safety of the travelling public and
railroad employees, are not unknown to the railroad industry. They
require the railroad to take the following three series of steps after
learning of a malfunctioning warning system: (1) Notify trains and law
enforcement authorities of the malfunction; (2) take appropriate
actions to warn and control highway traffic pending inspection and
repair of the system; and (3) repair the system.
The rules do not establish a specific time frame for repair of
malfunctioning warning systems. Setting a specific repair time would
necessitate establishing a schedule of various defects together with
approved repair periods. Not only is a system of this type very
cumbersome to establish and monitor, it would not take into
consideration the operating environments of various railroads. Rather,
safety is being maintained while the warning system is out of service
by requiring an equivalent level of warning and protection. That safety
level will be ensured by the flagging and speed restrictions contained
in this rule.
Safety at active grade crossings will be further ensured by the
maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements contained in this
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
49 CFR Part 212
FRA proposed revisions to 49 CFR Part 212, ``State Safety
Participation Program'' in order to provide for qualified state
railroad safety inspectors to enforce the grade crossing safety rules
issued today.
Section 212.231 Highway-rail Grade Crossing Inspector
As proposed, this section amends 49 CFR Part 212, ``State Safety
Participation Program'' to create a new category of ``Highway-rail
grade crossing inspector'' within the State Participation Program. The
proposal established minimum qualification standards enabling state
inspectors to enforce grade crossing signal system safety regulations
at 49 CFR Part 234. Additionally, this section as proposed provided
that all state signal and train control inspectors qualified under
Sec. 212.207 are also thereby fully qualified under new Sec. 212.231.
California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail (CA DOT)
commented that this proposed section was ``worrisome in its flagrant
approval of substituting schooling or related technical specialization,
or completion of an apprentice training program, in lieu of having four
years of specific experience* * * .'' FRA appreciates CA DOT's
concerns, however, FRA has not found the qualification requirements,
which mirror the requirements for state inspectors in other
disciplines, to be a problem. However, if any state regulatory agency
deems it appropriate to impose more stringent requirements for its
inspectors, it is entirely free to do so. General qualifications of
state inspection personnel under the state participation program are
governed by 49 C.F.R. part 212.201 which, in subsection (a) states that
``this subpart [subpart C--State Inspection Personnel] prescribes the
minimum qualification requirements for State railroad safety
inspectors, compliance inspectors and inspector apprentices. A State
agency may establish more stringent or additional requirements for its
employees.'' Consequently, FRA has not modified this section as
suggested by CA DOT.
Final Rule
This section is being adopted as proposed, with the exception that
language has been added to subsection (d) to clarify FRA's original
intent that state signal and train control inspectors can also enforce
Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Rules only if they have
demonstrated the ability to understand and detect deviations from those
rules. While FRA anticipates that state signal and train control
inspectors will have the technical expertise needed to ensure
compliance with these rules, they also need to be familiar with the
regulatory requirements themselves.
Section 212.233 Apprentice Highway-rail Grade Crossing Inspector
As proposed, this section establishes minimum qualification
standards which applicants must meet prior to being enrolled in the
inspector training program within the State Participation Program. FRA
received no specific comments regarding this section.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
49 CFR Part 234
Section 234.1 Scope
As proposed, this section expands the scope of Part 234. The final
rule issued today adds two new subparts to Part 234, ``Response to
Reports of Warning System Malfunction'' and ``Maintenance, Inspection,
and Testing.'' This section is amended to include the subject areas
covered by these new subparts.
This section has been revised from that proposed to make clear that
this part does not restrict a railroad from adopting and enforcing
additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this
part. In addition to prescribing standards for the reporting of
failures of highway-rail grade crossing warning systems, this part also
prescribes minimum actions railroads must take when such warning
systems malfunction and imposes minimum maintenance, inspection, and
testing standards for such systems. The actions required by this part
are the minimum actions which need to be taken by a railroad in a
specific situation. Thus, it would be acceptable for a railroad to
determine that it will stop at every malfunctioning warning system
rather than cross at a reduced speed. Similarly, it is acceptable to
test a crossing system component every three months, rather than every
12 months as required by this rule. References in sections 234.105 and
234.107 to a railroad ``taking, at a minimum, the following actions:''
have accordingly been revised to delete ``at a minimum'' inasmuch as
the requirement has been placed more appropriately in section 234.1.
The NPRM contained a provision stating that ``[w]hen any person
performs any function required by this part, that person is required to
perform that function in accordance with this part.'' After review, and
in an effort to delete unnecessary and confusing language, FRA will
delete the proposed language inasmuch as section 234.6 ``Penalties'',
provides for appropriate penalties against any person who violates any
requirement of this part.
Final Rule
This section sets forth the scope of Part 234. Part 234 imposes
minimum maintenance, inspection, and testing standards highway-rail
grade crossing warning systems. This part also prescribes standards for
the reporting of failures of such systems and prescribes minimum
actions railroads must take when such warning systems malfunction. This
part does not restrict a railroad from adopting and enforcing
additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this
part.
Section 234.3 Application
FRA did not propose any specific changes to this section. Rather,
FRA posed a series of questions pertaining to the application of these
rules. FRA questioned whether the rules should apply to scenic or
tourist railroads--those both on and off the general railroad system of
transportation. FRA stated that:
FRA does not believe that scenic railroads which are part of the
general railroad system of transportation should be treated
differently than other railroads under the proposed rules issued
today. The primary beneficiary of these rules will be the motoring
public. A motorist should have the same assurance of safety whether
crossing the tracks of a Class I railroad, a small short line, or
those of a small scenic railroad. FRA invites public comment on this
issue.
FRA further questioned whether these rules should ``be applied to
crossings on trackage not located on the general railroad system?
Should the answer depend on whether the crossing is a public or private
crossing?''
There was disagreement among commenters as to whether these rules
should be applied to trackage not located on the general railroad
system. The Minnesota Department of Transportation stated, ``We believe
the rules should apply to all signals whether they are on public or
private railroads, public or private roadways or whether the railroad
is connected into the rail network or not. The driver of a vehicle is
seldom aware of facility ownership. The credibility of crossing signals
needs to be maintained regardless of where they are used.'' The New
York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) agreed to the extent
that the rules ``should apply to all crossings of public roadways
regardless of the status of the railroad.'' However, the NYS DOT
further stated that ``extension of the authority to include tourist and
plant railroad crossings on private property would not be appropriate,
since motorist expectations are different on private property and both
train and vehicle speeds are generally low.'' This difference of
opinion was also reflected in comments received from other parties.
In analyzing this issue, FRA is confronted with a number of
differing situations based on the different nature of vehicle roadways
(public and private) and differing railroad operations: freight and
passenger operation on the general system; freight operations within an
industrial plant; tourist railroad on the general system; and tourist
railroad not part of the general system (see discussion below).
Commenters generally agree that all crossings over general system
railroads should be governed by this rule. We agree. Thus, active
warning systems on both private and public roadways crossing general
system railroads are subject to this rule.
There was no consensus as to whether these rules should apply to
public or private crossings over ``plant'' railroads. While some
commenters urged that all crossings under all circumstances should be
governed by the rule, others, such as NYS DOT and West Virginia
Department of Transportation held the opinion that crossings over plant
railroads should not be subject to the rule. Unfortunately, FRA did not
receive specific information or data supporting the views commenters
supporting either position. If FRA were to include plant railroads
within the application of this rule, it would be applying a regulatory
regimen over entities which have historically not been regulated by the
FRA. Although FRA has authority to regulate this field of entities, it
has not chosen to do so for reasons of both lack of a demonstrated
safety need and the need to apply limited FRA safety resources where
they can be best utilized. As has been stated, plant railroad
operations typically involve low speed operations with small numbers of
rail cars permitting relatively short stopping distances. These
operations typically also involve roadway crossings with relatively low
speed vehicular traffic. These reasons, together with the historical
basis for not asserting jurisdiction in these situations leads FRA to
not assert jurisdiction over public and private crossings at such plant
railroads. Of course, because FRA's regulatory authority permits it to
amend the applicability sections of its regulations so as to expand or
contract the populations of railroads covered by a particular set of
regulations, if circumstances so warrant, FRA may assert such
jurisdiction in the future.
As noted in the NPRM, FRA recently received a petition from the
Berkshire Scenic Railway Museum, Incorporated on behalf of tourist,
excursion, and scenic railroads requesting the need for legislative and
regulatory action for new regulations tailored specifically to the
tourist rail industry. Pursuant to FRA's response to that petition, FRA
has considered the suggestions made by those parties in drafting these
final regulations. There is a very wide range of operations that could
be considered tourist, excursion, or scenic railroads under the
broadest reading of the term ``railroad.'' In an effort to clarify the
proper extent of the exercise of FRA's jurisdiction, FRA recently
settled on several principles that will be used as current FRA
guidelines. FRA will exercise jurisdiction over all tourist, excursion,
and scenic railroads, whether or not they operate over the general
railroad system, except those that are (1) less than 24 inches in gage
and/or (2) insular.
To determine insularity, FRA looks at various criteria that measure
the likelihood that a railroad's operations might affect a member of
the public. FRA has concluded that a tourist, excursion, or scenic
railroad is insular if its operations are limited to a separate enclave
in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safety
of any member of the public (except a business guest, a licensee of the
tourist operation or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser) would be
affected by the operation. A railroad is not considered insular if one
or more of the following exists on its line: (a) A public highway-rail
crossing that is in use; (b) an at-grade rail crossing that is in use;
(c) a bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial
navigation; or (d) a common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its
operations are within 30 feet of those of any railroad.
Thus, the mere fact that the trackage of a railroad is not
connected to the general system does not make the railroad insular
under these criteria. While these criteria tend to sort out the insular
theme parks and museums, a need to do case-by-case analysis in certain
close situations still exists.
Therefore, FRA has concluded that the requirements contained in
this part should apply to each non-general system, non-insular
passenger railroad that confines its operations to lines that are not
part of the general system (i.e., it is a stand-alone with no freight
traffic but has one or more features that preclude its being considered
insular). FRA believes that application of these regulations to non-
insular passenger operations off the general system is warranted by the
risk to passengers associated with accidents involving heavy motor
vehicles and is consistent with FRA's ability to regulate and enforce
safety standards in a cost effective manner.
FRA recognizes that additional crossings equipped with automated
warning systems may be found on plant railroads and private freight
railroads. Maintenance, inspection, and testing of these automated
systems is the responsibility of entities not otherwise regulated by
FRA. As to plant and private freight railroads, these functions lie
outside the scope of this final rule, and state and local authorities
will retain their existing authority to administer and enforce
appropriate requirements for the protection of the public. If data
should be developed that indicates a need for uniform national
regulation of this subject matter, FRA may revisit this issue at a
future time.
Based on the above, FRA is revising Sec. 234.3 to apply to all
freight, passenger and scenic railroads which are part of the general
system of transportation. Because the present definition of ``highway-
rail grade crossing'' contained in Sec. 234.5 includes both private and
public crossings, no change is necessary to provide that this part
applies to both private and public crossings over railroads which are
subject to the rule. As a consequence, private and public crossings
over general system railroads will be covered by this part.
Additionally, this part will apply to all non-insular passenger
railroads off the general system. FRA notes that a passenger railroad
off the general system may be considered non-insular under FRA's listed
factors, but have only private grade crossings on its line of railroad.
Because of the non-insular status of the railroad, the private
crossings will be subject to this rule. However, if based on an
analysis of the listed factors which determine insularity, a tourist
operation is considered to be insular, private crossings on its line
would not be subject to this rule.
Final Rule.
This section provides that this part applies to all railroads
except a railroad that exclusively operates freight trains only on
track which is not part of the general railroad system of
transportation, rail rapid transit operations conducted over track that
is used exclusively for that purpose and that is not part of the
general railroad system of transportation, or a passenger railroad that
operates trains only on track inside an installation that is insular.
Paragraph 234.4 Preemptive Effect
FRA proposed adding this section to Part 234 to inform the public
as to FRA's views regarding the preemptive effect of these rules. While
the presence or absence of such a section does not in itself affect the
preemptive effect of this part, it informs the public concerning the
statutory provision which does govern the preemptive effect of these
rules. Section 20106 of title 49 of the United States Code, (formerly
Section 205 of the Safety Act (45 U.S.C. 434)) provides that all
regulations prescribed by the Secretary relating to railroad safety
preempt any State law, regulation, or order, covering the same subject
matter, except a provision directed at an essentially local safety
hazard that is not incompatible with a federal law, regulation, or
order and that does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.
The California Public Utilities Commission commented that the
``Federal regulations do not explain the relationship between the FRA
rules and the various state rail-highway crossing regulatory agency
rules. Federal rules which preempt state regulation should clearly
define a state regulatory agency's role.'' FRA views the terms of 49
U.S.C. 20106 as explaining such relationships. Any state regulatory
agency rules covering the same subject matter as these regulations
issued today are preempted. However, section 20106 provides that a
State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent
law, rule, regulation, or order, relating to railroad safety when
necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard,
and when not incompatible with any Federal law, rule, regulation, or
order, and when not creating an unreasonable burden on interstate
commerce.
Section 20105 of title 49 of the United States Code, (formerly
Section 206 of the Safety Act (45 U.S.C. 435)) provides a mechanism by
which a state agency can participate in the subject areas covered by
today's regulation. That section provides for state participation in
carrying out investigative and surveillance activities in connection
with federal railroad safety rules. See also FRA's state participation
regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 212.
Final Rule
This section explains that under 49 U.S.C. 20106 (formerly Section
205 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 434)),
issuance of these regulations preempts any State law, rule, regulation,
order, or standard covering the same subject matter, except a provision
directed at an essentially local safety hazard that is consistent with
this part and that does not impose an undue burden on interstate
commerce.
Section 234.5 Definitions
The NPRM contained proposals to add three definitions to those
terms already defined in the rule. Commenters generally supported the
proposed definitions contained in the NPRM. However, some parties
suggested changes to two proposed definitions, ``appropriately equipped
flagger'' and ``credible report of system malfunction''. No opposition
was expressed to the definition of ``warning system malfunction.''
``Appropriately equipped flagger.'' As proposed, the definition of
``appropriately equipped flagger'' means a person other than a train
crewmember who is equipped with an orange vest, shirt, or jacket for
daytime flagging. For nighttime flagging, similar outside garments
shall be retroreflective. The retroreflective material shall be either
orange, white (including silver-colored coatings or elements that
retroreflect white light), yellow, fluorescent red-orange, or
fluorescent yellow-orange and shall be designed to be visible at a
minimum distance of 1,000 feet. The design configuration of the
retroreflective material shall provide recognition of the wearer as a
person and shall be visible through the full range of body motions.
Acceptable hand signalling devices for daytime flagging include STOP/
SLOW paddles and red flags. For nighttime flagging, a flashlight,
lantern, or other lighted signal shall be used.
The West Virginia Department of Transportation recommended that
flaggers' clothing, devices and training conform to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (``MUTCD'') in all respects. As we
stated in the NPRM, we encourage railroads to provide equipment and
training in accordance with ``Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls
for Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility and Incident
Management Operations'' issued by the Federal Highway Administration as
part VI of the MUTCD. However, given the industry-wide cost of
equipping in full accordance with the MUTCD and training thousands of
employees, FRA is leaving to individual railroads the decision as to
the extent of training and equipping beyond the minimum requirements of
this rule.
The Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) commented that a uniformed police
officer should be considered to meet the requirements of this section.
We agree. As noted in the NPRM, FRA does not intend to impose flagging
equipment requirements on police officers, including uniformed railroad
police. Police officers are presumably trained and equipped for traffic
control functions. There is therefore no need for requiring any
additional training or equipment.
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) suggested that FRA
eliminate the requirement that flaggers carry specific signalling
equipment. APTA stated that ``it is important for flaggers to have
their hands free to stay in radio contact with the railroad, which may
not be possible if the flagger has to carry items such as paddles. In
the commuter railroad's experience, once a flagger is at a crossing,
motorists will obey the flagger regardless of the flagger's signalling
devices.'' We agree that a motorist will obey the flagger, however a
motorist must first identify a person as a flagger, and then the
motorist must be able to determine the instructions given by the
flagger. FRA believes that the proposed requirements provide the
motorist with the necessary visual clues. FRA believes that the
proposed requirements are the minimum that provide safety for both the
highway user and the flagger and thus are retained in the final rule.
Maine DOT also recommended that ``reflective'' be used to describe
materials to be worn by flaggers rather than ``retroreflective.''
Retroreflective is used in the latest version of the MUTCD. FRA will
retain use of ``retroreflective'' to maintain consistency with the
MUTCD. In addition to the minimum standards established by this
definition, FRA encourages railroads to provide flagging equipment and
training in accordance with ``Traffic Controls for Street and Highway
Construction, Maintenance, Utility and Emergency Operations'' issued by
the Federal Highway Administration as Part VI of the MUTCD.
As stated in the NPRM, persons needing to be appropriately equipped
are railroad employees other than a train crewmember, or others acting
on behalf of the railroad, who flag highway traffic at grade crossings
with malfunctioning warning systems. The requirement that persons be
appropriately equipped does not apply to train crewmembers who dismount
from a locomotive to flag the train through a crossing in an emergency
situation, or to uniformed law enforcement officers.
Final Rule
The definition of ``appropriately equipped flagger'' is adopted as
proposed.
``Credible report of system malfunction.'' As proposed, ``credible
report of system malfunction'' means specific information regarding a
malfunction at an identified highway-rail grade crossing, supplied by a
railroad employee, law enforcement officer, highway traffic official,
or an employee of a public agency acting in an official capacity.
APTA and LIRR stated that given the high frequency of commuter rail
operations, commuter railroads consider all reports of malfunction as
credible and respond accordingly. The American Trucking Associations,
Inc. (ATA) objected to the definition of ``credible report'' as too
narrow. The ATA believes that reports from individual citizens should
be given the same weight by the railroad as reports from railroad
employees and the police. FRA believes that a reporting system in which
citizens notify their local police or highway department of
malfunctions will be more efficient. Providing this initial screening
process will reduce frivolous or fraudulent notifications in which
members of the public may attempt to harass a railroad or individual
railroad employee. Additionally, as discussed below in the analysis of
Sec. 234.101, certain situations requiring repair or adjustment of the
warning system do not trigger a railroad response under Secs. 234.105
and 234.107. Although those situations, such as dirty roundels, a burnt
out bulb, a broken reflector, or a broken gate arm tip, although
important, are not the type of situations in which the railroad should
be expected to take the actions required under this rule, it is likely
that such reports would be made to the railroad. Providing an initial
screening process will better enable a railroad to quickly respond to
those situations which safety factors clearly require the speedy
response.
FRA, of course, has no objection to railroads acting on reports
from individuals and, indeed, as we stated in the preamble to the NPRM,
``we expect that railroads will, as they have traditionally done,
investigate reports of malfunctions received from the public. After
determining the accuracy of the report a railroad would then take
appropriate action in accordance with regulations.'' The rules issued
today do not prohibit a railroad from adopting internal rules that
would trigger specific responses to an individual's complaint, but
would only mandate the required responses to reports from ``official''
sources.
FRA is including within the definition of ``credible report''
information generated by an automatic reporting device. FRA has
considered this inclusion in light of possible ``scope of notice''
problems. However, after consideration, FRA is of the opinion that even
without this clarifying language, railroads would be required to
respond to such reports under the rule as proposed. Section 234.101
mandates rules requiring employees to report instances of malfunctions.
The employee responsible for monitoring such automatic devices must
report such malfunctions under section 234.101. Such reports are within
the definition of ``credible report.'' By adding ``generated by an
automatic reporting device'' to the definition, FRA will avoid any
confusion in the industry as to what is expected when automatic
reporting devices are used.
In a comment related to credible reports, the ATA further
recommended that railroads be required to post at the crossing the
railroad's name, crossing identification number, and a telephone number
for reporting malfunctions similar to the system now in place in Texas.
The railroads have cooperated in establishing such systems in three
States (Texas, Delaware and Connecticut), and FRA is finalizing a
report reviewing the results of the Texas program.
FRA agrees that establishment of a notification system is a
desirable objective. The Department's Rail-Highway Grade Crossing
Action Plan specifies that this issue will be further examined through
a special safety inquiry.
Public/private cooperation is needed to make this type of system
workable. It is important that initial notification go to a public
authority or an entity operating on behalf of the public. This
procedure helps prevent the misuse of the notification system, while
providing immediate notice to public authorities where steps should be
taken to protect highway traffic pending the railroad response. Where
citizens making reports do not note the inventory number or it is not
posted due to vandalism, knowledge of the street or highway system may
be necessary to identification of the railroad company and specific
crossing.
Railroad cooperation is important to sort out valid reports from
those that derive from misunderstanding of how devices function (as
where a switching movement is occupying the fouling circuit on an
industrial siding) and to ensure prompt response to valid reports.
Clear identification of responsibility for posting and maintaining
signage is also essential.
Although this rulemaking is not the appropriate vehicle for
resolving this issue, FRA will continue its examination of this issue
through the safety inquiry noted above, with the objective of promoting
the earliest feasible notification of warning device malfunctions.
Final Rule
The definition of ``credible report of system malfunction'' is
adopted as proposed.
``Warning system malfunction'' As proposed ``warning system
malfunction'' means an activation failure or a false activation of a
highway-rail grade crossing warning system.
No opposition was expressed to this definition.
Final Rule
The definition of ``warning system malfunction'' is adopted as
proposed.
Section 234.6(a) Civil Penalties
As proposed, this section amends the present ``civil penalty''
provision in effect for Part 234. The amendment brings this section
into conformity with 49 U.S.C. 21301 (formerly Sec. 209(a) of the
Safety Act as amended by section 9 of the Rail Safety Enforcement and
Review Act). That section amended the definition of ``person.'' The
clarified definition of ``person'' includes, but is not limited to,
such entities as manufacturers and lessors of railroad equipment and
independent contractors. Congress' purpose in amending the definition
of ``person'' was to clarify the Secretary's existing power over
entities whose activities related to rail safety by explicitly defining
that authority. See 1992 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 879.
Congress made it clear that the included list of ``persons'' subject to
the Secretary's authority was intended to be illustrative and not
exhaustive.
There were no comments pertaining to this proposed section.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.101 Employee Notification Rules
As proposed, this section requires that each railroad issue rules
requiring employees to report to a designated railroad official, by the
quickest means available, any warning system malfunction. This
provision is intended to ensure that all employees report instances of
false activations and activation failures (see definition of warning
system malfunctions) and that such reports are made to the appropriate
person. This section does not require that a railroad issue rules to
require notification of maintenance or operational problems which are
not false activations or activation failures. Examples of such
situations not covered by this section would be dirty roundels, one
bulb burnt out, a broken reflector, or a gate arm tip broken. While
employees should report such situations to the railroad, those
situations do not require a railroad response under Subpart C of this
part.
The labor/management group recommended that this provision be
modified in recognition that railroad employees frequently report
signal malfunctions to dispatchers, operators, and other railroad
personnel who would not be categorized as ``railroad officials.'' The
labor/management group thus recommended that the provision be revised
to include other persons designated by the railroad. We agree.
Broadening those persons to whom notification of malfunctions can be
made will eliminate potential confusion in implementing the
regulations. This section is being revised accordingly.
Final Rule
This section requires that each railroad issue rules requiring its
employees to report to persons designated by that railroad, by the
quickest means available, any warning system malfunction.
Section 234.103 Timely Response to Report of Malfunction
Sec. 234.103(a)
Proposed subsection (a) requires that upon receipt of a credible
report of a warning system malfunction, the railroad shall immediately
investigate the report and determine the nature of the malfunction. The
railroad then takes action as required by Sec. 234.207.
Various commenters stated that use of the term ``immediately'' is
inappropriate. New Jersey Transit states that ``[t]he requirement to
`immediately investigate' a reported warning system malfunction in (a)
adds vagueness to an otherwise adequate rule.'' The labor/management
group also recommended deletion of the ``immediate response''
requirement. They commented that ``the term `immediately' may be too
restrictive and would impose a standard which simply could not be
achieved under all circumstances.'' We agree with the commenters that
use of ``immediate'' could present compliance problems when
``immediate'' is interpreted in its dictionary meaning. Immediately is
commonly defined as ``without lapse of time; without delay; instantly;
at once.'' We agree with the labor/management group that a more
appropriate standard is provided by requiring a ``prompt'' response,
which, while not requiring a virtually impossible instantaneous
response, will establish a standard that a railroad must respond
quickly to a credible report of malfunction. The final rule is revised
accordingly.
Final Rule
Subsection 234.103(a) requires that upon receipt of a credible
report of a warning system malfunction, a railroad having maintenance
responsibility for the warning system shall promptly investigate a
credible report of malfunction. Based upon the results of that
investigation, and in accordance with Sec. 234.207, the railroad is
required to adjust, repair, or replace any faulty component without
undue delay.
Sec. 234.103(b)
As proposed, Sec. 234.103(b) requires that, until repair or
correction of the warning system is completed, the railroad shall
provide alternative means of warning highway traffic and railroad
employees in accordance with this subpart.
There were no comments on subsection (b).
Final Rule
Because acceptable alternative means of protecting the travelling
public and railroad employees are described in Secs. 234.105 and
234.107, this section is being revised to specifically reference those
sections.
Sec. 234.103(c)
As proposed, subsection (c) provides that nothing in this subpart
requires repair or correction of a warning system, if, acting in
accordance with applicable State law, the railroad proceeds to
discontinue or dismantle the warning system, provided such warning
system not be left in place unless the railroad complies with this
subpart.
This subsection makes clear that nothing in these regulations
forces a railroad to continually repair a warning system that, under
State law, may be retired. However, a railroad must still comply with
this part during retirement proceedings. This subsection also requires
that even if a warning system has been retired under State law, until
that system is physically removed, the railroad must comply with this
part. This requirement will ensure that if a highway user sees a
warning system at a crossing, he or she can rely on it to be a properly
functioning system.
There were no comments on this subsection.
Final Rule
Subsection 234.103(c) is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.105 Activation Failure
Commenters raised a number of issues relating to this section. The
labor/management group recommended that this section be modified by
establishing a requirement for ``prompt,'' rather than ``immediate,''
action in response to a credible report of warning system malfunction.
For the same reasons as stated in the discussion regarding
Sec. 234.103, FRA is substituting ``promptly'' for ``immediately'' in
the final rule. As in Sec. 234.103, FRA believes this will establish a
standard that a railroad must initiate the required warning efforts
quickly and without undue delay.
The labor/management group suggested replacing the reference to
``motorist'' with ``highway user'' inasmuch as highway traffic is not
limited to motorists. FRA agrees, and has changed the rule accordingly.
The labor/management group also recommended that the phrase ``at a
minimum'' be eliminated from this section and Sec. 234.107. The group
believed that the phrase is unnecessary and that it could be
misinterpreted as implying that additional action could be necessary in
response to a report of a malfunction. As stated in the discussion of
Sec. 234.1, FRA intends that the rule issued today specifies the
minimum actions a railroad must take in certain circumstances. Section
234.1 has been revised to make clear that this part does not restrict a
railroad from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent
requirements not inconsistent with this part. Thus, given the revision
to Sec. 234.1, references in Sec. 234.105 and 234.107 to minimum
actions to be taken by a railroad have been deleted as unnecessarily
repetitive.
The labor/management group also noted that manual operation of
defective warning devices was not addressed in the NPRM and suggested
that such operation should be considered to be an ``alternative means''
of giving warning, with the result that a train could proceed through
the crossing at normal speed. FRA agrees that if a warning system is
manually activated, a train can proceed through the crossing at normal
speed.
Sec. 234.105(b)
FRA received a number of comments pertaining to the proposed
requirement of Sec. 234.105(b) that ``the highway traffic control
authority having jurisdiction over the crossing'' be notified of the
crossing system malfunction. The Southern Pacific Transportation
Company and related railroads recommended deletion of this requirement
because it ``would be very difficult for the railroads to determine who
to call, and to maintain such a database.'' The railroad further stated
that ``it is not likely that highway traffic authority will respond due
to their own shortages of staff, and even if they do respond, they may
be unable to properly staff the crossing * * * .'' West Virginia
Department of Transportation (WVDOT) commented that notifying the
highway traffic authority would only be appropriate during normal
business hours. WVDOT suggested that it would be better to notify the
appropriate law enforcement agency. We fully agree. FRA always intended
that notification be given to the public agency charged with traffic
enforcement on the road, whether that be the local police, sheriff's
department or state police. FRA's use of the term ``highway traffic
authority'' was misleading and FRA is therefore replacing that term
with ``law enforcement agency.'' The LIRR, which presently uses its own
railroad police extensively in situations of grade crossing warning
malfunctions, notifies the local police only when its own uniformed
police are unable to respond or due to high volume of traffic flow at
the crossing. FRA considers notification of railroad police who are
capable of responding and controlling vehicular traffic to be
equivalent to notification of the appropriate ``law enforcement
agency.'' The final rule is being modified accordingly.
Sec. 234.105(c)
In response to a commenter's suggestion, this subsection is
rearranged to be consistent with the arrangement of Sec. 234.107(c).
Both subsections begin with the flagging requirements which permit
train operations at normal speed. The subsections then address those
situations which are progressively more restrictive on train
operations. References in the following discussion are to the
subsection numbers as proposed. The revised section number as it
appears in the final rule follows in parentheses.
As proposed, subsection 105(c) requires that upon receipt of a
credible report of malfunction, a railroad must provide or arrange for
alternative means of actively warning motorists of approaching trains,
consistent with requirements detailed in paragraphs (1) through (4).
FRA is deleting the phrase ``or arrange for'' in the first sentence of
this subsection. A railroad may provide for alternative means of
warning highway users by providing its own flaggers, or it may contract
with another entity to provide that warning. FRA is deleting the above
phrase to avoid the impression that merely arranging for such
activities is an adequate response. A railroad's responsibilities under
this provision are fulfilled only when the alternative means of warning
highway users is actually provided.
Paragraph 105(c)(1) (final rule--105(c)(3)) generated many
comments. As proposed, it requires a train to stop before entering a
crossing until an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement
officer was stationed at the crossing. The proposal further requires
that once the train was stopped, a crewmember must dismount to flag
highway traffic to a stop. When safe to do so, the locomotive would
proceed through the crossing, with the crewmember then reboarding.
