Grade Crossing Signal System Safety |
|---|
Topics: Federal Highway Administration
|
Jolene M. Molitoris (Federal Register)
January 20, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1257]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 20, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 212 and 234
[FRA Docket No. RSGC-5; Notice No. 6]
[RIN 2130-AA70]
Grade Crossing Signal System Safety
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA proposes specific maintenance, inspection, and testing
requirements for active highway-rail grade crossing warning systems.
FRA also proposes to require 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. This action is taken 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 systems
at railroad highway grade crossings.
DATES: (1) Written comments must be received no later than March 21,
1994. Comments received after that date will be considered to the
extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay.
(2) A public hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 1, 1994.
Any person who desires to make an oral statement at the hearing is
requested to notify the Docket Clerk at least five working days prior
to the hearing, by telephone or by mail, and to submit three copies of
the oral statement that he or she intends to make at the hearing.
ADDRESSES: (1) Written comments should be submitted to the Docket
Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Persons desiring to be notified that their
written comments have been received by FRA should submit a stamped,
self-addressed postcard with their comments. The Docket Clerk will
indicate on the postcard the date on which the comments were received
and will return the card to the addressee. Written comments will be
available for examination, both before and after the closing date for
comments, during regular business hours in room 8201 of the Nassif
Building at the above address.
(2) A public hearing will be held in room 2230 of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Persons desiring to
make oral statements at the hearing should notify the Docket Clerk by
telephone (202-366-0628) or by writing to the Docket Clerk at the
address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Goodman, Chief, Signal and
Train Control Division, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2231), or Mark Tessler, Trial
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-0628).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 29, 1992, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) (57 FR 28819) in which FRA 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, DC on September 15, 1992. Due to comments received and an
intention to widen the scope of this rulemaking to include proposed
standards for maintenance, inspection, and testing pursuant to the
mandate of section 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. That meeting consisted of very frank and
open discussions of both FRA's timely response proposal and the issue
of maintenance, inspection, and testing regulations. In response to a
participant's request, the comment period was extended to February 15,
1993. 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 June NPRM, the labor/management group
proposed specific regulatory language addressing both timely response
and maintenance, inspection, and testing.
The NPRM issued today reflects the consolidation into one
rulemaking docket of the timely response rulemaking (see 57 FR 28819)
with proposed standards for maintenance, inspection, and testing of
grade crossing warning systems.
Rather than issuing a final rule on timely response, FRA is today
requesting comments on a revised proposed rule. FRA does however,
reserve the right to issue a final rule consistent in whole or in part,
either with the text contained in this NPRM, with the text of the prior
NPRM on timely response, or in response to comments received in
response to the various issues raised in these documents. In the
following section-by-section analysis, FRA will discuss the range of
comments received in response to our earlier ``timely response'' NPRM.
It is perhaps an understatement to say the June 1992 NPRM did not
receive universal acclaim among the railroad community. It was
generally thought to be too burdensome, and its requirements,
especially those regarding responses to false activations, were seen as
unnecessary and overly complicated. The earlier proposed ``timely
response'' rules would have required a railroad to take the following
three steps after learning of a malfunctioning grade crossing warning
system: (1) Notify trains and highway traffic 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 NPRM issued today is consistent with the earlier proposal.
FRA has, however, in response to helpful comments, revised certain
requirements to better fit within the present railroad operating
environment. Individual comments, and our response to them, will be
discussed in the section-by-section analysis below. FRA is also issuing
proposed maintenance, inspection and testing standards for all active
grade crossing warning systems. As added by the Rail Safety Improvement
Act of 1988, Sec. 202(q) of the Safety Act provided that ``[t]he
Secretary shall, within one year after the date of the enactment of the
Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988, issue such rules, regulations,
orders, and standards as may be necessary to ensure the safe
maintenance, inspection, and testing of signal systems and devices at
railroad highway grade crossings.'' On September 3, 1992, the Rail
Safety Enforcement and Review Act was enacted. Section 2 of that act
deleted from subsection (q) the phrase ``such rules, regulations,
orders, and standards as may be necessary'' and replaced it with
``rules, regulations, orders, and standards.'' Congress clearly
intended to remove any doubt about whether maintenance, inspection, and
testing standards must be issued. FRA is therefore proceeding with
today's proposed maintenance, inspection and testing rules.
