[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71183-71188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23303]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2005-22796]


FRA Emergency Order No. 24, Notice No. 2; Emergency Order No. 24: 
Hand-Operated Main Track Switches; Amendment

SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the United States 
Department of Transportation (DOT) issues this notice to amend 
Emergency Order No. 24 (EO 24) in response to informal comments 
received from railroads and labor organizations. This amendment 
provides additional guidance, clarifying amendments and expanded relief 
from the EO.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas H. Taylor, Staff Director, 
Operating Practices Division, Office of Safety Assurance and 
Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., RRS-11, Mail Stop 25, 
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6255); or Alan H. Nagler, 
Senior Trail Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., RCC-11, Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-
493-6038).

Background

    EO 24 was issued on October 19, 2005, published in the Federal 
Register on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61496) and required that railroads 
modify their operating rules and take certain other actions necessary 
to ensure that railroad employees who dispatch trains in non-signaled 
territory or who operate hand-operated main track switches (switches) 
in non-signaled territory, ensure the switches are restored to their 
proper (normal) position after use.
    EO 24 required that railroads ``immediately initiate steps to 
implement this EO * * * [and] complete implementation no later than 
November 22, 2005.'' 70 FR 61496, 61500. As the resulted community 
began implementation, practical concerns were raised with FRA regarding 
some aspects of the EO. In response to these informal comments, FRA has 
decided to provide the railroads and employees additional flexibility 
in complying with the EO. Because FRA is granting additional 
flexibility to the railroads and the employees, the November 22, 2005 
effective date of the EO is not changing.
    On November 4, 2005, FRA posted on its Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/ an additional document, in a question and answer 
format, that provided timely guidance to the informal comments offered 
by the regulated community.

[[Page 71184]]

This Notice No. 2 reflects the guidance provided in that question and 
answer document. In addition, this Notice No. 2 specifies additional 
relief granted by amending the ``Relief'' section in its entirety and 
issues clarifying amendments to the ``Finding and Order'' section of EO 
24, Notice No. 1.

I. Discussion of Comments

    The comments received by FRA were informally provided by a diverse 
number of railroads and the following associations and labor 
organizations. The American Short Line & Regional Railroads Association 
(ASLRRA), the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the Brotherhood 
of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the Brotherhood of 
Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED), the Brotherhood of 
Railroad Signalmen (BRS) and the United Transportation Union (UTU). By 
discussing the comments and our responses in this notice, FRA is 
providing consistent information to the entire regulated community.

Jurisdiction

    Some railroads, especially tourist railroads, contacted FRA 
regarding whether the EO applied to them. FRA responded that the EO 
applies to all railroads that have employees or contractor employees 
who operate hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory 
or dispatch trains in that type of territory unless specific relief has 
been granted. 70 FR 61500. Tourist railroads, or other railroads, that 
are unsure as to whether FRA exercises jurisdiction over them should 
refer to FRA's published statement on the extent and exercise of FRA's 
safety jurisdiction. 49 CFR Part 209, App. A. If a railroad is still 
unsure on this issue, please contact FRA's Office of Chief Counsel at 
(202) 493-6038.

Initial and Periodic Instruction

    Railroads and labor organizations alike were concerned that FRA did 
not adequately describe the method for initial and periodic 
instruction. Meanwhile, FRA believes the current instruction 
requirement is adequate and provides the following further guidance.
    Given that this is an emergency situation requiring railroads to 
quickly and effectively instruct employees, FRA's expectation is that 
the minimum initial instruction and distribution of the EO would 
include a face-to-face on-the-job briefing covering the requirements of 
this EO and the operating rules to which they relate. In order to be 
effective, this job briefing must include examples or real time 
applications of the EO, as well as a reasonable opportunity for 
employees to ask questions. Regarding periodic instruction, railroads 
will include this instruction as part of their program of instruction 
pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11.
    Some railroads indicated that they already had operating rules that 
complied with this EO and had recently instructed their employees on 
those rules; thus, these railroads asked whether the prior training 
could count as the required initial training. FRA decided that any 
training prior to issuance of the EO was insufficient. FRA has 
identified an emergency situation and wants to raise the level of 
awareness for all employees who operate hand-operated switches in non-
signaled territory or who dispatch trains in that type of territory. In 
addition, it is significant for affected employees to understand that 
the Federal government will be able to assess civil penalties of up to 
$27,000 for a violation of the EO by any person. That said, FRA does 
not expect railroads to entirely discount prior instruction. This new 
instruction can build upon the prior instruction--prior instruction on 
an unchanged operating rule does not need to be as in-depth as it would 
be if the employees were being instructed on the relevant operating 
rules for the first time.