The LIRR noted that the proposed regulation does not cover the
situation of trains being operated by one person. The LIRR stated ``it
would not be in the best interest of our customers if the engine could
not be moved until an appropriately equipped person arrived.'' The
labor/management group also commented that in unusual situations there
may be occasions where a train has only the engineer available to flag
traffic: ``In those cases, we believe that under Sec. 234.105, the
train would be permitted to proceed through the crossing after the
train was stopped and it was determined that it was safe to do so.''
That interpretation is incorrect. FRA notes that nothing in the
proposed language of Sec. 234.105(c)(1) permits a locomotive to proceed
through the crossing without being flagged through that crossing by
someone on the ground, nor does the labor/management group provide any
basis for their contrary conclusion.
In addressing the issue raised by these commenters, we are faced
with balancing the railroads' and commuters' needs for timeliness with
the safety needs of the motoring public. Requiring commuter trains to
remain stopped until a flagger or law enforcement officer arrives will
undoubtedly inconvenience the commuting public. Similarly, freight
trains and intercity passenger trains will be inconvenienced, although
on a smaller scale. We note however, that the requirement to flag a
crossing during periods of malfunction, while not universal, is not
new. Rule 138(c) of the Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee
(NORAC) requires that if ``crossing protection devices are not
functioning properly * * * trains must approach the crossing(s)
prepared to stop and not proceed until protection against highway
traffic is provided by on-ground personnel.'' The Northeast Illinois
Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (METRA), a commuter railroad
carrying 240,000 commuters daily, requires that in situations of
activation failure, ``trains must be advised to STOP and flag the
crossing on both sides until the entire movement has cleared the
crossing.''
After consideration of the comments and implications for both
safety and railroads' on-time performance, FRA is not revising the rule
to provide an exception for trains operated by one person. Permitting a
train to stop and then proceed through a crossing without a flagger and
without properly functioning automatic gates and lights sends a
confusing and potentially tragic message to a highway user. The highway
user, seeing the train stop, may be encouraged to cross in front of the
train thinking that he or she has the right of way.
FRA believes the effect on railroads such as the LIRR will be
minimal. As noted elsewhere in this discussion, FRA is revising section
105(c) to permit trains to proceed at normal speed through crossings
when one uniformed law enforcement officer is present, rather than one
officer for each direction of highway traffic. Due to this change,
railroad or local police will be better able to respond to crossing
malfunctions, even in cases of multiple crossings malfunctioning. The
presence of one flagger will avoid the necessity of trains coming to a
stop, and the presence of a uniformed police officer will permit normal
speed operations through the crossing.
The labor/management group proposed adding a provision to this
section which would provide that after a train is stopped at a
crossing, if a member of the train crew determines that the warning
devices are in fact operating properly, a crewmember will not be
required to dismount to flag highway traffic. The group proposes that
the locomotive may then proceed through the crossing and normal speed
resumed after the locomotive has passed through the crossing. FRA takes
no exception to this procedure, although an additional regulatory
provision is not needed. If a train crew, after being notified of
activation failure, finds instead that the warning system is indeed
properly providing warning, the train may pass through the crossing
without flagging because, in essence, the malfunction, if one then
exists, is a false activation. It is difficult to determine whether the
situation at the crossing was in fact a false activation, since the
crew does not know if the system was incorrectly warning of oncoming
trains when no trains were approaching, the reality is that the warning
system is in fact providing warning to the highway user. Flagging in
that situation is not needed since the malfunction is not one of
activation failure, but instead is, at most, one of false activation.
Section 105(c)(1) (final rule--105(c)(3)) is also being revised to
permit a train to resume normal speed after the flagging crewmember
reboards the locomotive. This change will correct an earlier drafting
oversight and will bring this section into conformity with both the
remainder of this section and Sec. 234.107.
Section 234.105(c)(2) (Final Rule--234.105(c)(1))
Paragraph 105(c)(2) (final rule--105(c)(1)) as proposed requires
that if an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement officer
provides warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may
proceed through the crossing at normal speed.
The LIRR objected to the requirement that there be a flagger or law
enforcement officer flagging both directions of traffic before a train
could proceed through the crossing at normal speed. LIRR presently uses
uniformed railroad police to flag crossings during malfunctions. Under
present LIRR policy, one uniformed police officer controls both
directions of highway traffic at crossings with malfunctioning warning
systems. Based on its experience and the effect it would have on its
police operations, the LIRR strenuously objects to requiring a flagger
for each direction of highway traffic. LIRR claims that it would result
in unnecessary delays to LIRR's commuter trains, which operate at up to
2-minute headways, each carrying up to 1300 passengers. The railroad
also stated that requiring two police officers to flag a crossing would
have a significant impact on LIRR police operations by effectively
requiring two-officer patrols instead of the present patrols using one
officer.
FRA made no distinction in the NPRM between flaggers and law
enforcement officers and their ability to safely control and direct
vehicular traffic. Thus, under the NPRM, a train could proceed through
a crossing with a malfunctioning warning system only if an
appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement officer provides
warning for each direction of highway traffic. Based on the comments
received, FRA has reconsidered and determined that due to a police
officer's traffic control training, the officer's ability to call for
assistance if needed, and the motoring public's higher level of
responsiveness to a uniformed officer, the presence of one uniformed
law enforcement officer at a crossing will enable trains to pass
through the crossing at normal speed. This section is being revised
accordingly.
Maine DOT recommended that speeds be limited in all cases of
activation failure. It recommended a 20 mile per hour limit in those
cases where a flagger is present for each direction of highway traffic.
Such a limit would, according to Maine DOT ``allow more stopping time
for highway users, thereby simplifying the flaggers job and enhancing
overall safety at the crossing.'' We continue to believe that the
presence of a uniformed law enforcement officer or the appropriate
number of flaggers can effectively warn highway traffic of oncoming
trains. We are therefore not revising section 105(c)(2) (final rule--
105(c)(1)) regarding train speed.
Section 234.105(c)(3) (Final Rule--234.105(c)(2))
Paragraph 105(c)(3) as proposed, provides that trains may proceed
with caution through the crossing at a speed not exceeding 10 miles per
hour if an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement officer
provides warning for highway traffic, but there is not at least one
flagger of law enforcement officer providing warning for each direction
of highway traffic. After the locomotive has passed through the
crossing, normal speed may be resumed.
This paragraph is being revised to omit references to law
enforcement officers, inasmuch as paragraph 105(c)(1) of the final rule
now provides that the presence of one law enforcement officer will
permit normal speeds through the crossing.
LIRR expressed concern regarding the maximum speed at which a train
would be permitted to proceed through a crossing under this paragraph.
The representative of the LIRR testified that LIRR's ``operating speed
under restricted speed, * * * is a speed not exceeding 15 miles an
hour, at which a train can be stopped within one half division of range
short of the next signal, an obstruction, switch properly aligned,
looking out for broken rail or crossing protection not functioning. We
think that the restricted speed meets the criteria safely for moving
trains over grade crossings.'' The LIRR emphasized the increased
disruption to commuter traffic resulting from the 10 miles per hour
limit compared to a limit of 15 miles per hour. APTA also opposed the
10 miles per hour limit, as did the labor/management group and the
Southern Pacific. Other views included those of New Jersey Transit
which was in favor of requiring movement at ``restricted speed'' rather
than 10 miles per hour.
FRA rejected the use of ``restricted speed'' in the NPRM because it
does not have the same meaning throughout the industry. ``Restricted
speed'' has different meanings on different railroads, different speed
limits ranging from 10 mph to 20 mph and its meaning can be changed
unilaterally by a railroad. Reliance on the requirement that the train
be able to ``stop within one-half the range of vision'' (a common
element of the definition of ``restricted speed'') may be appropriate
in a wholly railroad context in which the concern is to avoid other
trains and equipment and personnel on the tracks in front of the
locomotive. The requirement that a locomotive be able to stop within
one-half the range of vision is virtually useless when an object can
instantaneously move from off the right-of-way onto the tracks well
within that range of vision limitation.
FRA will retain a specific and clearly understood speed limit for
these situations. FRA has reconsidered its proposal and is revising
this subsection to provide a 15 miles per hour speed limit. We repeat
that the requirements of these sections are only minimum requirements.
Under certain conditions, such as severe weather, sharp curves, or high
speed vehicular traffic, a railroad may wish to impose a slower speed
during times of activation failure.
Final Rule
This section requires that upon receiving a credible report of an
activation failure, a railroad having maintenance responsibility for
the warning system shall immediately initiate efforts to warn highway
users and railroad employees at the subject crossing by taking certain
actions. Paragraph (a) provides that, prior to any train's arrival at
the crossing, the railroad must notify the train crew of the report of
activation failure and notify any other railroads operating over the
crossing. Paragraph (b) requires that the railroad notify the law
enforcement authority having jurisdiction over the crossing, and
paragraph (c) requires the railroad to provide or arrange for
alternative means of actively warning highway users of approaching
trains.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) provides that, if an appropriately equipped
flagger provides warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains
may proceed through the crossing at normal speed. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
provides that, if at least one law enforcement officer (including a
railroad police officer) provides warning to highway traffic at the
crossing, trains may proceed through the crossing at normal speed.
Paragraph (c)(2) provides that, if an appropriately equipped
flagger provides warning for highway traffic, but there is not at least
one flagger providing warning for each direction of highway traffic,
trains may proceed with caution through the crossing at a speed not
exceeding 15 miles per hour. Normal speed may be resumed after the
locomotive has passed through the crossing.
Paragraph (c)(3) provides that, until an appropriately equipped
flagger or law enforcement officer is stationed at the crossing to warn
highway traffic of approaching trains, each train must stop before
entering the crossing to permit a crewmember to dismount to flag
highway traffic to a stop. The locomotive may then proceed through the
crossing and the flagging crewmember may reboard the locomotive before
the remainder of the train proceeds through the crossing. Normal speed
may be resumed after the crewmember reboards the train.
Paragraph (c)(4) has been redesignated Sec. 234.105(d). The body of
this paragraph remains unchanged. This paragraph requires that a
locomotive's audible warning device be activated in accordance with
railroad rules. This provision addresses those instances in which a
``whistle ban'' may be in effect in a local jurisdiction. While there
may be disagreement as to the effect on safety of whistle bans, there
can be little doubt that a ban on sounding a train whistle or horn
should be lifted when a grade crossing warning system is
malfunctioning. In addressing whistle bans in this limited situation,
FRA does not wish to give the impression it approves of or encourages
whistle bans in other situations. FRA is opposed to local restrictions
on the use of train whistles. See FRA Emergency Order No. 15, 56 FR
36190, July 31, 1991.
Section 234.107 False Activation
Inasmuch as the proposed requirements of this section were in many
ways similar to the requirements of Sec. 234.105, comments, our
responses and reasons for them, are consistent with that section.
Final Rule
This section requires a railroad to take the same initial actions
as it would take in cases of activation failure. Upon receiving a
credible report of a false activation, a railroad having maintenance
responsibility for the warning system shall promptly initiate efforts
to warn highway users and railroad employees at the subject crossing by
taking certain actions.
Paragraph (a) provides that prior to any train's arrival at the
crossing, the railroad must notify the train crew of the report of
activation failure and notify any other railroads operating over the
crossing. Paragraph (b) requires that the railroad notify the law
enforcement authority having jurisdiction over the crossing, and
paragraph (c) requires the railroad to provide for alternative means of
actively warning highway users of approaching trains. Paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) provide for the alternative means of warning highway users.
Subparagraph (c)(1) as proposed in the NPRM has been divided into two
parts to distinguish between the requirement that there be an
appropriately equipped flagger for each direction of highway traffic
while flagging by one uniformed police officer is sufficient even
though there is more than one direction of highway traffic. Paragraph
(c)(1)(A) provides that, if an appropriately equipped flagger is
stationed at the crossing providing warning for each direction of
highway traffic, trains may proceed through the crossing at normal
speed. Paragraph (c)(1)(B) provides that, if at least one uniformed law
enforcement officer (including a uniformed railroad police officer)
provides warning to highway traffic at the crossing, trains may proceed
through the crossing at normal speed.
Paragraph (c)(2) provides that, if there is not an appropriately
equipped flagger providing warning for each direction of highway
traffic, or if there is not at least one uniformed law enforcement
officer providing warning, trains with the locomotive or cab car
leading, may proceed with caution through the crossing at a speed not
exceeding 15 miles per hour. Normal speed may be resumed after the
locomotive has passed through the crossing. In the case of a shoving
move, a crewmember shall be on the ground to flag the train through the
crossing. This section has been expanded from that proposed in order to
eliminate any possible confusion. Although we believe it was clear that
this section as proposed only applied to trains with a locomotive or
cab car at the leading end, the section has been revised to be more
specific. Additionally, in the event of a shoving move, the rule has
been expanded to require that a crewmember be on the ground to flag the
train through the crossing. This requirement is similar to requirements
in both NORAC and the General Code of Operating Rules pertaining to
malfunctioning warning systems.
Paragraph (c)(3) of this section provides the railroad an option of
temporarily taking the warning system out of service until repairs are
completed. However, the warning system may only be taken out of service
if the railroad complies with the protection requirements for
activation failures. From a highway traffic control and warning system
credibility perspective, it would be preferable for a railroad with few
trains traversing the crossing to take a falsely activated warning
system out of service. The railroad would then comply with the
activation failure provisions of Sec. 234.105 rather than Sec. 234.107.
Paragraph (d) provides that a locomotive's audible warning device
shall be activated in accordance with railroad rules regarding the
approach to a grade crossing, regardless of any State laws or
ordinances to the contrary.
Section 234.109 Recordkeeping
The labor/management group recommended that this section be revised
to clarify that the recordkeeping provisions apply only to ``credible''
reports of warning system malfunctions. We agree and have modified the
section accordingly.
Both APTA and the LIRR claimed that the recordkeeping requirements
of this section are redundant since under Sec. 234.9 railroads must
file Form F 6180.83 which includes information pertaining to the time
and date of the reported malfunction, actions taken and the time and
date of the repair. FRA notes that in an attempt to minimize paperwork
burdens on the railroads, proposed Sec. 234.109 did not require filing
of reports. It requires only that a railroad maintain records
pertaining to compliance--records which we believe most railroads would
keep for their internal purposes in any event. All that is required by
this section is that a railroad have the required information available
for inspection. It is acceptable for that information to be contained
in a data base a railroad maintains in order to comply with
Sec. 234.9's reporting requirements.
FRA notes that the requirements of Sec. 234.9(b), which required
reports for each false activation, expired on April 1, 1994. Those
reports, which comprised the vast majority of reports required under
Sec. 234.9, will thus no longer be required.
Section 234.9(b) requires that records referred to in Sec. 234.9(a)
be retained for one year. Because various records required by
Sec. 234.9(b) will in some cases be made on different days, the
retention period is one year from the latest date of railroad activity
in response to a credible report of malfunction. That date would
typically be the date of repair of the warning system.
The labor/management group suggested that it be made clear that
keeping records by electronic means is acceptable. FRA agrees, and has
revised paragraph (a) of this section accordingly.
Final Rule
Paragraph (a) of this section requires each railroad to keep
records pertaining to compliance with this subpart. Records may be kept
on forms provided by the railroad or by electronic means. Each railroad
is required to keep the following information for each credible report
of warning system malfunction: location of crossing (by highway name
and DOT/AAR Crossing Inventory Number); time and date of receipt by
railroad of report of malfunction; actions taken by railroad prior to
repair and reactivation of repaired system; and time and date of
repair.