In an effort to gather sufficient data to determine the scope and
content of possible Federal maintenance, inspection and testing
standards, FRA published the present 49 CFR part 234, ``Grade Crossing
Signal System Safety,'' on September 23, 1991 (56 FR 33722). Those
reporting rules were meant to provide the accurate factual information
we felt was necessary to fashion an appropriate regulatory scheme for
maintenance, inspection, and testing. While FRA was planning on a
longer period during which to gather and analyze data generated by our
new reporting rule, information received to date has been helpful in
fashioning the proposed rules. FRA will, of course, study all
additional data as it is received and will take whatever future
regulatory action is necessary based on that additional information.
The proposed maintenance, inspection, and testing standards have
been heavily influenced by the present FRA signal rules at 49 CFR part
236, ``Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing the Installation,
Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train Control
Systems, Devices, and Appliances'' (also known among railroad signalmen
as the ``Rules, Standards, and Instructions'' or simply as the
``RS&I''). These rules, which had their genesis with the Interstate
Commerce Commission, are well known and understood among the railroad
community and have contributed to extremely safe railroad signal
systems nationwide. Generally, the same railroad employees or contract
employees who maintain and inspect a railroad's signal system will also
be maintaining the railroad's grade crossing signal system. The same
signal principles and much of the equipment used on train control
signal systems will apply to grade crossing systems. It is therefore
appropriate that much of the technical requirements which have served
the industry well in the past would be adopted to some extent in the
proposed rules.
Another major influence on the proposed rule was the previously
mentioned joint submission from the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen,
the Association of American Railroads, and The American Short Line
Railroad Association (``labor/management''). This submission, from
organizations who have historically taken diverse positions in the area
of grade crossing safety, has provided very helpful suggestions in the
drafting of this proposal. The drafters of the labor/management
submission appear to have also relied to a great extent on part 236 for
guidance.
Section-by-Section Analysis
This section-by-section analysis of the proposed rules is intended
to explain the rationale for each proposed rule. The analysis includes
the requirements of each proposed rule, the purpose each proposed rule
would serve in enhancing the effective operation of a highway-rail
grade crossing warning system, the current industry practice, comments
and recommendations contained in the industry submission, and other
pertinent comments. The comments and recommendations contained in the
industry submission are important factors in determining effective
rules because, representing both labor and management, they reflect
differing perspectives and collective grade crossing experience.
The analysis also reflects pertinent comments made at an open
meeting with interested parties, held on December 11, 1992, to discuss
current industry practices regarding maintenance, inspection, and
testing of highway-rail grade crossing warning systems.
49 CFR Part 212
Section 212.231 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inspector
This amendment to 49 CFR Part 212 ``State Safety Participation
Program'' creates a new category of state inspector within the State
Participation Program. This program, which provides for state
participation in investigative and surveillance activities under
federal railroad safety laws and regulations, would now include a
separate inspector category of ``Highway-rail grade crossing
inspector.'' New Sec. 212.231 would establish minimum qualification
standards enabling state inspectors to enforce grade crossing signal
system safety regulations at part 234. Additionally, this section
provides that all state signal and train control inspectors qualified
under Sec. 212.207 are also thereby fully qualified under new
Sec. 212.231.
Section 212.233 Apprentice Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inspector
New Sec. 212.233 would establish minimum qualification standards
which applicants must meet prior to being enrolled in the inspector
training program.
49 CFR Part 234
Section 234.1 Scope
This section is revised to expand the scope of part 234 to include
the areas covered by this NPRM. 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 maintenance,
inspection, and testing standards for such systems. This section also
clarifies that when any person performs any function required by this
part, that person is required to perform that function in accordance
with this part.
Section 234.3 Application
This section of the regulations is not being revised. However, a
discussion of this section and its relationship to a petition for
rulemaking is appropriate.