Receipt or Acknowledgment of the EO by Employees

    Some railroads, and the associations that represent them, 
questioned the necessity for providing a copy of the EO to each 
employee and the method for keeping a receipt or acknowledgment. FRA 
explained that because of the critical importance of this EO and the 
importance of individual railroad employees' compliance and 
accountability, FRA must be assured that employees have received their 
own paper copy of the EO. However, FRA did not intend to preclude the 
creation or retention of the receipt or keeping of the acknowledgment 
electronically. As long as the receipt or acknowledgment is a permanent 
record that is kept for each affected employee and can be searched and 
printed for FRA upon request, electronic recordkeeping is acceptable. 
The electronic recordkeeping system should have system integrity to 
prevent fraudulent entries, and may be added onto existing systems, 
e.g., those systems that already track attendance at railroad operating 
rules classes. If those systems do not allow employees to enter an 
acknowledgment, the attendance sheet at the face-to-face job briefing 
on the EO should indicate that the attendee's signature reflects both 
attendance and receipt of a copy of the EO.
    A related concern is whether railroads also need to provide a copy 
of this Notice No. 2, to all affected employees. This Notice No. 2 
provides guidance, relief and clarifying amendments from the earlier 
notice, but does not create additional burdens, and thus it is possible 
for compliance to be achieved by following Notice No. 1 only. FRA 
therefore is not requiring railroads to provide a copy of this Notice 
No. 2 to all affected employees. Certainly, any railroad amending its 
operating rules with regard to this Notice No. 2 will need to instruct 
its employees accordingly and may choose to post or distribute it.

Hand-Operated Main Track Switches--Operational Concerns

    FRA received a number of inquiries requesting more information on 
the safety basis for certain operational requirements.
    Some railroads requested eliminating the requirement that the 
dispatcher confirm that both the conductor and engineer have initialed 
the switch position awareness form (SPAF). FRA has denied this request 
because of the strong safety reasons for its retention. While other 
requirements involve intra-crew communication, the dispatcher's 
confirmation provides an additional level of communication so that the 
crewmember releasing the train's authority ensures that both the 
engineer and conductor have properly recorded on the SPAF the position 
of all switches operated and that there is no confusion among 
crewmembers as to the alignment of those switches.
    At least one railroad wanted to do away with the requirements that 
the engineer initial each entry, as opposed to only the final entry; 
however, FRA is denying this request because the engineer's action of 
initialing each entry encourages intra-crew communication while 
employees are still at each switch.
    BLET asked that FRA clarify that entry of the engineer's initials 
is an affirmation that the communication (representation) has been 
received and not that the engineer can personally vouch for the actions 
taken on the ground. FRA affirms that the engineer's responsibility is 
to acknowledge the information provided by the conductor or brakeman, 
not to act as a guarantor with respect to the actual position in which 
the switch was left.
    Several concerns were raised regarding what FRA meant by the term 
``releasing the limits of a main track authority.'' The term means 
releasing all or a portion of the limits (i.e., rolling up