Paragraph (b) requires that each railroad retain for at least one
year (from the latest date of railroad activity in response to a
credible report of malfunction) all records referred to in paragraph
(a) of this section. Records required to be kept shall be made
available to FRA as provided by 49 U.S.C. 20107 (formerly section 208
of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 437)).
Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing Maintenance
Standards
Section 234.201 Location of Plans
The proposed rule requires that plans and other information
required for the proper maintenance and testing of highway-rail grade
crossing warning systems, be available for use at each warning system
location.
The labor/management group and New Jersey Transit commented that
the phrase ``and other information'' should be eliminated from the
rule. Labor/management group was concerned that ``other information''
has not been defined by FRA and could include such things as
manufacturers' manuals for various types of warning system equipment.
The parties note that 49 CFR 236.1, the equivalent requirement
pertaining to signal and train control systems, does not contain such a
requirement. While complete consistency between the two sets of
regulations is not necessarily appropriate in every case, in this
instance we agree that the phrase ``and other information'' is vague
and unnecessary. It has been deleted from the final rule.
Final Rule
The final rule requires that plans required for the proper
maintenance and testing of highway-rail grade crossing warning systems
be available for use at each warning system location. Plans shall be
legible and correct to protect against errors in circuitry connections.
Section 234.203 Control Circuits
The proposed rule requires that all control circuits that affect
the safe operation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system be
designed on the closed circuit principle. This requirement was intended
to ensure that failure of any part or component of the circuit will
cause the warning system to activate (fail-safe principle). Interested
parties commented that not all elements of control circuits for all
warning systems can be designed on the closed circuit principle. The
labor/management group also expressed concern that the proposed rule is
a design standard and could conflict with the language in the MUTCD.
The final rule is changed to reflect a performance standard versus
a design standard.
Final Rule
The final rule requires that all control circuits that affect the
safe operation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall
operate on the fail-safe principle.
Section 234.205 Operating Characteristics of Warning System Apparatus
The proposed rule requires that operating characteristics of
electromagnetic, electronic, or electrical apparatus of each crossing
warning system be maintained in accordance with the limits within which
it is designed to operate. The labor/management group supports the
proposed rule. There were no other specific comments on the proposal.
In order to comply with this section, each carrier should have
specifications available which set forth the pick-up values, release
values, working values, and condemning limits of these values for all
electromagnetic, electronic, or electrical devices used in highway-rail
grade crossing warning systems.
Final Rule
The final rule is adopted as proposed. It requires that operating
characteristics of electromagnetic, electronic, or electrical apparatus
of each highway-rail crossing warning system shall be maintained in
accordance with the limits within which the system is designed to
operate.
Section 234.207 Adjustment, Repair, or Replacement of Component
Paragraph (a) of the proposal requires that when any essential
component of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system fails to
perform its intended function, the cause shall be determined and the
faulty component shall be adjusted, repaired, or replaced without undue
delay. Commenters expressed differing views on this provision. NJ
Transit found the language consistent with FRA's signal and train
control rules and stated that ``it seems adequately defined and
workable.'' The labor/management group also supported the rule as
proposed. The Southern Pacific recommended that the rule be clarified
to make clear that it does not, in every case, require that repairs be
made before the next train movement. Paragraph (b) of the proposal
which requires appropriate action under Sec. 234.105 or Sec. 234.107,
is written on the assumption that at least in some situations a train
will arrive at the crossing before repairs are completed.
The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) concurred with use of the
term ``without undue delay'' when concerning the ``total time it takes
to make such repairs.'' However, the ICC stated that the rule should
more specifically address the amount of time it takes railroad signal
personnel to begin on-site repairs after receipt of a credible false
activation report. ICC recommended that the time limit for response be
set at two hours. Similarly, Washington Public Utilities Commission
viewed the phrase ``undue delay'' as too general or open ended.
As was stated in the NPRM, ``[i]t is of paramount importance that
remedial action begin as soon as possible after a credible report of a
malfunction is received by a railroad. In general, adjustment, repair,
or replacement without undue delay will require that remedial action be
taken in as timely a manner as possible. Successful, practical
application of these general principles may be the objective of this
regulatory proceeding that is most crucial to the safety of the
motoring public; and the safety of employees and rail operations is
also implicated.'' Because of the great variety of factors involved
with malfunctioning warning systems, including the location of the
crossing, frequency of train movements, type of corrective action
needed, availability of personnel, and other competing emergency
situations we are unwilling at this time to establish specific time
limits for actions. FRA continues to believe that the requirements of
this section, taken together with the alternative protective measures
required under Secs. 234.105 and 234.107 will provide the needed
measure of safety.
Final Rule
Paragraph (a) of this section requires that when any essential
component of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system fails to
perform its intended function, the cause shall be determined and the
faulty component shall be adjusted, repaired, or replaced without undue
delay. Paragraph (b) requires until repair of an essential component is
completed, a railroad shall take appropriate action under Sec. 234.105
or Sec. 234.107.
Section 234.209 Interference With Normal Functioning of System
The proposed rule requires that the normal functioning of any
system shall not be interfered with in testing or otherwise without
first taking measures to provide for safety of highway traffic that
depends on normal functioning of such system.
FRA requested that interested parties discuss the safety effect on
warning systems caused by railroad equipment standing or being switched
within the system's approach circuit where the warning system is not
designed to accommodate those activities. FRA stated, ``[t]here have
been instances of such cars and locomotives activating the warning
system for an extended length of time when there is no danger in
crossing the tracks, raising the issue of credibility at that crossing.
If there are multiple tracks at the crossing, a warning system
activated for a period of time due to standing equipment may
effectively entice a highway user to cross the tracks, when in fact a
train may be approaching on the other track. This situation may be
exacerbated by reduced visibility of the approaching train due to the
standing equipment.''
The ATA suggested that the rule be revised to prohibit railroad
equipment from being left standing or switched at a crossing in a
manner that interferes with the normal functioning of the warning
system. Maine DOT noted that warning system activations due to
switching activity and standing equipment within crossing circuitry can
be alleviated by installation of motion sensing devices. The labor/
management group concurred in the rule as proposed and noted that most
railroads have established procedures to be followed when testing or
other work is performed near grade crossings. The group also notes that
it would be ``inappropriate'' to allow excessive or continuous
operation of warning devices while such work is being performed. In
response to FRA's question regarding the effect of switching operations
and equipment standing near crossings, the group recognized that the
issues presented are important but believe a ``separate examination of
the engineering and operating issues involved'' to be more appropriate
to determine if agency action is warranted. The group stated that ``as
FRA is aware, railroads cannot operate without conducting switching
operations in the approaches of highway-rail crossings. This is a
normal part of railroad operations and there is no available technology
which would completely eliminate the warning system activations which
result from these operations.''
FRA recognizes that normal switching operations will activate
warning systems in many locations. We agree that there is no realistic
means to prevent this from occurring at all locations. However,
standing equipment which is not involved in switching activities can be
prevented from activating warning systems. A warning system can be
designed to accommodate trains, locomotives or other railroad equipment
standing within the system's approach circuit. Motion detectors, time-
out circuits, and similar technology can accommodate a railroad's
operational needs while retaining a credible, functioning warning
system at a nearby crossing. If such technology is not in place, a
railroad must take measures to prevent activation of the nearby warning
system. Many railroads presently have operating rules prohibiting just
such a result. Rule 103(D) of the General Code of Operating Rules
provides that ``automatic crossing signals must not be actuated
unnecessarily by open switch or permitting equipment to stand within
the controlling circuit.'' Similarly, NORAC Rule 138(b) provides that
to ``* * * avoid unnecessary operation of automatic highway crossing
protection * * * [E]ngines or cars must not be allowed to stand longer
than necessary.''
FRA is therefore revising this section to provide that interference
with normal functioning of the warning system includes trains,
locomotives or other railroad equipment standing within the system's
approach circuit where the warning system is not designed to
accommodate those activities. Normal train movements or switching
operations are not considered to be interference with the warning
system operations. This revision is directed to situations such as when
a car or other rail equipment is set out on an approach circuit thereby
activating the warning system. If the warning system at that crossing
is equipped with a time-out circuit, cut-out circuit, motion detector,
or motion sensor, the system will deactivate, permitting traffic to
proceed through the crossing. This provision affects operations at
those crossings not so equipped. Standing railroad equipment not
involved in active switching will not be allowed to keep a warning
system activated.
Maine DOT suggested that FRA consider requiring track gangs
performing maintenance activities within crossing circuitry to
disconnect the warning system when working. Many crossings are equipped
with cut-out switches which enable a worker to disable the automatic
warning system in such a situation. FRA supports the use of these
devices provided they are utilized under appropriately rigorous
controls established by the railroad. Other than use of such cut-out
circuits designed to enable a worker to safely disable a warning
system, FRA is strongly opposed to allowing railroad employees
unfamiliar with warning system circuitry to actually adjust and modify
operation of the warning system. Allowing unqualified employees to
modify the circuitry would jeopardize the safety of both employees and
the travelling public.
Final Rule
The rule requires that the normal functioning of any system shall
not be interfered with in testing or otherwise without first taking
measures to provide for the safety of highway traffic. Interference
includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Trains, locomotives or other railroad equipment standing within
the system's approach circuit, other than normal switching operations,
where the warning system is not designed to accommodate those
activities; and
(2) Not providing alternative methods of maintaining safety for the
highway user while testing or performing work on the warning systems or
on track and other railroad systems or structures which may affect the
integrity of the warning system.
The intent of the rule is to ensure that railroads provide
alternative methods of maintaining safety whenever the normal
functioning of a warning system is interfered with. Those situations
include testing or performing other work on the warning systems or on
track and other railroad systems or structures which may affect the
integrity of the warning system. As stated in the NPRM, ``in some
circumstances, nearby track work could activate a crossing warning
system. FRA does not believe that `taking measures to provide for the
safety of highway traffic' in this context includes chaining a gate in
the `up' position while allowing warning lights to continue.''
Section 234.211 Locking of Warning System Apparatus
This section as proposed provides that highway-rail grade crossing
warning system apparatus shall be secured against unauthorized entry.
The rule provides the carrier with discretion as to the specific manner
in which the warning system housings are secured. The rule requires
that all external housings of warning system apparatus be kept locked
or sealed. This includes warning system houses, flashing light signals,
gate mechanisms, and bell or stationary audible warning system
housings.
The labor/management group supports this section as proposed. There
were no other specific comments.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.213 Grounds
This section as proposed requires that each circuit that affects
the proper functioning of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system
be kept free of any ground or combination of grounds which will permit
a flow of current equal to or in excess of 75 percent of the release
value of any relay or electromagnetic device in the circuit. This
requirement does not apply to circuits that include track rail,
alternating current power distribution circuits that are grounded in
the interest of safety, and any common return wires of grounded common
return single break circuits.
The labor/management group supports this section as proposed. There
were no other specific comments.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.215 Standby Power System
The proposed rule requires that if alternating current power is
used as the primary source of power, a standby battery must be
provided. The proposal also requires that an indicator or alarm be used
to indicate when the alternating current power is off. The proposal
also requires that the battery be designed and maintained to provide at
least 48 hours of normal operations of the crossing warning device when
primary battery-charging current is removed.
In drafting the proposed rule, FRA was addressing the most common
type of crossing installation in the nation--a battery-operated system
in which the batteries are constantly being recharged by alternating
current from a commercial or private source. In these systems, if the
supply of alternating current is interrupted, the batteries continue to
operate the system. If alternating current is restored before the
batteries are discharged there is no interruption in operation. However
if alternating current is not restored in time to recharge the
batteries before they are fully discharged, warning system operations
will be interrupted. FRA recognizes that systems other than the typical
system addressed in the proposed section are in operation or may be in
the development stage. We do not want these rules to hinder development
of possible alternative equipment and systems.
Various commenters, including the labor/management group,
Consolidated Rail Corporation, LIRR, NJ Transit, and APTA, opposed all
or part of the proposal. The Maine Department of Transportation and the
New York State Department of Transportation supported the 48-hour
battery capacity provision. Labor/management commented that it would be
difficult and very expensive (approximately $180 million) to meet the
proposed requirements for battery capacity. Commenters stated that the
indicator light or alarm requirement would be difficult and expensive
to implement and maintain because of the number of locations that would
require installation (as many as 50,000) and the high probability of
vandalism to such installations. After reviewing the comments, FRA has
deleted the power-off indicator requirement.
FRA recognizes that different crossings have different back-up
power needs. A crossing tied into commercial power in a large
metropolitan area does not necessarily need 48 hour back-up power. If
power were to fail in that area, the failure would likely be for a
relatively short period of time. This contrasts to crossings in rural
areas where, if there is a power failure, discovery of the failure
itself may take a relatively long time. FRA is therefore revising the
rule in recognition of the variety of crossing situations. Availability
of automatic notification of warning system problems is also a factor.
For instance, by linking warning devices to a digital data network,
information concerning primary power status and the unit's operational
status can be almost instantaneously communicated to a railroad control
center. FRA wishes to provide flexibility for railroads and their
suppliers to develop and deploy cost effective technology that can
provide advances in both safety and efficiency. Given those facts and
the industry's testimony about the capabilities of the back-up power
devices being employed, FRA has shifted to a straight-forward
performance standard: FRA will require that a standby source of power
be provided to ensure the highway-rail grade crossing warning system
continues to function normally if there is an interruption in primary
power. We will not require that a specific type of back-up power be
available, nor will we establish a minimum period for standby capacity.
Those decisions will be left up to the railroads or the authorities
installing new systems. Also left to a railroad or the installing
authority is installation of a conventional power-off indicator or
indicators based on new or developing technologies. While installation
of these devices is optional, railroads remain responsible for ensuring
that warning systems remain operational.
FRA continues to stress that it is vital for a warning system to be
equipped with a standby source of power to continue providing warning
to the highway user in cases of primary power loss. FRA will vigorously
enforce this provision. If investigation or testing reveals that there
is no standby power at a crossing sufficient to enable the system to
continue functioning normally, FRA will take appropriate enforcement
action. Similarly, if a power interruption results in use of the
standby power source to such an extent that power is depleted and the
warning system is not operating normally, FRA will take appropriate
enforcement action under this section. If primary or standby power is
not available for any reason, FRA expects a railroad to provide
portable power or provide warning for highway users in accordance with
Secs. 234.105 or 234.107.
Final Rule
This section requires that a standby source of power be provided of
sufficient capacity to operate the warning system during any period of
primary power interruption.
Section 234.217 Flashing Light Units
The proposed rule requires that each flashing light unit be
positioned and aligned in accordance with installation plans. Several
commenters, including the labor/management group, remarked that
installation plans typically do not include detailed specifications for
the alignment of light units. Labor/management group recommended that
the rule be amended to require that light units be ``properly''
positioned and aligned. It is not practical to require a specific
distance for the alignment of each flashing light unit because of
varying conditions (i.e., road curvature, fixed obstructions,
intersections, etc.) at each crossing. Maintainers have been ensuring
proper positioning of lights for many years without the benefit of
alignment specifications. While a standard based on ``properly
positioned and aligned'' is somewhat vague, FRA is adopting the
recommended language rule by requiring that each flashing light unit be
``properly'' positioned and aligned. Compliance and enforcement of this
section will be based on the good judgment of both maintainers and
inspectors. The requirement that the light be visible to a highway user
approaching the crossing has been added to this section. This basic
requirement is being added to this section in lieu of the focusing
requirement contained in the NPRM's proposed Sec. 234.253.