Section 234.3(a) provides that except as provided in paragraph (b)
of the section, part 234 applies to railroads that operate on standard
gage track that is part of the general railroad system of
transportation. Paragraph (b) provides that part 234 does not apply to
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.
In 1992, the President of Berkshire Scenic Railway Museum, Inc.
(Berkshire Scenic), filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that FRA
propose a discrete set of regulations applicable to scenic railroads.
The Administrator has granted the request to the extent that the
petition raised issues related to ongoing regulatory projects. FRA has
therefore reviewed the present rulemaking in light of Berkshire
Scenic's petition.
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.
As stated above, part 234 applies to railroads that operate on
standard gage track that is part of the general railroad system of
transportation. Thus, the proposed rule would apply to all highway-rail
grade crossings on trackage that is part of the general railroad system
of transportation. FRA invites comment as to whether this section
should be revised to include within the application of the rule,
crossings on trackage not part of the general railroad system of
transportation. We specifically solicit input on whether maintenance,
inspection, and testing of grade crossing warning systems at crossings
on plant or tourist railroads off the general railroad system should
remain unregulated by the Federal government. Should timely response
rules, or maintenance, inspection and testing rules, or both, 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? Should a motorist on a public highway have a
reasonable expectation that all active warning systems on that highway
will be maintained, inspected, and tested under the same standards?
Should a motorist entering a private crossing equipped with an active
warning system (923 such crossings nationwide) have the same
expectation?
Section 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
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. In addition to these
minimum standards, railroads are encouraged 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 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
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 law enforcement officers.
Credible report of system malfunction means specific information
regarding a malfunction at an identified highway-rail grade crossing,
supplied by an identified railroad employee, law enforcement officer,
highway traffic official, or an employee of a public agency acting in
an official capacity. The proposed definition would ensure that
legitimate malfunction reports are received and acted upon by
railroads.
FRA's original proposed definition of a credible report included
``an individual who has provided his or her name together with a
telephone number or other means of contact, and who does not have a
history of making false or misleading reports to the railroad
pertaining to system malfunctions.'' There was concern by various
parties that it would be very burdensome to require that railroads
immediately take the required responsive action upon a call from a
member of the public. We agree. Instead, 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 the
today's regulations. Today's proposal would 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.
Warning system malfunction means an activation failure or a false
activation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system.
Section 234.6(a) Civil Penalties
This section is being amended to conform with 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 by illustrative and not
exhaustive.
Section 234.101 Employee Notification Rules
The proposed 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. Some
railroads may determine that the dispatcher is the appropriate official
to be contacted, while other railroads may decide that a different
official is best placed to receive and take action on reports of
malfunctions. The proposed section is consistent with the joint
submission.
Section 234.103 Timely Response To Report of Malfunction
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
shall then take action as required by Sec. 234.207. This subsection
would require the railroad to immediately investigate a credible report
of malfunction. Based upon the results of that investigation, and in
accordance with Sec. 234.207, the railroad would be required to adjust,
repair, or replace any faulty component without undue delay. Further
discussion of the requirement for repair without undue delay can be
found in the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 234.207.
Subsection (b) requires that, until repair or correction of the
warning is completed, the railroad shall provide alternative means of
warning highway traffic and railroad employees in accordance with this
subpart. Acceptable alternative means of protecting the travelling
public and railroad employees are described in Secs. 234.105 and
234.107, as appropriate.
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.
The proposed section is consistent with the labor/management's
recommendation.
Section 234.105 Activation Failure
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 motorists
and railroad employees at the subject crossing by taking, at a minimum,
certain actions. Paragraph (a) provides that prior to a 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 highway
traffic control authority having jurisdiction over the crossing, and
paragraph (c) requires the railroad to provide or arrange for
alternative means of actively warning motorists of approaching trains.
Paragraph (c)(1) 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 to permit
the flagging crewmember to reboard the locomotive before the remainder
of the train proceeds through the crossing.
Paragraph (c)(2) provides 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.
Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are the same as those proposed in
FRA's original proposal. FRA recognizes that paragraph (c)(2) may
present flagging problems in some situations. At those crossings which
involve both higher speed trains and highways with higher speed limits,
flaggers might need more warning time and greater warning distance
(depending on track curvature and sight distances) in order to
adequately warn approaching motorists of an approaching train. A
flagger may need to provide warning further down a highway to provide
sufficient stopping distance for a motorist. The flagger might also
need to set out a series of fusees or flags to provide proper warning.
It may be necessary to restrict train speeds in these situations in
order to facilitate this preparation. FRA solicits comments on this
issue.
Paragraph (c)(3) provides that if an appropriately equipped flagger
or law enforcement officer provides warning for highway traffic, but
there is not at least one flagger or law enforcement officer providing
warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed with
caution through the crossing at a speed not exceeding 10 miles per
hour. Normal speed may be resumed after the locomotive has passed
through the crossing.
Paragraph (c)(3) is different in certain respects from FRA's
original proposal. The original proposal would have required a train to
stop before entering a crossing if the crossing were not protected by
at least one appropriately equipped flagger for each direction of
highway traffic. In addition, if the crossing were flagged by a train
crewmember, the train would be required to stop again for the
crewmember to reboard the locomotive. Today's proposal would still
require the stopping of a train if no flagger is present to warn
highway traffic. However, if there is a flagger present, but there is
not at least one flagger for each direction of highway traffic, the
train would be required to pass through the crossing at a speed not
exceeding 10 miles per hour.
In their comments and recommendations, labor/management argue that
the presence of a flagger, combined with the reduction in train speed
and the use of the locomotive's horn, would provide sufficient warning
to the travelling public. The commenters state that the decision on
whether to stop the train a second time for a train crewmember to
reboard should be left to the discretion of the railroad, based on the
particular circumstances involved. Requiring a second stop also
increases the time during which the crossing is blocked by a train,
thereby increasing the possibility of side collisions. We agree with
the comments and have revised the proposed rule accordingly. To further
limit the potential of side collisions at night with one flagger
warning motorists, the provision has been revised to provide that
railroads are only required to approach the crossing with caution at a
speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour. When the locomotive of a train
has passed through the crossing, normal speed may be resumed. This
would reduce, by however small a margin, the time during which side
collisions are possible.
While FRA is not at this time proposing that railroad employees be
required to comply with flagging procedures contained in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) issued by the Federal Highway
Administration, they are encouraged to comply as fully as possible with
those or similar procedures.
Paragraph (c)(4) remains unchanged. This paragraph would require
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. FRA is
presently reviewing the entire ``whistle ban'' issue and, 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
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 immediately initiate
efforts to warn motorists and railroad employees at the subject
crossing by taking, at a minimum, certain actions.
Paragraph (a) provides that prior to a 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 highway
traffic control authority having jurisdiction over the crossing, and
paragraph (c) requires the railroad to provide or arrange for
alternative means of actively warning motorists of approaching trains.
Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) provide for the alternative means of
warning motorists. Paragraph (c)(1) provides that if an appropriately
equipped flagger or law enforcement officer is stationed at the
crossing providing warning for each direction of highway traffic,
trains may proceed through the crossing at normal speed. Paragraph
(c)(2) provides that if there is not an appropriately equipped flagger
or law enforcement officer stationed at the crossing providing warning
for each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed with caution
through the crossing at a speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour. Normal
speed may be resumed after the locomotive has passed through the
crossing. 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. We recognize that the proposed rule contains a
disincentive for a railroad to do this since under Sec. 234.107 the
railroad can operate through the crossing at 10 mph rather than
stopping at the crossing as would be required under Sec. 234.105. FRA
requests suggestions on ways to counter this disincentive while
simultaneously insuring both safe highway traffic and safe, efficient
rail operations. FRA recognizes that if gates are activated for an
extended period of time, some highway users may attempt to go around
the gates at the risk of a collision with an oncoming train. Highway
users who obey the warning signal will be diverted to another route,
resulting in inefficiencies for those travelers. The proposed rule both
requires repair of the device ``without undue delay'' and prohibits a
train from proceeding through an unflagged crossing at a speed in
excess of 10 mph. Today, there are no limitations placed on the
railroads in such situations. Thus, the proposal, while not ideal in
terms of the impacts on the highway user, should improve the situation
at crossings with malfunctioning warning devices. FRA recognizes that
this proposal impacts highway users and therefore requests that
commenters address possible alternatives to mitigate the negative
effects on the highway user of permitting gates or flashing lights to
remain activated for an extended period of time.