[[Page 71185]]

the limits) of an existing main track authority.
    Railroads and labor organizations alike raised concerns regarding 
whether a train crew that is relieved on line-of-road must take the 
SPAF with them or whether the SPAF could be left for the subsequent 
train crew. The purpose of EO 24 was to establish responsibility, 
shared among the crew and the dispatcher, for confirmation of switch 
position for all switches operated before the authority is released. A 
subsequent crew will not have actual knowledge of the position of 
switches in the track segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew. 
Further, the declarations made on the SPAF are personal to each 
employee participating, and it is not possible for subsequent crew 
members to verify information about which they did not have 
contemporaneous knowledge. Accordingly, to accomplish the purpose of EO 
24, the crew being relieved should contact the dispatcher and confirm 
the position of switches operated, at the same time releasing (rolling 
up) any portion of the authority not required by the relieving crew. 
The crew going off duty would finalize their SPAF at that time. The 
relieving crew would then initiate a new SPAF. The order has been 
amended to so provide.
    At least one request was received for clarification regarding the 
requirements of the EO if the limits of a main rack authority are 
rolled up behind a train or on-track equipment (OTE) by the dispatcher 
without the train crew's or OTE operator's knowledge. FRA's position is 
that, in addition to determining the train's or OTE's location, the 
dispatcher must confirm the position of all switches operated by the 
employees within the limits being rolled up.
    There have been several concerns expressed regarding whether the EO 
applied in certain specific situations. For instance, FRA wants to make 
clear that the EO does not apply in Rule 251 or GCOR Rule 9.14 
territory, i.e., current of traffic, signaled in one direction only. 
However, the EO is applicable if the signal system for a track segment 
is suspended. Furthermore, the EO is applicable if a track, or portion 
thereof, is out-of-service, unless the operating rules or special 
instructions require all trains to approach all facing point hand-
operated switches prepared to stop during the entire period the track 
is out-of-service.
    Finally, at least one comment was received regarding the 
requirement that before releasing the limits of a main track authority, 
the employee releasing the limits must report to the train dispatcher 
that all hand-operated main track switches operated have been restored 
to their normal position, unless the train dispatcher directs 
otherwise. The commenter noted that another sentence in this section 
regarding ``hand-operated main track switches'' permitted the normal 
position of a main track switch to be designated by the railroad and 
the switch to be lined and locked in that position when not in use, 
except ``when the switch is left in the charge of a crewmember of 
another train'' or the train dispatcher directs otherwise. Accordingly, 
the commenter requested a clarifying amendment so that in addition to 
the train dispatcher exception, the switch may be left in the charge of 
a crewmember of another train before releasing the limits. FRA agrees 
with the commenter that this exception provides at least an equivalent 
level of safety and a clarifying amendment has been made in this 
notice.
    BLET asked that language in item (2) of the order be amended to 
delete ``except when the switch is left in the charge of a crewmember 
of another train or the train dispatcher directs otherwise,'' following 
the requirement that switches be left in normal position when not in 
use. BELT suggested that this would heighten the sense of individual 
responsibility that the order seeks to promote. FRA appreciates the 
suggestion and recognizes that it is thematically consistent with the 
general thrust of the order. However, FRA is unable to act upon it for 
three reasons. First, this change does not appear to be necessary to 
abate the emergency. Recent accidents caused by misaligned switches 
have generally involved error on the part of the crew initially 
reversing the switch, rather than than miscommunication or lapses 
associated with handing off responsibility for the switch. Second, such 
a change could expose employees to hazards unnecessarily, as when it 
might be necessary to cross live tracks, walk on uneven ballast, or 
traverse areas covered with snow or ice. Third, imposing this 
requirement would cause significant delay and inefficiency in railroad 
operation.