The proposed rule also requires that each flashing light unit be
maintained to prevent dust and moisture from entering the interior of
the unit. FRA has revised this section to require that reflectors, as
well as roundels, be clean and in good condition. The Wisconsin Central
Railroad commented that it is impossible to keep dust out of roundels
because each light unit is vented. We agree; however, while it may be
impossible to keep all dust out of roundels, excessive dust will not be
a problem if the roundels and reflectors are cleaned periodically.
Additionally, the proposed rule requires light units to flash
alternately at a rate of 35 to 55 times per minute. The labor/
management group commented that the flashing rate is adequately
addressed in the MUTCD. It further commented that proper maintenance of
the equipment which controls the flash rate is covered appropriately
under other sections, including 234.205. The Association of American
Railroads Signal Manual, published in 1991 recommends a flash rate of
45 to 65 times per minute for solid state flashers rather than the 35
to 55 times per minute as required by the MUTCD. FRA does not perceive
a safety advantage of one standard over the other. Therefore the rule
will be revised to require that light units flash alternately at a rate
of 35 to 65 times per minute.
Final Rule
Paragraph (a) of this section requires that each flashing light
unit shall be properly positioned and aligned and visible to a highway
user approaching the crossing. Paragraph (b) requires that each
flashing light unit be maintained to prevent dust and moisture from
entering the interior of the unit. Roundels and reflectors shall be
clean and in good condition. Paragraph (c) requires that all light
units shall flash alternately. The number of flashes per minute for
each light unit shall be 35 minimum and 65 maximum.
Section 234.219 Gate Arm Lights and Light Cable
The proposed rule requires that each gate arm light be visible to
approaching motorists. The rule also required that lights and light
wires be secured to the gate arm. The labor/management group suggested
that the proposed rule be modified to reflect a maintenance
requirement. FRA concurs with this recommendation and is revising the
rule to require that each gate arm light be maintained in such
condition to be properly visible to approaching highway users.
Final Rule
This section requires that each gate arm light be maintained in
such condition to be properly visible to approaching highway users and
that lights and light wire be secured to the gate arm.
Section 234.221 Lamp Voltage
The rule requires that lamp voltage be maintained at no less than
85 percent of its prescribed rating. The National Transportation Safety
Board has recommended that FRA establish a standard for minimum lamp
voltage at highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. There is a
consensus that it is impossible to maintain lamp voltage at the full
rating of the lamp, at all warning system installations. The State of
Oregon Public Utility Commission commented that the rule should require
that voltage be maintained at 95 percent of the lamp's prescribed
rating. FRA agrees that 95 percent, or even 90 percent of the lamp's
rating is a desirable voltage and should be maintained when possible.
However, it is not a realistic minimum standard, particularly at
locations where there is great distance from the source of the lamp
voltage to the farthest lamp (i.e., lights supported by cantilever on
expansive highway) or at older installations where light cable upgrades
would be required at substantial expense.
All other commenters were supportive of the 85 percent minimum
requirement. The section will ensure that the lamp voltage is
sufficient to provide suitable illumination of the lamp.
Final Rule
This section requires that each lamp shall be maintained at not
less than 85 percent of the prescribed rating for the lamp.
Section 234.223 Gate Arm
The proposed rule requires that each gate arm, when in the downward
position, extend across each lane of approaching highway traffic and be
maintained in a condition sufficient to be clearly viewed by
approaching highway users. The proposed rule also requires that each
gate arm start its downward motion not less than three seconds after
flashing lights begin to operate and assume the horizontal position in
a minimum of five seconds before the arrival of any train at the
crossing.
The labor/management group commented that the rule should be
modified to reflect a requirement for maintenance of gate arms in
accordance with the design of the warning system. They believe that it
would be inappropriate to establish universal criteria for gate arm
operation because of the variation in warning system designs,
particularly at locations utilizing four quadrant gates or other
special applications. While FRA does not want to impede the development
or use of special applications, we do believe it is important to
establish minimum standards for gate arm operations. FRA has revised
this section to make clear that, in four-quadrant gate installations,
the three second and five second requirements apply only to entrance
gates, (the gates closest to oncoming traffic).
New Jersey Transit commented that there is no demonstrated need for
the requirement that gates assume the horizontal position at least five
seconds before the arrival of any train at the crossing. We disagree.
It is important for the highway user to have more than a minimal
warning of approaching trains. We do not believe that sufficient
warning is provided by only requiring that gates reach the horizontal
position before arrival of the train at the crossing. The five second
requirement helps to ensure that the highway user who attempts to cross
at the last opportunity will be able to clear the crossing or vacate a
stalled vehicle. It will not have any impact on the design of grade
crossing warning systems.
Final Rule
This section requires that each gate arm, when in the downward
position, shall extend across each lane of approaching highway traffic
and shall be maintained in a condition sufficient to be clearly viewed
by approaching highway users. Each gate arm shall start its downward
motion not less than three seconds after flashing lights begin to
operate and shall assume the horizontal position at least five seconds
before the arrival of any train at the crossing. At those crossings
equipped with four quadrant gates, the timing requirements of this
section apply to entrance gates only.
Section 234.225 Activation of Warning System
As proposed, this section requires that a warning system activate
to provide no less than 20 seconds warning time before the crossing is
occupied by rail traffic. The labor/management group recommended that
this section refer to a maintenance, rather than a design requirement.
Accordingly, they suggested that the rule be modified to require that
the system be maintained to activate in accordance with the design of
the warning system. FRA has determined that while drafting this section
in terms of maintenance requirements may be appropriate, there remains
a need to maintain a minimum activation standard for warning systems.
We note that the 20 second period is consistent with the design
requirement of the MUTCD. In light of the labor/management group
comments FRA is revising this section to provide that the warning
system be maintained to activate in accordance with the design of the
warning system, but in no event shall it provide less than 20 seconds
warning time.
Final Rule
This section requires that a highway-rail grade crossing warning
system be maintained to activate in accordance with the design of the
warning system, but in no event shall it provide less than 20 seconds
warning time.
Section 234.227 Train Detection Apparatus
Subsection (a) of this section as proposed requires that train
detection apparatus detect the presence of a train or car when any part
of a train detection circuit is occupied. In addition, subsection (b)
of the proposed rule requires that when a grade crossing equipped with
a warning system is fouled by a train or car, the warning system would
continue to operate until such train or car clears the roadway.
Subsection (c) of the proposal requires that when there are no other
movements within the limits of the warning circuit, the warning system
shall discontinue operation after the train or car passes the point of
fouling the crossing. Subsection (d) requires that if the presence of
sand, rust, dirt, grease, or other foreign matter is known to prevent
effective shunting, appropriate action under Sec. 234.105 must be taken
to safeguard motor vehicle operation.
Various parties suggested that different portions of the rule be
modified. The labor/management group recommended that the rule be
modified to reflect the requirement for maintenance of train detection
apparatus rather than addressing ``design standards.'' FRA has
considered this suggestion and revised the rule to provide that the
train detection apparatus be maintained to detect the presence of rail
equipment in any part of a train detection circuit, in accordance with
the design of the warning system. This new subsection (a) replaces
proposed subsections (a), (b), and (c). It will serve the same purpose
as the sections replaced, but will do so in a clearer and more
straightforward manner.
There were no comments regarding proposed paragraph (d) which
provides that if the presence of sand, rust, dirt, grease, or other
foreign matter is known to prevent effective shunting, a railroad shall
take appropriate action under Sec. 234.105 to safeguard vehicle
operation. This section, renumbered as paragraph (b), remains
unchanged.
Final Rule
Subsection (a) requires that train detection apparatus be
maintained to detect a train or railcar in any part of a train
detection circuit, in accordance with the design of the warning system.
Subsection (b) provides that if the presence of sand, rust, dirt,
grease, or other foreign matter is known to prevent effective shunting,
a railroad shall take appropriate action under Sec. 234.105,
``Activation failure,'' to safeguard highway users.
Section 234.229 Shunting Sensitivity
As proposed, this section requires that each train detection
circuit that controls a highway-rail grade crossing warning system will
detect the presence of a shunt of 0.06 ohm resistance when the shunt is
connected across the track rails of the circuit, including fouling
sections of turnouts. The labor/management group commented that the
proposed rule should be modified to reflect the testing requirements of
warning systems based on certain technologies. The group noted that
certain types of constant warning time systems may not detect the
``presence'' of a shunt. The group believes it would be more
appropriate to require that the detection systems be maintained to
detect the ``application'' of a shunt. The group believes that warning
systems currently in use are designed so that they will meet that
criteria. Southern Pacific also commented that constant time warning
devices should be taken into account in drafting this section.
FRA agrees with the commenters and has modified the section
accordingly. ``Application of a shunt'' is replacing ``presence of a
shunt'' in the final rule. In the interest of clarity the text
``including fouling sections of turnouts'' has been deleted and ``of
any part'' of the circuit added to the final rule.
FRA notes that the labor/management group stated that they believe
warning systems currently in use ``could be tested for compliance
without using multiple shunts to simulate train movements or performing
other complex tests of questionable value.'' We agree that multiple
shunts may not be necessary to test for compliance with this section,
however, multiple shunts may indeed be needed to perform operational
tests.
Final Rule
This section requires that each highway-rail grade crossing train
detection circuit shall detect the application of a shunt of 0.06 ohm
resistance when the shunt is connected across the track rails of the
circuit.
Section 234.231 Fouling Wires
This section is meant to assure the detection of a train operating
through turnouts located within the limits of train detection circuits.
If one wire or rail plug were broken, a dangerous condition would be
prevented if the other wire or rail plug continues to be effective.
This section as proposed requires that each set of fouling wires
located in a highway-rail grade crossing warning system train detection
circuit consist of at least two discrete conductors, and requires that
each conductor be of sufficient conductivity and maintained in such
condition to ensure proper operation of the train detection apparatus
when the circuit is shunted.
The labor/management group recommended that the proposal be
modified to accord with existing technology. The group stated that
``certain train detection apparatus, particularly motion sensing
equipment, is designed to prevent the system from assuming the most
restrictive state under certain conditions, including some instances
when the train detection circuit is shunted.'' We agree with the
comments and, therefore, in lieu of requiring that the train detection
apparatus be in its most restrictive state, have revised the section to
require that each conductor be maintained in such condition to ensure
proper operation of the train detection apparatus when the train
detection circuit is shunted.
Final Rule
This section requires that each set of fouling wires in a highway-
rail grade crossing train detection circuit shall consist of at least
two discrete conductors. The section requires that each conductor be of
sufficient conductivity and be maintained in such condition to ensure
proper operation of the train detection apparatus when the train
detection circuit is shunted.
Section 234.233 Rail Joints
This provision provided that each rail joint located within the
limits of a highway-rail grade crossing train detection circuit shall
be bonded by means other than joint bars to ensure electrical
conductivity. The labor/management group, the only party to comment on
this section, recommended that it be modified to reflect maintenance
requirements. The group also recommended that this section be changed
to reflect that it apply only to non-insulated rail joints. FRA concurs
in the recommendations and has revised the section accordingly.
Final Rule
This section requires that each non-insulated rail joint located
within the limits of a highway-rail grade crossing train detection
circuit be bonded by means other than joint bars and the bonds shall be
maintained in such condition to ensure electrical conductivity.
Section 234.235 Insulated Rail Joints
This provision provided that each insulated rail joint used to
separate train detection circuits within the limits of a highway-rail
grade crossing shall prevent current from flowing between rails
separated by the insulation in an amount sufficient to cause a failure
of any train detection circuit.
The labor/management group, the only party commenting on this
provision, recommended that the section be revised to reflect the
requirement for maintenance of insulated rail joints. FRA agrees and
the final rule is revised accordingly.
Final Rule
This section requires that each insulated rail joint used to
separate train detection circuits of a highway-rail grade crossing be
maintained to prevent current from flowing between rails separated by
the insulation in an amount sufficient to cause a failure of the train
detection circuit.
Section 234.237 Switch Equipped With Circuit Controller
This section as proposed requires that when a switch equipped with
a switch circuit controller connected to the point is interconnected
with highway-rail grade crossing warning system circuitry, such switch
shall be maintained so that the warning system can be cut out only when
the point is within one-half inch of the full reverse position.
The only party commenting on this section, the labor/management
group, supported the proposal.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.239 Tagging of Wires and Interference of Wires or Tags
With Signal Apparatus
This section as proposed requires that each wire be tagged or
otherwise so marked that it can be identified at each terminal. Tags
and other marks of identification shall be made of insulating material
and so arranged that tags and wires do not interfere with moving parts
of the apparatus.
The only party commenting on this section, the labor/management
group, supported the proposal.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.241 Protection of Insulated Wire; Splice in Underground
Wire
This section as proposed requires that insulated wire be protected
from mechanical injury. The rule prohibits insulation from being
punctured for test purposes. A splice in underground wire will be
required to have insulation resistance at least equal to the wire
spliced.
The only party commenting on this section, the labor/management
group, supported the proposal.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.243 Wire on pole line and aerial cable
This section as proposed requires that wire on a pole line be
securely attached to an insulator that is properly fastened to a
crossarm or bracket supported by a pole or other support. The rule
requires that the wire not interfere with, or be interfered with by,
other wires on the pole line. Aerial cable is required to be supported
by messenger wire. Open-wire transmission line operating at 750 volts
or more shall not be placed less than 4 feet above the nearest crossarm
carrying active warning system circuits.
The only party commenting on this section, the labor/management
group, supported the proposal.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.245 Signs
The proposed rule requires that each sign mounted on a highway-rail
grade crossing signal post be maintained in good condition and visible
to the motorist. Signs mounted on the mast could include crossbucks,
``number of tracks'' etc. The proposal also stated that standards for
such signs are found in Part VIII (``Traffic Control Systems for
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings'') of the MUTCD. After consideration,
FRA is deleting from this section the informational reference to the
MUTCD. It is sufficient that the information is available through this
notice.
The labor/management group supported the proposal. The ATA
recommended that railroads be required to post information at the
crossing to expedite malfunction reporting. As discussed above (see
Sec. 234.5) FRA is in favor of the posting of such information, but
requiring such posting is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Final Rule
This section requires that each sign mounted on a highway-rail
grade crossing signal post shall be maintained in good condition and be
visible to the highway user.
Inspections and Tests
Section 234.247 Purpose of Inspections and Tests; Removal From Service
of Relay or Device Failing To Meet Test Requirements
The proposed rule requires that certain FRA-required tests be made
to determine whether apparatus and equipment are maintained in a
condition to perform their intended function. An electronic device,
relay, or other electromagnetic device that fails to meet the
requirements of specified tests will be required to be removed from
service and not restored to service until its operating characteristics
are in accordance with the limits within which such device or relay is
designed to operate.
The only party commenting on this section, the labor/management
group, supported the proposal.
Final Rule
FRA is revising the first sentence of this section to eliminate the
redundant and possibly confusing terms ``apparatus'' and ``equipment''
and to clarify which tests are being referred to. This section
therefore provides that the inspections and tests set forth in
Secs. 234.249 through 234.271 shall be made to determine if the warning
system and its component parts are maintained in a condition to perform
their intended function. Any electronic device, relay, or other
electromagnetic device that fails to meet the requirements of tests
required by this part shall be removed from service and shall not be
restored to service until its operating characteristics are in
accordance with the limits within which such device or relay is
designed to operate.
