[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42733-42734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20991]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 234
[FRA Docket No. RSGC-6; Notice No. 4]
RIN 2130-AA92
Selection and Installation of Grade Crossing Warning Systems;
Termination of Rulemaking
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice terminates rulemaking action in FRA Docket No.
FSGC-6. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FRA proposed to
prohibit railroads from unilaterally selecting and installing highway-
rail grade crossing warning systems at public highway-rail crossings.
FRA also proposed to require that railroads furnish state highway
authorities with information necessary for state grade crossing project
planning and prioritization purposes. Termination of this rulemaking is
based on public comments and FRA's determination that railroad safety
will not be best served by issuance of such a regulation at this time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce F. George, Director, Highway-Rail Crossing and Trespasser
Programs Division, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-632-3305), or Mark Tessler, Trial
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-632-3171).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 2, 1995, FRA published in the
Federal Register (60 FR 11649) an NPRM which was meant to clarify the
respective responsibilities of railroads and state and local
governments regarding the selection and installation of highway-rail
grade crossing warning systems. Public hearings were held on the
proposal on June 6 and 7, 1995. The public comment period closed on
June 14, 1995. However, FRA continued to receive comments and to date
has received in excess of 3,000 comments in this rulemaking. All
comments have been considered by FRA, including those received after
June 14, 1995, in accord with FRA's policy to consider late filed
comments to the extent possible. A wide range of views were expressed
in the public hearings and in written comments submitted to the public
docket. A high proportion of the comments were form letters and
preprinted postcards expressing opposition to the proposal.
Subsequent to issuance of the NPRM, a school bus stopped at a
highway-rail grade crossing in Fox River Grove, Illinois, was struck by
a commuter train. Seven students died. Following the accident the
Secretary of Transportation established a Grade Crossing Safety Task
Force (Task Force) to build upon the Department's 1994 Rail-Highway
Crossing Safety Action Plan. The Task Force reported its findings to
the Secretary on March 1, 1996. The Executive Summary of the report
stated in part:
[T]he report recommends 24 specific follow-on actions to address
both physical and procedural deficiencies. In practice, the
responsibility for public grade crossings resides with State and
local governments, railroads, and transit agencies. Recognizing the
constrained budgets that are available to the private sector and
State and local authorities, the report emphasizes rethinking
existing practices--not requiring new ones from a regulatory
approach. This reliance on existing opportunities is emphasized by
recommendations that encourage grade crossing safety through
coordinated inspections, law enforcement, and driver education.
As the Task Force Report states, ``[t]his * * * report should not be
viewed as a surrogate for the Action Plan, but as a supplement which
focuses on the planning, construction, maintenance, operation, and
inspection activities involving rail crossings. The Task Force directed
its attention to those grade crossing issues for which there were no
well-defined standards, practices, or information. It was in these five
problem areas outside the scope of the Action Plan, that the Task Force
felt additional improvements in grade crossing safety could be made.''
FRA is continuing its implementation of the Action Plan's
recommendations while at the same time it works to ensure that the
recommendations of the Safety Task Force are carried out.
[[Page 42734]]
The NPRM
The impetus in proposing the NPRM was the goal, as stated in the
Action Plan, to ``review the allocation of responsibilities for the
selection and installation of warning devices and the potential for
uniform nationwide standards.'' The NPRM, together with the subsequent
hearings and wide range of comments stimulated extensive discussion and
debate on the issue. FRA notes that certain groups generated interest
and comments by claiming that the proposed rule ``would shield railroad
companies from liability when their negligence contributes to such
accidents.'' This and similar claims made in mass mailings to FRA are
clearly misleading statements. FRA believes that there are valid policy
arguments on both sides of the issue in this debate and that resorting
to misleading statements apparently in order to increase the volume of
comments does not lead to helpful public airing of legitimate concerns.
Spreading such obvious misinformation can only take advantage of well
meaning individuals who have not had the opportunity to read the
proposed rule themselves, but who rely on the integrity and accuracy of
those providing the information. FRA is disappointed that such groups
apparently felt that the strength of their legitimate objections to the
rule were insufficient.
While some of the debate surrounding the proposal was based on
incorrect information, much of the discussion raised valid questions
regarding what should be the proper role of railroads, state and local
governments, and the federal government in the selection and
installation of grade crossing warning systems. The discussion remained
on a general and conceptual level however. The overwhelming majority of
comments were conclusory in nature and did not add hard data which
could be helpful to FRA in its decision making. Opponents claimed that
the rule would effectively shift tort liability from railroads to state
and local governments. Opponents of the rule also stated that there was
no evidence that money saved by railroads would be spent on grade
crossing safety and that the rule would remove any incentive a railroad
may have to participate in crossing safety programs. Rule proponents,
on the other hand, claimed that safety would be enhanced by more
rational grade crossing planning.
Absent from virtually all rule comments and testimony, however,
were data supporting the conclusions drawn from the rule. In the NPRM,
FRA stated that it ``believes that railroads have many powerful
incentives to continue their longstanding policy of voluntarily
providing matching funds for federally funded grade crossing projects,
comment is sought concerning whether this proposal will affect the
level of railroad participation in such projects.'' FRA again received
only conclusory comments rather than data on past, present or projected
levels of participation.
Termination of rulemaking
FRA continues to believe that the proper relationship between
railroads and state and local governments in terms of selection and
installation of warning systems is as proposed in the NPRM: railroad
should furnish governmental authorities with sufficient information to
enable those authorities to make rational selection and installation
decisions. However, at this time, in light of the lack of supporting
hard data in the record and the magnitude of other regulatory and
program safety initiatives being undertaken by FRA, this rulemaking is
being terminated.
We note that this rulemaking has been a worthwhile first step in
addressing the issue of allocation of responsibility for the selection
and installation of warning devices and the potential for uniform
nationwide standards in this area. We are confident that further steps
in addressing these issues will build upon the information and
discussion generated by this proceeding.
In light of the foregoing, FRA is hereby terminating this
rulemaking.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 5, 1997.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-20991 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P