Line Segment Relief Versus System Basis Relief Previously Granted

    Several railroads requested that the automatic relief granted to a 
railroad, where operating rules require trains to approach all facing 
point hand-operated switches prepared to stop on a system basis, be 
extended to a line segment basis. The request also covered the two 
other situations articulated in the EO; i.e., where hand-operated main 
track switches in non-signaled territory (unless out of service) are 
protected by either distant switch indicators or by switch point 
indicators. FRA is granting this relief although, in our opinion, this 
relief is a logical extrapolation from the relief previously provided. 
FRA will grant automatic relief on a line segment basis when the relief 
is predicated on a permanent application of the relevant operating 
rules and special instructions for the territory involved. Employees or 
dispatchers involved with more than one line segment may require 
instruction if one of the other line segments does not meet any of the 
conditions for relief. Distant switch indicators are arrangements that 
provide crews with advance indication of switch position in a manner 
similar to an approach signal. These arrangements are typically 
designed and maintained in a manner similar to technology employed 
under 49 CFR Part 236, the Rules, Standards and Instructions for signal 
and train control systems and have a well-established history of 
performance in the industry.
    In this Notice, FRA has required specific acceptance of ``switch 
point indicators'' as alternative to the rule because the term does not 
apply to a closed set of technologies and in order to provide FRA an 
opportunity to evaluate whether the technology provides safety 
equivalently to that provided by compliance with this order by properly 
qualified employees. In part because of the risk to trains associated 
with unauthorized operation of switches by vandals, FRA is encouraging 
exploration and implementation of appropriate technology that can 
detect misaligned main track switches and provide a means of 
safeguarding train operations.

On-Track Safety

    Many comments were received expressing concern that the EO was 
largely silent regarding employees involved with on-track safety such 
as signalmen, maintenance-of-way employees, bridge workers, and others. 
Some commenters were unsure of whether the EO applied to employees 
involved with on-track safety. When FRA explained that the EO applied 
to these workers, more comments were received questioning the logistics 
of how the EO would apply in practice. In consideration of these 
comments, FRA has decided to issue clarifying amendments (discussed 
below) that should allow for smoother operations--although the EO 24, 
Notice No. 1 requirement of having each employee fill out a SPAF is a 
feasible option as well.
    FRA is issuing a clarifying amendment to allow an employee

[[Page 71186]]

responsible for on-track safety, such as an employee in charge (EIC), 
to complete the SPAF for all employees working under the EIC's 
jurisdiction. The employee responsible for on-track safety pursuant to 
49 CFR 214, Subpart C, may maintain the SPAF in lieu of the individual 
worker(s) operating switches. Likewise, FRA is amenable to issuing a 
clarifying amendment so that each railroad could choose whether to 
create a SPAF specifically tailored to the communications among 
employees involved with on-track safety. Of course, if a worker 
operates a switch, that worker must still be qualified, i.e., 
instructed on, the relevant operating rules for operating a switch, 
even if they are not the employee completing a SPAF.
    Additionally, FRA is clarifying that if an EIC of on-track safety 
permits a train into the EIC's authority limits and there are switches 
operated by that train crew, both the EIC and the train crew must 
complete a SPAF. This clarification does not require an amendment to 
the EO.
    Some commenters did not understand whether the EO required the EIC 
to complete the SPAF in a situation when trains are operating through 
the limits of an EIC's authority and the EIC instructs all trains to 
operate at restricted speed. FRA explained that the EO does not need 
amending as this is a temporary application of the relevant operating 
rules for the territory involved and thus the EIC in that situation 
must complete a SPAF.
    Another concern regarding OTE was a request for clarification on 
the SPAF requirements when an OTE is moving to a work location. FRA's 
expectation is that the employee that receives the authority will 
complete the SPAF for all switches operated while under that authority.
    Furthermore, a SPAF is still required if an employee operates a 
switch when it is not necessary to receive permission from a 
dispatcher.

Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF)

    Some commenters were confused as to how the EO applied to an 
employee, other than a crewmember, who lines a switch for a train. FRA 
believes the EO clearly conveys that each employee, other than a 
crewmember, operating a switch for a train must complete a SPAF for all 
switches operated.
    The SPAF's content was also criticized as being too specific to 
train crews, rather than more general in nature so as to apply to any 
employee handling a switch. By requiring both the engineer's and 
conductor's names, the engineer's initials for each entry, and the 
conductor's signature when the form is completed, FRA addressed the 
common situation of a two-person crew in which the conductor is 
operating the switches. The commenters explained that there may be 
regular circumstances in which someone other than the conductor is 
operating a switch and therefore that person's initials must appear on 
the SPAF instead of the conductor's. One commenter asked whether a SPAF 
can provide spaces for the engineer and the person handling the switch 
to initial, and a space for the conductor to sign when the form is 
completed. FRA finds that such a SPAF would be in compliance with the 
EO.
    A question was raised regarding the requirement that the date be 
entered on the SPAF when an employee's tour of duty spans two calendar 
days. FRA's requirement is fulfilled as long as the date entered is the 
date that the tour of duty began. Of course, this is a minimum 
requirement and railroads are permitted to require multiple dates. For 
example, a railroad would be in compliance with the EO if it chooses to 
require the date for each switch entry instead of the date the crew 
started its tour of duty. Furthermore, FRA would certainly not find 
fault with an employee who chose to be more exacting than FRA has 
required--even if not required by railroad operating rules.
    Some railroads raised concerns that the SPAF was too specific in 
requiring employees to identify the track segment by a ``subdivision'' 
entry in that some railroads do not have subdivisions. FRA understands 
that some railroads do not have subdivisions and that instead of 
``subdividion'' the SPAF may be filled out to include branch, secondary 
track, or some other appropriate designation. FRA has added a 
clarifying amendment to address this issue.

Communication

    A concern shared by many commenters was that the EO was written in 
such a way as to indicate that unless radio communication was 
inoperable, no alternative method of communication among crewmembers 
would be acceptable to indicate a switch position. Some railroads 
requested an amendment because they preferred to use a method of 
communication other than radio as their primary method, such as hand or 
whistle signals. FRA has issued a clarifying amendment to indicate that 
it will accept alternate methods of intra-crew communication when they 
afford an equivalent level of communication integrity relevant to the 
prevailing operating conditions. FRA agrees with a comment from BLET 
that there will be situations where hand signals do not provide 
unambiguous information, as where a ground employee is expected to 
restore a switch behind a movement that will not be using the switch to 
exit the area. In those cases, radio communications or face-to-face 
communication will be required.

An Exception to Initialing the SPAF Prior to Leaving a Switch

    Several commenters raised concerns regarding the requirement that 
before employees leave the location of a switch, they must make the 
required entries on the SPAF ``as soon as practicable.'' Some 
commenters did not understand what the phrase ``as soon as 
practicable'' meant, and asked for clarification. Other commenters 
requested an amendment because there could be situations in which all 
involved employees might find it impracticable to initial the SPAF 
prior to leaving the switch.
    Regarding the phrase ``as soon as practicable,'' FRA's expectations 
are that when employees are in close prosimity, the required SPAF 
entries will be personally completed by the individual employees before 
they actually leave the location of the switch. FRA is not concerned if 
there is some delay in filling out the entries on the SPAF if other 
duties would normally, logically, or operationally be performed first. 
Of course, if the SPAF is readily available to the employee, it is a 
best practice for the employee to fill out the form first lest the 
employee forget either to fill it out or record exactly how the switch 
was last positioned.
    FRA recognizes that there are operating conditions, such as extreme 
physical separation, which would make recording the required entries on 
the SPAF before employees leave a location of a switch impracticable. 
In circumstances such as this, where it is logistically unfeasible, and 
in some situations unsafe, to record the required entries on the SPAF 
before leaving the location of a switch, FRA is issuing a clarifying 
amendment so that the crewmember completing the SPAF may make an 
appropriate entry on the SPAF. An appropriate entry would state that 
the necessary radio job briefing concerning the switch position was 
accomplished. Furthermore, the crewmember completing the SPAF should 
then enter the required employee's initials for that employee, clearly 
reflecting who made the entry (e.g., ``AD for CS''). FRA will consider 
the entries on teh SPAF for that switch to be complete at that time.
    For example, a conductor reverses a main switch for an intended 
100-car