Section 234.249 Ground Tests
As proposed, this section requires a test for grounds on each
energy bus furnishing power to circuits that affect the safety of
highway-rail grade crossing warning system operation. The rule requires
that the test be made when an energy bus is placed in service, and at
least once each month thereafter.
The rule will assist in maintaining the integrity and safety of the
warning system. As provided in Sec. 234.213, tests would not be
required on circuits that include track rail, alternating current power
distribution circuits that are grounded in the interest of safety, and
common return wires of grounded common return single break circuits.
There was no opposition to the proposed rule. The labor/management
group, the only party commenting, supported the rule as proposed.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.251 Standby Power
The proposed section, entitled ``Battery voltage.'' requires that
battery voltage be checked at the battery, with battery-charging
current removed, at least once each month to determine battery
capability for instances of battery-charging current loss. There was no
opposition to the proposed rule. However, FRA is amending this section
to reflect changes to Sec. 234.215.
Final Rule
This section requires that standby power be tested at least once
each month.
Section 234.253 Flashing Light Units and Lamp Voltage
The proposed rule requires that lamp voltage be tested when
installed and at least once every twelve months, with battery-charging
current removed and with battery charging current restored, to
determine the lamp voltage. Each flashing light unit would be required
to be inspected at installation and once every twelve months for
alignment, focus, and frequency of flashes in accordance with
installation specifications. The exterior of each flashing light unit
would be required to be inspected for dust and damage to roundels to
ensure visibility of the light unit, at least once each month.
Labor/management recommended that the rule should be modified to
reflect current practices in the maintenance, inspection and testing of
flashing light units. Since the plans kept at crossing locations
typically do not address the alignment or focus of flashing light
units, they believe it would be more appropriate to have the
requirements based on the installation specifications, which would
reflect the design of the system. They commented that the term
``focus'' should be eliminated from the rule. Light units are focused
initially in the manufacturing process, and the focus should be
adjusted thereafter only in a shop environment. In accordance with the
current practices, the group recommended that the requirements under
subsection (c) include the words ``for proper visibility.'' This
requirement will more appropriately address the intent of the rule with
regard to the proper operation of the light units. We agree with the
comments and have revised the rule accordingly.
Final Rule
This section requires that each flashing light unit be inspected
when installed and at least once every 12 months for proper alignment
and frequency of flashes in accordance with installation
specifications. Lamp voltage will be required to be tested when
installed and at least once every 12 months thereafter. Each flashing
light unit will be inspected for proper visibility, and for dirt and
damage to roundels and reflectors at least once each month.
Section 234.255 Gate Arm and Gate Mechanism
There was no opposition to the proposed rule. The final rule will
remain as proposed.
Final Rule
This section requires that each gate arm and gate mechanism be
inspected, and gate arm movement be observed for proper operation, at
least once each month. Hold-clear devices (devices that keep the gate
arms in the vertical position when the warning system is not activated)
shall be tested for proper operation at least once every 12 months.
Section 234.257 Warning System Operation
The labor/management group supported the proposed rule. There was
no opposition. The final rule will remain as proposed.
Final Rule
Paragraph (a) of this section requires that a highway-rail grade
crossing warning system be tested for proper operation when the warning
system is placed in service and thereafter at least once each month and
whenever it is modified or disarranged. For purposes of paragraphs (a)
and (b), ``disarranged'' includes situations in which a relay, circuit
board, or other electronic device is replaced with another; two or more
conductors in a cable are severed; a cable or conductor in a train
detection system is replaced with another; or wires are removed at the
same time from more than one terminal of a relay, electronic device,
terminal board, or other vital component of a train detection system.
The extent of testing the warning system for proper operation will be
dependent on the degree of modification or disarrangement.
Paragraph (b) also requires that when a warning bell or other
stationary audible warning device is used, it be checked for proper
operation when installed. Thereafter it must be tested at least once
each month and whenever modified or disarranged.
Section 234.259 Warning Time
The proposed rule requires that a crossing warning system be tested
for prescribed warning time at least once every three months. The
labor/management group originally concurred in this section as
proposed. The group later revised its comment. They state that it would
be more appropriate to test warning time once each year, or when the
warning system is modified in connection with changes in authorized
train speeds. The LIRR commented that testing should only be required
when a system is installed or disarranged. Labor/management and the
Wisconsin Central Railroad request that testing of warning times using
automatic recording devices should be an acceptable method of
performing this test.
FRA has reviewed its proposal in light of the comments received.
After consideration, FRA has determined that extending the testing
period from three months to one year is appropriate in conjunction with
requiring that testing be performed whenever the warning system is
modified because of a change in train speeds. FRA also notes that under
the requirements of Sec. 234.257, ``Warning system operation'', warning
time must be tested if the warning system is modified in such a manner
that the warning time might be affected. FRA also agrees that
electronic devices which accurately determine actual warning time may
be substituted for other tests.
The labor/management group expressed confusion regarding the type
of testing permitted under this section. The group stated that
``although the rule itself permits testing of the adequacy of warning
time by calculation based on the fastest allowable train speed, the
preamble creates confusion by its reference to testing with an actual
train movement or `simulation of a train movement'.'' The group also
stated that ``section 234.259, as written, permits calculation as a
complying testing technique * * * .'' This conclusion is unfounded. The
section-by-section analysis of the section stated that ``[testing] can
be accomplished by observation of a train movement, if practical, or by
calculation and simulation of a train movement. Calculation alone is
not testing. It is merely a determination of design criteria. Only when
the results of that calculation are combined with actions that
determine that the mechanical, electrical or electronic system
functions as intended, can an adequate test be done.
Final Rule
This section requires that each crossing warning system shall be
tested for the prescribed warning time at least once every 12 months,
and when the warning system is modified because of a change in train
speeds. Electronic devices that accurately determine warning time will
be an acceptable means of meeting the requirements of this provision.
Section 234.261 Highway Traffic Signal Pre-emption
The proposed rule requires that highway traffic signal pre-emption
interconnections, for which a railroad has maintenance responsibility,
be tested at least once each month. The pre-emption of a highway
traffic signal requires an electrical circuit between the control relay
of the crossing warning system and the controller assembly of the
highway traffic signal. The railroad will only be responsible for the
maintenance and testing of its interconnections. The State of West
Virginia noted that this section ``requires testing of the highway
traffic signal preemption but doesn't include any notification
requirement. If the preempt fails to work and the fault is on the
highway side of the equipment, we need to be notified so that repairs
can be initiated.'' Although it is beyond the scope of the present
rulemaking to require notification of state highway departments when a
signal maintainer discovers a malfunction of the highway traffic signal
preemption equipment, FRA expects that such notifications would be
routinely made. Nothing in this rulemaking is intended to preempt any
local requirements that mandate notification to appropriate officials.
However, we note that the railroad is not responsible for the
controller assembly of the highway traffic signal and therefore the
signal maintainer is not always aware of a malfunction of such
equipment.
Final Rule
The final rule will remain as proposed.
Section 234.263 Relays
The labor/management group supported the proposed rule. There was
no opposition. The final rule will remain as proposed.
Final Rule
Paragraph (a) of this section requires that (except for certain
relays listed in paragraph (b)) each relay that affects the proper
functioning of a crossing warning system shall be tested at least once
every four years.
Paragraph (b)(1) requires that alternating current vane type
relays, direct current polar type relays, and relays with soft iron
magnetic structure shall be tested at least once every two years.
Paragraph (b)(2) requires that alternating current centrifugal type
relays shall be tested at least once every 12 months.
Section 234.265 Timing Relays and Timing Devices
The labor/management group supported the proposed rule. There was
no opposition. The final rule will remain as proposed.
Final Rule
This section requires that each timing relay and timing device be
tested at least once every twelve months. The timing shall be
maintained at not less than 90 percent nor more than 110 percent of the
predetermined time interval, which shall be shown on the plans or
marked on the timing relay or timing device.
Timing relays and timing devices are essential components of time-
out circuits which are primarily used for train switching movements at
warning system installations. A time-out circuit de-activates a
crossing warning system after a predetermined amount of time after a
train movement has occupied the detection circuit in approach to the
grade crossing.
Section 234.267 Insulation Resistance Tests, Wires in Trunking and
Cables
The labor/management group supported the proposed rule. There was
no opposition. The final rule will remain as proposed.
Final Rule
Paragraph (a) of this section requires that insulation resistance
tests be made when wires or cables are installed and at least once
every ten years thereafter. Paragraph (b) requires that insulation
resistance tests be made between all conductors and ground, between
conductors in each multiple conductor cable, and between conductors in
trunking. Such tests must be performed when wires, cables, and
insulation are dry. Paragraph (c) provides that, subject to the
requirements of paragraph (d), when insulation resistance of wire or
cable is found to be less than 500,000 ohms, prompt action must be
taken to repair or replace the defective wire or cable. Until such
defective wire or cable is replaced, insulation resistance tests must
be made annually. Paragraph (d) provides that a circuit with a
conductor having an insulation resistance of less than 200,000 ohms
shall not be used.
Section 234.269 Cut-Out Circuits
The proposed rule requires that each cut-out circuit be tested at
least once every three months to determine that the circuit functions
as intended. Labor/management group commented that the rule should be
clarified by changing all references of cut-out circuits to ``switch''
cut-out circuits. They asked for clarification concerning the type of
cut-out circuits this provision applies to.
For purposes of this section, a cut-out circuit is any circuit
which overrides the operation of automatic warning systems. This
includes both switch cut-out circuits and devices which enable
personnel to manually override the operation of automatic warning
systems.
Final Rule
This section requires that each cut-out circuit shall be tested at
least once every three months to determine that the circuit functions
as intended. For purposes of this section, a cut-out circuit is any
circuit which overrides the operation of automatic warning systems.
This includes both switch cut-out circuits and devices which enable
personnel to manually override the operation of automatic warning
systems.
Section 234.271 Insulated Rail Joints, Bond Wires, and Track
Connections
The proposed rule requires that each insulated rail joint, bond
wire, and track connection located within the limits of a highway-rail
grade crossing train detection circuit be inspected at least once every
three months. Insulated rail joints are used to prevent current from
flowing between rails. Bondwires and track connections ensure
continuity of a train detection circuit.
The labor/management group supported the proposed rule. The only
other commenter on this proposal, the Wisconsin Central Railroad,
commented that the requirement for inspection every three months is
nearly impossible to meet, given the large geographical territories
some signal maintainers have. Wisconsin Central suggests that this
inspection should be extended to every six months. Because of the
effect that damage to bonds, track connections and insulated rail
joints due to vandalism, track equipment and other conditions can have
on the integrity of the warning system, it is imperative that those
components be inspected more often than twice a year. FRA notes that
the three month inspection schedule is generally consistent with
present industry inspection standards.
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed.
Section 234.273 Results of Tests
This section as proposed requires that results of tests made in
compliance with this part be recorded on preprinted or computerized
forms provided by the railroad, or by electronic means, approved by the
Associate Administrator for Safety. Records must show the name of the
railroad having maintenance responsibility for the warning system, AAR/
DOT inventory number, place and date, equipment tested, results of
tests, repairs, replacements, adjustments made, and condition in which
the apparatus was left. Each record must be signed or electronically
coded by the employee making the test and be filed in the office of a
supervisory official having jurisdiction. Additionally, the proposal
requires that records be made available to FRA as provided by 49 U.S.C.
20107 (formerly section 208 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970
(45 U.S.C. 437). Each record must be retained until the next record for
that test is filed but in no case less than one year from the date of
the test. If a railroad elects to use an electronic means for recording
and signing results of tests, such means must be approved by FRA prior
to use.
Only two parties specifically commented on this section. Labor/
management group and New Jersey Transit commented that test results
should be permitted to be retained at the highway-rail grade crossing
location or at the office of an official. FRA has determined that a
more centralized location is needed for the retention of the results of
tests. In some instances the control housings of warning systems are
destroyed when there is an accident at a grade crossing. If the records
of tests are also destroyed, an effective investigation of the accident
would be precluded. Additionally, retaining test results at the office
of an official permits more effective monitoring of rule compliance by
the railroad and FRA. The final rule will not be changed as suggested.
FRA is adding notice similar to that contained in Sec. 234.109 that
records required to be kept shall be made available to FRA as provided
by 49 U.S.C. 20107 (formerly section 208 of the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 437).
Final Rule
This section is adopted as proposed with additional language as
stated above.
Regulatory Impact
E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies
and procedures, and is considered to be significant under DOT policies
and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) because it initiates a
new regulatory program. This regulatory document was subject to review
under E.O. 12866. FRA has prepared and placed in the rulemaking docket
a regulatory evaluation addressing the economic impact of this rule. A
copy of the regulatory evaluation may be inspected and copied in Room
8201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
In the regulatory analysis accompanying the NPRM, FRA analyzed
grade crossing malfunction data which had been submitted in accordance
with the requirements of 49 CFR 234.9. The FRA's preliminary review and
analysis of those data indicated that there is a correlation between
false activations at a grade crossing and accidents occurring at the
same crossing in the week following the false activation. Because the
data had not yet been subjected to the careful testing and scrutiny FRA
would have wished had it had more time perform further analyses, FRA
invited comments on the data and methodology used in its analysis.
The AAR responded to the request that commenters review FRA's
preliminary analysis. The AAR concluded that the data did not support
the FRA's preliminary conclusions. After a review of FRA's data and
AAR's analysis of that data, FRA agrees with the AAR's conclusion.
In its regulatory analysis FRA posited that the benefits of this
rule would arise because the number of grade crossing signal
malfunctions would decrease due to compliance with maintenance,
inspection and testing requirements of Subpart D, grade crossings would
be made safer during periods of warning system malfunction due to
compliance with Subpart C. FRA further estimated that the costs of
Secs. 234.105 and 234.107 would be reduced because the railroads would
repair warning systems more rapidly under the provisions of
Sec. 234.103.
It appears that activation failures now cost about $4.4 million per
year in accidents. In these accidents the highway user doesn't know a
train is coming, enters the crossing and is struck by a train. This
rule should reduce that cost to about $1.3 million per year.
It is not as clear how many accidents are attributable to false
activations. The FRA's best estimate, based on educated estimates of
its staff, is that false activations cause about $10.9 million a year
in accident costs. In these accidents the highway user thinks the
signal is ``crying wolf'', ignores a valid warning, and is struck by a
train. This rule should reduce the annual cost to about $3.3 million.
This rule will prevent malfunctions, reduce their duration, and
make crossings safer during a malfunction.
The total cost of this rule, discounted over twenty years, will be
about $80 million and the total benefit will be about $150 million.
Benefits will be about 1.9 times costs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
FRA certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. There are no substantial
economic impacts for small units of government, businesses, or other
organizations.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule contains information collection requirements. FRA is
submitting these information collection requirements to the Office of
Management and Budget for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The section that contains information
collection requirements is Sec. 234.273. The estimated time to fulfill
the requirement of that section is five minutes for each record.
Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated these regulations in accordance with its
procedure for ensuring full consideration of the potential
environmental impacts of FRA actions, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act and related directives.
