[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49557-49560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 234

[FRA Docket No. RSGC-5; Notice No. 9]
RIN 2130-AA97


Grade Crossing Signal System Safety

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 20, 1996, FRA published Interim Final Rule Amendments 
amending the regulations on grade crossing signal system safety. That 
rule required that railroads comply with specific maintenance, 
inspection, and testing requirements for active highway-rail grade 
crossing warning systems. The rule also required that railroads take 
specific and timely

[[Page 49558]]

actions to protect the traveling public and railroad employees from the 
hazards posed by malfunctioning highway-rail grade crossing warning 
systems. Aside from the typographical and minor corrections made today, 
the final rule issued today is identical to the Interim Final Rule 
Amendments published on June 20, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on September 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Goodman, Staff Director, 
Signal and Train Control, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-493-6325), or Mark Tessler, 
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590 (telephone 202-493-6061) (e-mail address: 
[email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 30, 1994, FRA published a final rule (59 FR 50086) 
requiring that railroads comply with specific maintenance, inspection, 
and testing requirements for active highway-rail grade crossing warning 
systems. The final rule also requires that railroads take specific and 
timely actions to protect the traveling public and railroad employees 
from the hazards posed by malfunctioning highway-rail grade crossing 
warning systems.
    On June 20, 1996 FRA published an Interim Final Rule which amended 
the rule issued in 1994 (61 FR 31802). The Interim Final Rule addressed 
issues raised as a result of actual experience under the new 
regulations. In addition, shortly after the regulations were issued, an 
FRA Technical Resolution Committee (TRC) met to discuss the 
regulations, their interpretation and implementation. Included in the 
TRC were FRA signal and train control specialists from across the 
country along with headquarters staff. Representatives from rail labor 
and management were invited to attend certain sessions as non-voting 
members to offer their perspective and expertise to the group, together 
with representatives of two States active in FRA's State Participation 
Program. Although the purpose of this TRC was to develop the 
appropriate application and interpretation of the final rule, the 
discussion, together with other lessons learned during implementation, 
also indicated the need to clarify certain portions of the regulatory 
text. Additionally, the American Short Line Railroad Association, the 
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and the Association of American 
Railroads jointly filed a Petition for Reconsideration with FRA 
requesting that FRA stay enforcement of certain sections of the final 
rule (Secs. 234.215 and 234.223) pending further consideration of those 
provisions. Subsequent to the joint filing, FRA issued an Interim 
Policy Manual addressing, among others, the issues and questions raised 
by the petitioners. FRA granted the petition for reconsideration 
although it did not agree to stay enforcement since enforcement issues 
had been addressed in the Interim Policy Manual. The Interim Final Rule 
was in part a response to the joint petition for reconsideration.
    FRA received a number of comments on the Interim Final Rule. The 
following discussion addresses those comments.
    The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) pointed out 
typographical errors in Secs. 234.215 and 234.247(b). Those errors are 
being corrected.

Section-By-Section Analysis

    The majority of changes contained in the Interim Final Rule 
generated no comments. Accordingly, the following section-by-section 
analysis addresses only those sections about which comments were 
received.

Section 234.7  Accidents Involving Grade Crossing Signal Failure

    The Illinois Department of Transportation suggested that the term 
``activation failure'' in the first sentence of Sec. 234.7(a) should be 
replaced with the term ``warning system malfunction'' which would then 
include partial activation and false activation as situations for which 
telephonic reports of accidents must be made. This section requires 
reports within 24 hours of occurrence of impact accidents involving 
activation failure. Because activation failures are much more likely to 
immediately result in accidents, FRA needs information regarding these 
malfunctions as soon as possible. Telephonic reports of accidents 
involving partial and false activations would not materially assist FRA 
in its safety function, while requiring such reports would place an 
undue administrative burden on the railroad. FRA will still receive 
information pertaining to partial activations and false activations in 
the normal course of accident reporting. This information, together 
with the record keeping requirements of Sec. 234.109, will provide FRA 
sufficient information with which to monitor compliance with this part 
and grade crossing safety generally.

Section 234.9  Grade Crossing Signal System Failure Reports

    The Illinois Department of Transportation recommends that the term 
``activation failure'' be replaced in this section with the all 
encompassing term ``warning system malfunction''. This change would 
have the effect of requiring that partial activations and false 
activations be reported to FRA within 15 days of occurrence. This 
requirement would burden railroads with a reporting requirement while 
providing FRA with information not needed on such a short time frame. 
FRA's information requirements will be adequately served by the record 
keeping requirements of Sec. 234.109. Under that section, records of 
partial activations and false activations will be available to FRA for 
a period of one year after the occurrence. The availability of those 
records will provide FRA with sufficient information for safety 
oversight. Therefore, the change suggested by the Illinois Department 
of Transportation's suggestion will not be adopted.

Section 234.217  Flashing Light Units

    The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) recommended that 
the last sentence of paragraph (b) be amended. This paragraph presently 
states: ``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.'' Iowa DOT suggests 
adding to the last sentence ``including the condition of the paint 
adequate to provide a contrasting dark background.''
    We agree with the importance of maintaining conditions which ensure 
that the light unit maintain its visibility to the motorist. Essential 
to good visibility is the non-reflective black finish of the light hood 
and background surrounding the light. Maintaining a contrasting dark 
background contributes to the light's visibility. The present language 
of the rule is adequate to cover the situation in which the background 
or hood are in such a condition that the background does not provide 
sufficient contrast. FRA expects that the railroad responsible for 
maintenance of the crossing warning system will comply with 
Sec. 234.207 which 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 adjusted, repaired, or replaced without undue delay.'' The 
railroad thus has the responsibility to repair or replace

[[Page 49559]]

backgrounds or hoods if they fail to perform their intended function--
to provide adequate contrasting background in the case of the 
background, and to provide a non-reflective shade in the case of the 
hood. FRA expects that the railroad responsible for maintenance of the 
grade crossing warning system will comply with Sec. 234.207 in these 
situations. FRA Signal and Train Control inspectors will be prepared to 
enforce this section accordingly.