[[Page 71187]]

shoving movement into a 2-mile industrial lead. After lining the 
switch, the conductor begins the shoving movement, remaining on the 
leading end to protect the movement. When the engine clears the switch, 
the movement stops, and the brakeman lines the main track switch to its 
normal position, and the shoving movement resumes, with the conductor 
still protecting the lending end of the movement. In this case, it 
would be impracticable to require the conductor to talk back 100 car-
lengths to the engine in order to obtain the brakeman's initials on the 
SPAF, and then walk back 100 car-lenghts to the lending end to continue 
protecting the movement. Thus, the clarifying amendment would allow the 
conductor to complete the SPAF by (1) noting that the brakeman 
confirmed that the switch was normalized by radio, or other acceptable 
communication, and (2) entering the brakeman's name or initials.

Application of the Hours of Service Laws

    Some comments regarding the application of the hours of service 
laws in conjunction with the EO. One question was whether the act of 
filling out a SPAF is itself covered service. This issue raised the 
beggest concern for maintenance-of-way employees because they are not 
otherwise typically performing work that is considered covered service 
under the hours of service laws. FRA wants to be clear that the act of 
filling out any portion of a SPAF does not by itself trigger covered 
service.
    Meanwhile, for employees that are covered by the hours of service 
laws, the act of filling out a SPAF is commingled service that should 
be performed within the statutory period. Railroads and employees are 
responsible for completing all activities required of them within that 
period. A railroad that requires an employee to perform a task in the 
last few minutes of a tour of duty must be mindful of whether it is 
possible to complete all required tasks within the allotted time. 
Meanwhile, employees should be mindful that many of the accidents that 
led to FRA issuing this EO could have been prevented if the employees 
had been more diligent about complying with railroad operating rules 
regarding the alignment of hand-operated main track switches in non-
signaled territory at the end of their tours of duty. Thus, regardless 
of the hours of service implications, employees should not hastily fill 
out a SPAF at the end of a tour of duty, with disregard to its 
accuracy, or release or roll up their limits without conferring that 
the entries on the SPAF have been completed, as these actions require 
the type of communication among employees that can prevent life-
threatening accidents.
    At least one commenter was concerned about the legistical issue of 
how the time associated with completion of the SPAF should be recorded 
on the time return or in the hours of service electronic system. For 
employees otherwise subject to the hours of service laws, there is no 
requirement to make a separate entry of the time associated with 
completion of the form. It is intended that completion of the form be 
integral to the accomplishment of the work, so it may be considered as 
part of covered service for hours of service recordkeeping purposes.

II. Amendment to Emergency Order No. 24

    The ``Finding and Order'' section of EO 24 is amended by adding the 
following clarifying amendments.

Clarifying Amendments

Instruction

     Given that this is an emergency situation requiring 
railroads to quickly and effectively instruct employees, the minimum 
initial instruction and distribution of the EO would include a face-to-
face on-the-job briefing covering the requirements of this EO and the 
operating rules to which they relate. In order to be effective, this 
job briefing must include examples or real time applications of the EO, 
as well as a reasonable opportunity for employees to ask questions. 
Regarding periodic instruction, railroads will include this instruction 
as part of their program of instruction pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11.
     Any instruction completed prior to issuance of the EO is 
sufficient to meet the instruction requirements. However, FRA does not 
expect railroads to entirely discount prior to instruction as this new 
instruction can build upon the prior instruction. Thus, prior 
instruction on an unchanged operating rule does not need to be as in-
depth as it would be if the employees were being instructed on the 
relevant operating rules for the first time.