Federalism Implications
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' and it has
been determined that the rule has sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. FRA recognizes that
currently a small number of states have statutes mandating to some
extent maintenance, inspection and testing procedures for railroads
operating within those states. In general, this rule will preempt those
requirements. In an effort to maintain state expertise and involvement
in this critical safety area, FRA is including grade crossing warning
system inspection functions within its State Participation Program. FRA
has also provided in Secs. 234.105 and 234.107 that, in instances of
grade crossing warning system malfunctions, ``a locomotive's audible
warning device shall be activated in accordance with railroad rules.''
This provision preempts local ``whistle ban'' ordinances to the extent
they would otherwise prohibit the use of horns or whistles in such
situations. This minimal intrusion into an area in which certain State
and local governments have become involved is necessary to protect the
travelling public and train crews from possible injury or death at
grade crossings with malfunctioning warning systems. A copy of the
Federalism Assessment has been placed in the public docket located in
Room 8201, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 212
Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, Railroad safety.
49 CFR Part 234
Railroad safety, Highway-rail grade crossings.
The Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA amends chapter IIb of Title
49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 212--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 212 is revised due to
recodification of title 49 of the United States Code to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20106, 20105, and 20113 (formerly
Secs. 202, 205, 206, and 208, of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of
1970, as amended (45 U.S.C. 431, 434, 435, and 436)); and 49 CFR
1.49.
2. Section 212.231, ``Inapplicable qualification requirements,'' is
redesignated Sec. 212.235, and new Secs. 212.231 and 212.233 are added
to read as follows:
Sec. 212.231 Highway-rail grade crossing inspector.
(a) The highway-rail grade crossing inspector is required, at a
minimum, to be able to conduct independent inspections of all types of
highway-rail grade crossing warning systems for the purpose of
determining compliance with Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Rules
(49 CFR Part 234), to make reports of those inspections, and to
recommend institution of enforcement actions when appropriate to
promote compliance.
(b) The highway-rail grade crossing inspector is required, at a
minimum, to have at least four years of recent experience in highway-
rail grade crossing construction or maintenance. A bachelor's degree in
engineering or a related technical specialization may be substituted
for two of the four years of this experience requirement. Successful
completion of an apprentice training program under Sec. 212.233 may be
substituted for the four years of this experience requirement.
(c) The highway-rail grade crossing inspector shall demonstrate the
following specific qualifications:
(1) A comprehensive knowledge of highway-rail grade crossing
nomenclature, inspection techniques, maintenance requirements, and
methods;
(2) The ability to understand and detect deviations from:
(i) grade crossing signal system maintenance, inspection and
testing standards accepted in the industry; and
(ii) the Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Rules (49 CFR Part
234);
(3) Knowledge of operating practices and highway-rail grade
crossing systems sufficient to understand the safety significance of
deviations and combinations of deviations from Sec. 212.231(c)(2) (i)
and (ii);
(4) Specialized knowledge of the requirements of the Grade Crossing
Signal System Safety Rules (49 CFR Part 234), including the remedial
action required to bring highway-rail grade crossing signal systems
into compliance with those Rules;
(5) Specialized knowledge of highway-rail grade crossing standards
contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and
(6) Knowledge of railroad signal systems sufficient to ensure that
highway-rail grade crossing warning systems and inspections of those
systems do not adversely affect the safety of railroad signal systems.
(d) A State signal and train control inspector qualified under this
part and who has demonstrated the ability to understand and detect
deviations from the Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Rules (49 CFR
Part 234) is deemed to meet all requirements of this section and is
qualified to conduct independent inspections of all types of highway-
rail grade crossing warning systems for the purpose of determining
compliance with Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Rules (49 CFR Part
234), to make reports of those inspections, and to recommend
institution of enforcement actions when appropriate to promote
compliance.
Sec. 212.233 Apprentice highway-rail grade crossing inspector.
(a) An apprentice highway-rail grade crossing inspector shall be
enrolled in a program of training prescribed by the Associate
Administrator for Safety leading to qualification as a highway-rail
grade crossing inspector. The apprentice inspector may not participate
in investigative and surveillance activities, except as an assistant to
a qualified State or FRA inspector while accompanying that qualified
inspector.
(b) Prior to being enrolled in the program the apprentice inspector
shall demonstrate:
(1) Working basic knowledge of electricity;
(2) The ability to use electrical test equipment in direct current
and alternating current circuits; and
(3) A basic knowledge of highway-rail grade crossing inspection and
maintenance methods and procedures.
PART 234--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for Part 234 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20108, 20111, 20112, 20114,
21301, 21302, 21304, and 21311 (formerly Secs. 202, 208, and 209 of
the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as amended (45 U.S.C. 431,
437, and 438, as amended)); 49 U.S.C. 20901 and 20102 (formerly the
Accident Reports Act (45 U.S.C. 38 and 42)); and 49 CFR 1.49 (f),
(g), and (m).
4. Section 234.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 234.1 Scope.
This part imposes minimum maintenance, inspection, and testing
standards highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. This part also
prescribes standards for the reporting of failures of such systems and
prescribes minimum actions railroads must take when such warning
systems malfunction. This part does not restrict a railroad from
adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not
inconsistent with this part.
5. Section 234.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 234.3 Application.
This part applies to all railroads except:
(a) A railroad that exclusively operates freight trains only on
track which is not part of the general railroad system of
transportation;
(b) Rapid transit operations within an urban area that are not
connected to the general railroad system of transportation; and
(c) A railroad that operates passenger trains only on track inside
an installation that is insular; i.e., its operations are limited to a
separate enclave in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation
that the safety of the public--except a business guest, a licensee of
the railroad or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser--would be
affected by the operation. An operation will not be considered insular
if one or more of the following exists on its line:
(1) A public highway-rail crossing that is in use;
(2) An at-grade rail crossing that is in use;
(3) A bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial
navigation; or
(4) A common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its operations are
within 30 feet of those of any railroad.
6. Section 234.4 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 234.4 Preemptive effect.
Under 49 U.S.C. 20106 (formerly Sec. 205 of the Federal Railroad
Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 434)), issuance of these regulations
preempts any State law, rule, regulation, order, or standard covering
the same subject matter, except a provision directed at an essentially
local safety hazard that is consistent with this part and that does not
impose an undue burden on interstate commerce.
7. Amend Sec. 234.5 by removing paragraph designations, listing
definitions in alphabetical order, and adding the following definitions
to read as follows:
Sec. 234.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Appropriately equipped flagger means a person other than a train
crewmember who is equipped with an orange vest, shirt, or jacket for
daytime flagging. For nighttime flagging, similar outside garments
shall be retroreflective. The retroreflective material shall be either
orange, white (including silver-colored coatings or elements that
retroreflect white light), yellow, fluorescent red-orange, or
fluorescent yellow-orange and shall be designed to be visible at a
minimum distance of 1,000 feet. The design configuration of the
retroreflective material shall provide recognition of the wearer as a
human being and shall be visible through the full range of body
motions. Acceptable hand signal devices for daytime flagging include
``STOP/SLOW'' paddles and red flags. For nighttime flagging, a
flashlight, lantern, or other lighted signal shall be used.
Credible report of system malfunction means specific information
regarding a malfunction at an identified highway-rail crossing,
supplied by a railroad employee, law enforcement officer, highway
traffic official, or other employee of a public agency acting in an
official capacity.
* * * * *
Warning system malfunction means an activation failure or a false
activation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system.
Secs. 234.15 and 234.17 [Redesignated as Sec. 234.6]
8. Redesignate the heading and text of Sec. 234.15, and the heading
and text of Sec. 234.17, as the heading and text of a new paragraph (a)
of Sec. 234.6 and the heading and text of paragraph (b) of Sec. 234.6,
respectively; add a new section heading for newly designated
Sec. 234.6; and revise the newly designated paragraph (a) of Sec. 234.6
to read as follows:
Sec. 234.6 Penalties.
(a) Civil penalty. Any person (including but not limited to a
railroad; any manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent
of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad
equipment, track, or facilities; any employee of such owner,
manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor) who violates
any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such
requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least $500, but not
more than $10,000 per violation, except that: penalties may be assessed
against individuals only for willful violations, and where a grossly
negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an
imminent hazard of death of injury to persons, or has caused death or
injury, a penalty not to exceed $20,000 per violation may be assessed.
Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.
Appendix A to this part contains a schedule of civil penalty amounts
used in connection with this rule.
* * * * *
9. Designate Secs. 234.1 through 234.6 as ``Subpart A--General''
and designate Secs. 234.7 through 234.13 as ``Subpart B--Reports.''
10. Add new ``Subpart C--Response to Reports of Warning System
Malfunction,'' and new ``Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and
Testing,'' to read as follows:
Subpart C--Response to Reports of Warning System Malfunction
Sec.
234.101 Employee notification rules.
234.103 Timely response to report of malfunction.
234.105 Activation failure.
234.107 False activation.
234.109 Recordkeeping.
Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing
Maintenance Standards
234.201 Location of plans.
234.203 Control circuits.
234.205 Operating characteristics of warning system apparatus.
234.207 Adjustment, repair, or replacement of component.
234.209 Interference with normal functioning of system.
234.211 Security of warning system apparatus.
234.213 Grounds.
234.215 Standby power system.
234.217 Flashing light units.
234.219 Gate arm lights and light cable.
234.221 Lamp voltage.
234.223 Gate arm.
234.225 Activation of warning system.
234.227 Train detection apparatus.
234.229 Shunting sensitivity.
234.231 Fouling wires.
234.233 Rail joints.
234.235 Insulated rail joints.
234.237 Switch equipped with circuit controller.
234.239 Tagging of wires and interference of wires or tags with
signal apparatus.
234.241 Protection of insulated wire; splice in underground wire.
234.243 Wire on pole line and aerial cable.
234.245 Signs.
Inspections and Tests
234.247 Purpose of inspections and tests; removal from service of
relay or device failing to meet test requirements.
234.249 Ground tests.
234.251 Standby power.
234.253 Flashing light units and lamp voltage.
234.255 Gate arm and gate mechanism.
234.257 Warning system operation.
234.259 Warning time.
234.261 Highway traffic signal pre-emption.
234.263 Relays.
234.265 Timing relays and timing devices.
234.267 Insulation resistance tests.
234.269 Cut-out circuits.
234.271 Insulated rail joints, bond wires, and track connections.
234.273 Results of tests.
Appendix A to Part 234--Schedule of Civil Penalties
Appendix B to Part 234--Alternate Methods of Protection Under 49 CFR
234.105(c) and 234.107(c).
Sec. 234.101 Employee notification rules.
Each railroad shall issue rules requiring its employees to report
to persons designated by that railroad, by the quickest means
available, any warning system malfunction.
Sec. 234.103 Timely response to report of malfunction.
(a) Upon receipt of a credible report of a warning system
malfunction, a railroad having maintenance responsibility for the
warning system shall promptly investigate the report and determine the
nature of the malfunction. The railroad shall take appropriate action
as required by Sec. 234.207.
(b) Until repair or correction of the warning system is completed,
the railroad shall provide alternative means of warning highway traffic
and railroad employees in accordance with Secs. 234.105 or 234.107 of
this part.
(c) Nothing in this subpart requires repair of a warning system,
if, acting in accordance with applicable State law, the railroad
proceeds to discontinue or dismantle the warning system. However, until
repair, correction, discontinuance, or dismantling of the warning
system is completed, the railroad shall comply with this subpart to
ensure the safety of the travelling public and railroad employees.
Sec. 234.105 Activation failure.
Upon receipt of a credible report of warning system malfunction
involving an activation failure, a railroad having maintenance
responsibility for the warning system shall promptly initiate efforts
to warn highway users and railroad employees at the subject crossing by
taking the following actions:
(a) Prior to any train's arrival at the crossing, notify the train
crew of the report of activation failure and notify any other railroads
operating over the crossing;
(b) Notify the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the
crossing, or railroad police capable of responding and controlling
vehicular traffic; and
(c) Provide for alternative means of actively warning highway users
of approaching trains, consistent with the following requirements (see
Appendix B for a summary chart of alternative means of warning):
(1) (i) If an appropriately equipped flagger provides warning for
each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed through the
crossing at normal speed.
(ii) If at least one uniformed law enforcement officer (including a
railroad police officer) provides warning to highway traffic at the
crossing, trains may proceed through the crossing at normal speed.
(2) If an appropriately equipped flagger provides warning for
highway traffic, but there is not at least one flagger providing
warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed with
caution through the crossing at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per
hour. Normal speed may be resumed after the locomotive has passed
through the crossing.
(3) If there is not an appropriately equipped flagger or uniformed
law enforcement officer providing warning to highway traffic at the
crossing, each train must stop before entering the crossing and permit
a crewmember to dismount to flag highway traffic to a stop. The
locomotive may then proceed through the crossing, and the flagging
crewmember may reboard the locomotive before the remainder of the train
proceeds through the crossing.
(d) A locomotive's audible warning device shall be activated in
accordance with railroad rules regarding the approach to a grade
crossing.
Sec. 234.107 False activation.
Upon receipt of a credible report of a false activation, a railroad
having maintenance responsibility for the highway-rail grade crossing
warning system shall promptly initiate efforts to warn highway users
and railroad employees at the crossing by taking the following actions:
(a) Prior to a train's arrival at the crossing, notify the train
crew of the report of false activation and notify any other railroads
operating over the crossing;
(b) Notify the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the
crossing, or railroad police capable of responding and controlling
vehicular traffic; and
(c) Provide for alternative means of actively warning highway users
of approaching trains, consistent with the following requirements (see
Appendix B for a summary chart of alternative means of warning):
(1) (i) If an appropriately equipped flagger is providing warning
for each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed through the
crossing at normal speed.
(ii) If at least one uniformed law enforcement officer (including a
railroad police officer) provides warning to highway traffic at the
crossing, trains may proceed through the crossing at normal speed.
(2) If there is not an appropriately equipped flagger providing
warning for each direction of highway traffic, or if there is not at
least one uniformed law enforcement officer providing warning, trains
with the locomotive or cab car leading, may proceed with caution
through the crossing at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour. Normal
speed may be resumed after the locomotive has passed through the
crossing. In the case of a shoving move, a crewmember shall be on the
ground to flag the train through the crossing.
(3) In lieu of complying with paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this
section, a railroad may temporarily take the warning system out of
service if the railroad complies with all requirements of Sec. 234.105,
``Activation failure.''
(d) A locomotive's audible warning device shall be activated in
accordance with railroad rules regarding the approach to a grade
crossing.
Sec. 234.109 Recordkeeping.
(a) Each railroad shall keep records pertaining to compliance with
this subpart. Records may be kept on forms provided by the railroad or
by electronic means. Each railroad shall keep the following information
for each credible report of warning system malfunction:
(1) Location of crossing (by highway name and DOT/AAR Crossing
Inventory Number);
(2) Time and date of receipt by railroad of report of malfunction;
(3) Actions taken by railroad prior to repair and reactivation of
repaired system; and
(4) Time and date of repair.
(b) Each railroad shall retain for at least one year (from the
latest date of railroad activity in response to a credible report of
malfunction) all records referred to in paragraph (a) of this section.
Records required to be kept shall be made available to FRA as provided
by 45 U.S.C. 20107 (formerly Sec. 208 of the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 437)).
Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing
Maintenance Standards
Sec. 234.201 Location of plans.