Section 234.225  Activation of Warning System

    The Illinois Department of Transportation recommended that language 
be added to the present regulatory section as follows: ``Where highway 
traffic signals and railroad warning signals are interconnected, 
additional warning time may be required to enable the traffic signals 
to clear the intersection and display a green signal for the track 
approach leg of the intersection. This time will vary depending on the 
length of storage distance between the tracks and the highway 
intersection.''
    This important subject has been addressed by the Secretary of 
Transportation's Technical Working Group. The language proposed by the 
Illinois DOT is best approached as a general guideline to be used in 
certain situations rather than as a regulatory requirement. The 
Technical Working Group has recommended that practitioners, when 
planning and designing preemption systems, use guidance found in the 
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) revised Recommended 
Practices (ITE Journal, February 1997) ``Design Guidelines for Railroad 
Preemption at Signalized Intersections.''

Section 234.245  Signs

    One commenter suggested that this section require that signs 
``shall reflect current site conditions.'' The content of signs mounted 
on grade crossing signal posts is not an appropriate matter for a rule 
dealing with maintenance, inspection and testing and is beyond the 
scope of this proceeding. The information needed to be conveyed on a 
signal post is dependent on a decision by the state or local 
transportation authority having jurisdiction over the highway crossing 
the railroad tracks and is subject to the requirements of the Federal 
Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
(MUTCD).

Section 234.247  Purpose of Inspections and Tests; Removal From Service 
of Relay or Device Failing To Meet Test Requirements

    The BRS questioned whether a railroad has an obligation under 
Sec. 234.247, to respond to reports of false activations while a track 
is out of service. A railroad would have an obligation to respond to 
any false activation reports since the motorist will be responding to 
the grade crossing warning system irrespective of the status of rail 
service. However, this section would not apply if the grade crossing 
warning system is temporarily taken out of service when the tracks over 
the grade crossing are taken out of service or when the railroad 
suspends operations during a portion of the year. Of course, a full 
inspection and all required tests must be successfully completed before 
railroad operations over the grade crossing resume. This section is 
being revised to eliminate the typographical error of in which the 
phrase ``or the railroad suspends operations during a portion of the 
year'' appeared twice in paragraph (b).

Section 234.261  Highway Traffic Signal Preemption

    Iowa Department of Transportation suggests that this section be 
amended by adding the following paragraphs: ``(b) A tag or marking 
shall be affixed inside the control unit for any railroad signal which 
is interconnected with a highway traffic signal. In addition to the 
words ``WARNING, INTERCONNECTION WITH HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SIGNALS,'' the 
name, date and telephone number of the responsible highway authority 
shall be posted therein in a legible manner and be maintained current 
as of the date of the last contact with that authority. (c) The 
responsible highway authority shall be contacted immediately when any 
change is made in the crossing warning system that affects the 
operation of the highway traffic signal system.''
    This concept has been addressed by the Secretary's Technical 
Working Group. A form similar to that suggested by Iowa DOT has been 
developed and is being distributed throughout the country for placement 
in both grade crossing signal cases and in highway traffic signal 
cases. The form states in part: ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Warning 
System and Highway Traffic Signals are Interconnected. BEFORE 
MODIFICATION is made to any operation which connects to or controls the 
timing of an active railroad warning system and/or timing and phasing 
of a traffic signal the appropriate party(ies) shall be notified and, 
if necessary, a joint inspection conducted.'' The form contains the 
U.S. DOT/AAR Crossing Number together with contact names and phone 
numbers for the appropriate highway agency and railroad. This voluntary 
approach has been working very well and there does not appear to be any 
need to regulate this issue.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    These amendments have been evaluated in accordance with existing 
policies and procedures. Because these amendments are primarily 
technically oriented and generally reduce the regulatory burden on 
railroads, FRA has concluded that this revisions do not constitute a 
significant rule under either Executive Order 12866 or DOT's regulatory 
policies and procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small entities. 
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

    These amendments to part 234 do not change any information 
collection requirements.

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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and related 
directives. FRA has determined that this final rule is not a major FRA 
action requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement 
or environmental assessment.

Federalism

    FRA believes it is in compliance with Executive Order 13132. This 
final rule will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. This final rule will not have federalism implications that 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local 
governments.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 234

    Highway safety, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

[[Page 49560]]

The Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, the interim final rule revising 
49 CFR part 234 which was published at 61 FR 31802 on June 20, 1996, is 
adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

PART 234--GRADE CROSSING SIGNAL SYSTEM SAFETY

    1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, and 49 CFR 1.49.

    2. Revise Sec. 234.215 to read as follows:


Sec. 234.215  Standby power system.

    A standby source of power shall be provided with sufficient 
capacity to operate the warning system for a reasonable length of time 
during a period of primary power interruption. The designated capacity 
shall be specified on the plans required by Sec. 234.201 of this part.

    3. Revise Sec. 234.247(b) to read as follows:


Sec. 234.247  Purpose of inspections and tests; removal from service of 
relay or device failing to meet test requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) If a railroad elects not to comply with the requirements of 
Secs. 234.249 through 234.271 because all tracks over the grade 
crossing are out of service or the railroad suspends operations during 
a portion of the year, and the grade crossing warning system is also 
temporarily taken out of service, a full inspection and all required 
tests must be successfully completed before railroad operations over 
the grade crossing resume.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on September 19, 2001.
Allan Rutter,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-24242 Filed 9-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P