Hand-Operating Main Track Switches

     EO 24 contains a requirement that before releasing the 
limits of a main track authority, the employee releasing the limits 
must report to the train dispatcher that all hand-operated main track 
switches operated have been restored to their normal position, unless 
the train dispatcher directs otherwise. This requirements remains in 
effect except that FRA will also permit the employee releasing the 
limits to report to the train dispatcher the switches that were left in 
the charge of a crewmember of another train before releasing the 
limits, if left in other than normal position.
     The EO does not apply in Rule 251 or GCOR Rule 9.14 
territory, i.e., current traffic, signaled in one direction only. 
However, the EO is applicable if the signal system for a track segment 
is suspended or a track is out-of-service, unless the operating rules 
or special instructions require trains to approach all facing point 
hand-operated switches prepared to stop during the entire period the 
signal system is suspended or the track is out of service.

Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF)

     FRA specifically amending the requirement that an employee 
operating a hand-operated main track switch in non-signaled territory 
shall be the employee to complete a SPAF. As an alternative, FRA will 
allow an employee responsible for on-track safety, such as an employee 
in charge (EIC), to complete a SPAF for all employees working under the 
EIC's jurisdiction. An employee responsible for on-track safety 
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 214, Subpart C, may maintain a SPAF in lieu of 
the individual worker(s) operating switches.
     In conjunction with the above clarifying amendment for on-
track safety, FRA is clarifying the requirement in EO 24 that the SPAF 
must contain the engineer's initials for each entry and the conductor's 
signature when the form is completed because those SPAF requirements 
would not be applicable to an on-track safety situation. Each railroad 
may continue to use the train crew oriented SPAF, as described in EO 
24, Notice 1, for its on-track safety situations. Similarly, a railroad 
may permit its employees involved in on-track safety the discretion to 
make notes or modify the SPAF so that it both contains the mandatory 
information and is understandable in the context of an on-track safety 
situation. Alternatively, FRA has no objection to railroads exceeding 
the EO's requirements by creating a SPAF that is tailored to 
communications among employees involved with on-track safety.
     FRA is amending the requirement that each SPAF must 
identify the track segment by a ``subdivision'' entry as not every 
railroad has subdivisions. Employees cannot be expected to provide a 
subdivision designation when no such designation exists. However, a 
railroad that does not have subdivisions should instruct its employees 
to provide

[[Page 71188]]

some other appropriate designation, such as branch or secondary track, 
for the ``subdivision'' entry. To facilitate the appropriate 
designation entry, a railroad that does not have subdivisions is 
encouraged to amend its SPAF by replacing the ``subdivision'' entry 
with a more suitable entry. If the exact name and location of a main 
track switch to be operated by an employee is identified, but there is 
no suitable entry for subdivision, branch, secondary track, etc., an 
employee may leave that entry blank or identify that entry as not 
applicable.
     EO 24 requires that entries made with respect to a 
specific hand-operated main track switch is non-signaled territory must 
be recorded as soon as practicable after the switch is reversed, and as 
soon as practicable after the switch is returned to its normal position 
before leaving the location. FRA recognizes that there are operating 
conditions which would make recording the required entries on the SPAF 
before employees leave a location of a switch impracticable due to 
extreme physical separation. Thus, in circumstances in which it is 
logistically unfeasible or unsafe to record the required entries on the 
SPAF before leaving the location of a switch, FRA will allow the 
crewmember completing the SPAF to make an appropriate entry on the 
SPAF. Such entry would stat that the necessary radio job briefing 
concerning the switch position was accomplished. Furthermore, the 
crewmember completing the SPAF should then enter the required 
employee's initials for that employee. FRA will consider the entries on 
the SPAF for that switch complete at that time.
     When a train crew is relieved on line-of-road, a member of 
the train crew, typically the conductor, shall either retain the SPAF 
for the required five days or turn it in to the designated railroad 
official who shall retain it for the required period. A SPAF should not 
be left for the subsequent train crew unless the relieved crew 
purposely makes an extra copy for the benefit of the relieving crew. 
The purpose of EO 24 was to establish responsibility, shared among the 
crew and the dispatcher, for confirmation of switch position for all 
switches operated before the authority is released. A subsequent crew 
will not have actual knowledge of the position of switches in the track 
segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew. Further, the declarations 
made on the SPAF are personal to each employee participating, and it is 
not possible for subsequent crew members to verify information about 
which they did not have contemporaneous knowledge. Accordingly, to 
accomplish the purpose of EO 24, the crew being relieved must contact 
the dispatcher and confirm the position of switches operated, at the 
same time releasing (rolling up) any portion of the authority not 
required by the relieving crew and closing out the SPAF. The crew going 
off duty would finalize its SPAF at that time. The relieving crew would 
then initiate a new SPAF.