Plans required for proper maintenance and testing shall be kept at
each highway-rail grade crossing warning system location. Plans shall
be legible and correct.
Sec. 234.203 Control circuits.
All control circuits that affect the safe operation of a highway-
rail grade crossing warning system shall operate on the fail-safe
principle.
Sec. 234.205 Operating characteristics of warning system apparatus.
Operating characteristics of electromagnetic, electronic, or
electrical apparatus of each highway-rail crossing warning system shall
be maintained in accordance with the limits within which the system is
designed to operate.
Sec. 234.207 Adjustment, repair, or replacement of component.
(a) When any essential component of a highway-rail grade crossing
warning system fails to perform its intended function, the cause shall
be determined and the faulty component adjusted, repaired, or replaced
without undue delay.
(b) Until repair of an essential component is completed, a railroad
shall take appropriate action under Sec. 234.105, ``Activation
failure,'' or Sec. 234.107, ``False activation,'' of this part.
Sec. 234.209 Interference with normal functioning of system.
(a) The normal functioning of any system shall not be interfered
with in testing or otherwise without first taking measures to provide
for safety of highway traffic that depends on normal functioning of
such system.
(b) Interference includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Trains, locomotives or other railroad equipment standing within
the system's approach circuit, other than normal train movements or
switching operations, where the warning system is not designed to
accommodate those activities.
(2) Not providing alternative methods of maintaining safety for the
highway user while testing or performing work on the warning systems or
on track and other railroad systems or structures which may affect the
integrity of the warning system.
Sec. 234.211 Security of warning system apparatus.
Highway-rail grade crossing warning system apparatus shall be
secured against unauthorized entry.
Sec. 234.213 Grounds.
Each circuit that affects the proper functioning of a highway-rail
grade crossing warning system shall be kept free of any ground or
combination of grounds that will permit a current flow of 75 percent or
more of the release value of any relay or electromagnetic device in the
circuit. This requirement does not apply to: Circuits that include
track rail; alternating current power distribution circuits that are
grounded in the interest of safety; and common return wires of grounded
common return single break circuits.
Sec. 234.215 Standby power system.
A standby source of power shall be provided with sufficient
capacity to operate the warning system during any period of primary
power interruption.
Sec. 234.217 Flashing light units.
(a) Each flashing light unit shall be properly positioned and
aligned and shall be visible to a highway user approaching the
crossing.
(b) Each flashing light unit shall be maintained to prevent dust
and moisture from entering the interior of the unit. Roundels and
reflectors shall be clean and in good condition.
(c) All light units shall flash alternately. The number of flashes
per minute for each light unit shall be 35 minimum and 65 maximum.
Sec. 234.219 Gate arm lights and light cable.
Each gate arm light shall be maintained in such condition to be
properly visible to approaching highway users. Lights and light wire
shall be secured to the gate arm.
Sec. 234.221 Lamp voltage.
The voltage at each lamp shall be maintained at not less than 85
percent of the prescribed rating for the lamp.
Sec. 234.223 Gate arm.
Each gate arm, when in the downward position, shall extend across
each lane of approaching highway traffic and shall be maintained in a
condition sufficient to be clearly viewed by approaching highway users.
Each gate arm shall start its downward motion not less than three
seconds after flashing lights begin to operate and shall assume the
horizontal position at least five seconds before the arrival of any
train at the crossing. At those crossings equipped with four quadrant
gates, the timing requirements of this section apply to entrance gates
only.
Sec. 234.225 Activation of warning system.
A highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall be maintained to
activate in accordance with the design of the warning system, but in no
event shall it provide less than 20 seconds warning time before the
grade crossing is occupied by rail traffic.
Sec. 234.227 Train detection apparatus.
(a) Train detection apparatus shall be maintained to detect a train
or railcar in any part of a train detection circuit, in accordance with
the design of the warning system.
(b) If the presence of sand, rust, dirt, grease, or other foreign
matter is known to prevent effective shunting, a railroad shall take
appropriate action under Sec. 234.105, ``Activation failure,'' to
safeguard highway users.
Sec. 234.229 Shunting sensitivity.
Each highway-rail grade crossing train detection circuit shall
detect the application of a shunt of 0.06 ohm resistance when the shunt
is connected across the track rails of any part of the circuit.
Sec. 234.231 Fouling wires.
Each set of fouling wires in a highway-rail grade crossing train
detection circuit shall consist of at least two discrete conductors.
Each conductor shall be of sufficient conductivity and shall be
maintained in such condition to ensure proper operation of the train
detection apparatus when the train detection circuit is shunted.
Sec. 234.233 Rail joints.
Each non-insulated rail joint located within the limits of a
highway-rail grade crossing train detection circuit shall be bonded by
means other than joint bars and the bonds shall be maintained in such
condition to ensure electrical conductivity.
Sec. 234.235 Insulated rail joints.
Each insulated rail joint used to separate train detection circuits
of a highway-rail grade crossing shall be maintained to prevent current
from flowing between rails separated by the insulation in an amount
sufficient to cause a failure of the train detection circuit.
Sec. 234.237 Switch equipped with circuit controller.
A switch, when equipped with a switch circuit controller connected
to the point and interconnected with warning system circuitry, shall be
maintained so that the warning system can only be cut out when the
switch point is within one-half inch of full reverse position.
Sec. 234.239 Tagging of wires and interference of wires or tags with
signal apparatus.
Each wire shall be tagged or otherwise so marked that it can be
identified at each terminal. Tags and other marks of identification
shall be made of insulating material and so arranged that tags and
wires do not interfere with moving parts of the apparatus.
Sec. 234.241 Protection of insulated wire; splice in underground wire.
Insulated wire shall be protected from mechanical injury. The
insulation shall not be punctured for test purposes. A splice in
underground wire shall have insulation resistance at least equal to
that of the wire spliced.
Sec. 234.243 Wire on pole line and aerial cable.
Wire on a pole line shall be securely attached to an insulator that
is properly fastened to a crossarm or bracket supported by a pole or
other support. Wire shall not interfere with, or be interfered with by,
other wires on the pole line. Aerial cable shall be supported by
messenger wire. An open-wire transmission line operating at voltage of
750 volts or more shall be placed not less than 4 feet above the
nearest crossarm carrying active warning system circuits.
Sec. 234.245 Signs.
Each sign mounted on a highway-rail grade crossing signal post
shall be maintained in good condition and be visible to the highway
user.
Inspections and Tests
Sec. 234.247 Purpose of inspections and tests; removal from service of
relay or device failing to meet test requirements.
The inspections and tests set forth in Secs. 234.249 through
234.271 shall be made to determine if the warning system and its
component parts are maintained in a condition to perform their intended
function. Any electronic device, relay, or other electromagnetic device
that fails to meet the requirements of tests required by this part
shall be removed from service and shall not be restored to service
until its operating characteristics are in accordance with the limits
within which such device or relay is designed to operate.
Sec. 234.249 Ground tests.
A test for grounds on each energy bus furnishing power to circuits
that affect the safety of warning system operation shall be made when
such energy bus is placed in service and at least once each month
thereafter.
Sec. 234.251 Standby power.
Standby power shall be tested at least once each month.
Sec. 234.253 Flashing light units and lamp voltage.
(a) Each flashing light unit shall be inspected when installed and
at least once every twelve months for proper alignment and frequency of
flashes in accordance with installation specifications.
(b) Lamp voltage shall be tested when installed and at least once
every 12 months thereafter.
(c) Each flashing light unit shall be inspected for proper
visibility, dirt and damage to roundels and reflectors at least once
each month.
Sec. 234.255 Gate arm and gate mechanism.
(a) Each gate arm and gate mechanism shall be inspected at least
once each month.
(b) Gate arm movement shall be observed for proper operation at
least once each month.
(c) Hold-clear devices shall be tested for proper operation at
least once every 12 months.
Sec. 234.257 Warning system operation.
(a) Each highway-rail crossing warning system shall be tested to
determine that it functions as intended when it is placed in service.
Thereafter, it shall be tested at least once each month and whenever
modified or disarranged.
(b) Warning bells or other stationary audible warning devices shall
be tested when installed to determine that they function as intended.
Thereafter, they shall be tested at least once each month and whenever
modified or disarranged.
Sec. 234.259 Warning time.
Each crossing warning system shall be tested for the prescribed
warning time at least once every 12 months. Electronic devices that
accurately determine actual warning time may be used in performing such
tests.
Sec. 234.261 Highway traffic signal pre-emption.
Highway traffic signal pre-emption interconnections, for which a
railroad has maintenance responsibility, shall be tested at least once
each month.
Sec. 234.263 Relays.
(a) Except as stated in paragraph (b) of this section, each relay
that affects the proper functioning of a crossing warning system shall
be tested at least once every four years.
(b) (1) Alternating current vane type relays, direct current polar
type relays, and relays with soft iron magnetic structure shall be
tested at least once every two years.
(2) Alternating current centrifugal type relays shall be tested at
least once every 12 months.
Sec. 234.265 Timing relays and timing devices.
Each timing relay and timing device shall be tested at least once
every twelve months. The timing shall be maintained at not less than 90
percent nor more than 110 percent of the predetermined time interval.
The predetermined time interval shall be shown on the plans or marked
on the timing relay or timing device.
Sec. 234.267 Insulation resistance tests.
(a) Insulation resistance tests shall be made when wires or cables
are installed and at least once every ten years thereafter.
(b) Insulation resistance tests shall be made between all
conductors and ground, between conductors in each multiple conductor
cable, and between conductors in trunking. Insulation resistance tests
shall be performed when wires, cables, and insulation are dry.
(c) Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, when insulation
resistance of wire or cable is found to be less than 500,000 ohms,
prompt action shall be taken to repair or replace the defective wire or
cable. Until such defective wire or cable is replaced, insulation
resistance tests shall be made annually.
(d) A circuit with a conductor having an insulation resistance of
less than 200,000 ohms shall not be used.
Sec. 234.269 Cut-out circuits.
Each cut-out circuit shall be tested at least once every three
months to determine that the circuit functions as intended. For
purposes of this section, a cut-out circuit is any circuit which
overrides the operation of automatic warning systems. This includes
both switch cut-out circuits and devices which enable personnel to
manually override the operation of automatic warning systems.
Sec. 234.271 Insulated rail joints, bond wires, and track connections.
Insulated rail joints, bond wires, and track connections shall be
inspected at least once every three months.
Sec. 234.273 Results of tests.
(a) Results of tests made in compliance with this part shall be
recorded on forms provided by the railroad, or by electronic means,
subject to approval by the Associate Administrator for Safety. Each
record shall show the name of the railroad, AAR/DOT inventory number,
place and date, equipment tested, results of tests, repairs,
replacements, adjustments made, and condition in which the apparatus
was left.
(b) Each record shall be signed or electronically coded by the
employee making the test and shall be filed in the office of a
supervisory official having jurisdiction. Records required to be kept
shall be made available to FRA as provided by 45 U.S.C. 20107 (formerly
section 208 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C.
437)).
(c) Each record shall be retained until the next record for that
test is filed but in no case for less than one year from the date of
the test.
Appendix A to Part 234--Schedule of Civil Penalties
Note: A penalty may be assessed against an individual only for a
willful violation. The Administrator reserves the right to assess a
penalty of up to $20,000 for any violation where circumstances
warrant. See 49 CFR Part 209, Appendix A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willful
Section Violation violation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart B--Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
234.7Accidents involving grade crossing signal
failure...................................... $5,000 $7,500
234.9Grade crossing signal system failure
reports...................................... 2,500 5,000
234.11Railroad rules.......................... 2,500 5,000
234.13Grade Crossing signal system information 2,500 5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart C--Response to Reports of Warning System Malfunction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
234.101Employee notification rules............ 2,500 5,000
234.103Timely response to report of
malfunction.................................. 2,500 5,000
234.105Activation failure:
(a) failure to notify--
Train crews............................... 5,000 7,500
Other railroads........................... 5,000 7,500
(b) failure to notify law enforcement agency 2,500 5,000
(c) failure to comply with--................
Flagging requirements..................... 5,000 7,500
Speed restrictions........................ 5,000 7,500
(d) failure to activate horn or whistle..... 5,000 7,500
234.107False activation:
(a) failure to notify--
Train crews............................... 5,000 7,500
Other railroads........................... 5,000 7,500
(b) failure to notify law enforcement agency 2,500 5,000
(c) failure to comply with--
Flagging requirements..................... 5,000 7,500
Speed restrictions........................ 5,000 7,500
(d) failure to activate horn or whistle..... 5,000 7,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Standards
234.201Location of plans...................... 1,000 2,000
234.203Control circuits....................... 1,000 2,000
234.205Operating characteristics of warning
system apparatus............................. 2,500 5,000
234.207Adjustment, repair, or replacement of
component.................................... 2,500 5,000
234.209Interference with normal functioning of
system....................................... 5,000 7,500
234.211Locking of warning system apparatus.... 1,000 2,000
234.213Grounds................................ 1,000 2,000
234.215Standby power system................... 5,000 7,500
234.217Flashing light units................... 1,000 2,000
234.219Gate arm lights and light cable........ 1,000 2,000
234.221Lamp voltage........................... 1,000 2,000
234.223Gate arm............................... 1,000 2,000
234.225Activation of warning system........... 5,000 7,500
234.227Train detection apparatus.............. 2,500 5,000
234.229Shunting sensitivity................... 2,500 5,000
234.231Fouling wires.......................... 1,000 2,000
234.233Rail joints............................ 1,000 2,000
234.235Insulated rail joints.................. 1,000 2,000
234.237Switch equipped with circuit controller 1,000 2,000
234.239Tagging of wires and interference of
wires or tags with signal apparatus.......... 1,000 2,000
234.241Protection of insulated wire; splice in
underground wire............................. 1,000 2,000
234.243Wire on pole line and aerial cable..... 1,000 2,000
234.245Signs.................................. 1,000 2,000
Inspections and Tests
234.247Purpose of inspections and tests;
removal from service of relay or device
failing to meet test requirements............ 2,500 5,000
234.249Ground tests........................... 2,500 5,000
234.251Standby power.......................... 5,000 7,500
234.253Flashing light units and lamp voltage.. 1,000 2,000
234.255Gate arm and gate mechanism............ 1,000 2,000
234.257Warning system operation............... 2,500 5,000
234.259Warning time........................... 1,000 2,000
234.261Highway traffic signal pre-emption..... 1,000 2,000
234.263Relays................................. 1,000 2,000
234.265Timing relays and timing devices....... 1,000 2,000
234.267Insulation resistance tests............ 2,500 5,000
234.269Cut-out circuits....................... 1,000 2,000
234.271Insulated rail joints, bond wires, and
track connections............................ 2,500 5,000
234.273Results of tests....................... 1,000 2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B to Part 234--Alternate Methods of Protection Under 49 CFR
Secs. 234.105(c) and 234.107(c)
This Is a Summary--See Body of Text for Complete Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flagger for each Flagger present, but not
direction of Police officer one for each direction No flagger/no police
traffic present of traffic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
False activation... Normal speed....... Normal speed....... Proceed with caution-- Proceed with caution--
maximum speed of 15 mph. maximum speed of 15
mph.
Activation failure. Normal speed....... Normal speed....... Proceed with caution-- Stop: Crewmember flag
maximum speed of 15 mph. traffic and reboard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington D.C. on September 27, 1994.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-24223 Filed 9-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P