Radio Communication

     EO 24 requires that train crewmembers shall communicate by 
radio unless the radio is inoperable. FRA amends the EO so that 
alternate methods of intra-crew communication will be acceptable, 
regardless of whether the radios are operable, when they afford an 
equivalent level of communication integrity relevant to the prevailing 
operating conditions. Hand or whistle signals are examples of 
acceptable methods of alternate intra-crew communications.

Distribution of Emergency Order

     A railroad may retain an electronic receipt or 
acknowledgment, as an alternative to a written receipt or 
acknowledgment, for each employee affected by the EO that indicates 
that the employee was provided with a copy of EO 24, Notice No. 1. As 
long as the receipt or acknowledgment is a permanent record that is 
kept for each affected employee and can be searched and printed for FRA 
upon request, electronic recordkeeping is acceptable. The electronic 
recordkeeping system should have system integrity, to prevent 
fraudulent entries, and may be added onto existing systems, e.g., those 
systems that already track attendance at railroad operating rules 
classes. If those systems do not allow employees to enter an 
acknowledgment, the attendance sheet at the face-to-face job briefing 
on the EO should reflect that the attendee's signature reflects both 
attendance and receipt of a copy of the EO.
     FRA is not requiring railroads to provide a copy of this 
Notice No. 2 to all affected employees. Certainly, any railroad that 
amends its operating rules with regard to Notice No. 2 will need to 
instruct its employees accordingly and may choose to post or distribute 
this notice.
    The ``Relief'' section of Emergency Order No. 24 is amended in its 
entirety to read as follows:

Relief

    Petitions for special approval to take action not in accordance 
with EO 24 may be submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, 
who shall be authorized to dispose of those requests without the 
necessity of amending this EO. In reviewing any petition for special 
review, the Associate Administrator for Safety shall only grant 
petitions in which a petitioner has clearly articulated an alternative 
action that will provide, in the Associate Administrator for Safety's 
judgment, at least an equivalent level of safety as this EO provides. A 
copy of this petition should be submitted to the Docket Clerk, 
Department of Transportation Central Docket Management System, Nassif 
Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. Such 
request may be in written or electronic form consistent with the 
standards and requirements established by the Central Docket Management 
System and posted on its Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.
    FRA recognizes that certain railroad operating rules or equipment 
used by some railroads already provide a level of safety equivalent to 
this EO. If all of a railroad's hand-operated main track switches in 
non-signaled territory are covered by one or more of the protective 
measures identified below, a railroad need not apply for relief from 
this EO as relief shall be deemed automatically granted. FRA also 
grants automatic relief on a line segment basis when the relief is 
predicated on a permanent application of the relevant operating rules 
and special instructions for the territory involved. Relief from this 
EO is automatically granted when:
     Operating rules require trains to approach all facing 
point hand-operated switches in non-signaled territory prepared to 
stop;
     Hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled 
territory (unless out of service) are protected by distant switch 
indicators; or
     Hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled 
territory are protected by switch point indicators accepted by the 
Associate Administrator as providing safety equivalent to that provided 
by positioning and securing of switches in compliance with this order.
    This amendment is effective from the date of issue of this notice.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 18, 2005.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-23303 Filed 11-21-05; 4:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-M