Although not a regulatory proposal, FRA recognizes that a railroad
may, of course, request the authority having jurisdiction over the
roadway to close the roadway and detour highway traffic to another
nearby crossing. 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.
FRA's original proposal stated that within two hours of receipt of
a credible report of false activation, the railroad would have to
provide or arrange for alternative means of protection at the crossing.
During the period in which there were no alternative means of highway
traffic control in place, trains would have been required to enter the
crossing at a speed of not more than 10 miles per hour. FRA noted in
the original NPRM that ``we are specifically requesting comments on the
proposed time period to find out any circumstances under which this
requirement may be difficult to fulfill.'' 57 FR 28822. The vast
majority of submissions and testimony addressing the two hour response
time of this rule have expressed the opinion that this proposal would
be too burdensome on the industry, with no measurable increase in
safety provided at the grade crossings.
Labor/management's comments recommend that FRA eliminate the ``two-
hour'' provision from the original proposed rule. They recommend, in
the absence of flagging, that the restriction on train speeds remain in
effect pending repair of the warning system or appropriate alternative
action. They state that the combined effect of the warning system being
activated, the train proceeding at no more than restricted speed, and
the use of the locomotive's audible warning device will provide
sufficient warning for highway users. After re-examining the original
proposed rule, FRA has eliminated the two-hour provision. In our view,
highway users will be adequately warned of approaching trains that are
proceeding at a speed no greater than 10 miles per hour. Additionally,
the period during which the warning system may remain malfunctioning is
limited by proposed Sec. 234.207 which requires that malfunctioning
components of a warning system be repaired, replaced or adjusted
without undue delay. Compliance with that section will ensure that
temporary warnings provided under Sec. 234.107 will be held to a
minimum period of time.
Section 234.109 Recordkeeping
Paragraph (a) of this section requires each railroad to keep
records pertaining to compliance with this subpart. Each railroad would
be required to keep the following information for each 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 all records referred to in paragraph (a) of this section. Records
required to be kept shall be made available to FRA as provided by
Sec. 208 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 437).
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. Plans would be required to be legible and correct to protect
against errors in circuitry connections. The current industry practice
is for plans to be kept at each grade crossing location and used for
the installation and maintenance of warning systems. The proposed rule
is consistent with labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.203 Design of Control Circuits on Closed Circuit Principle
The proposed rule requires that all control circuits that affect
the safe operation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system
shall be designed on the closed circuit principle. This design
requirement ensures that failure of any part or component of the
circuit will cause the warning system to activate (fail-safe
principle). The MUTCD requires the fail-safe principle be adopted in
the design of warning systems. The proposed rule corresponds with
current industry practice.
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. In order to comply with this section, each
carrier should have available specifications setting 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. The proposed rule
corresponds with current industry practice. The proposed rule is
consistent with labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.207 Adjustment, Repair, or Replacement of Component
The proposed rule is similar to the requirement in the present FRA
signal rules at 49 CFR part 236. The proposed rule 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 repaired or replaced ``without undue
delay.'' The proposed rule also requires that a railroad take
appropriate action under Sec. 234.105 or Sec. 234.107, as appropriate.
It 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 would 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.
The term ``undue delay'' has a long and reasonably well understood
history within the railroad signalling community, as applied to signal
and train control systems. In discussing this term when issuing the
NPRM to the present part 236, FRA referred to ``[t]he interpretation of
the phrase ``undue delay'' by the ICC. ``At page 723 of 329 I.C.C., the
ICC said: `We find that the record does not support a rule which would
require that repairs be made before the next movement in all
situations. Such a rule would be unduly restrictive since adequate
temporary safety measures can be taken until necessary repairs are
made. We further find that the phrase `without undue delay' is a
reasonable provision considering the infinite variety of factual
situations in which Rule 11 [predecessor rule to Sec. 236.11] is
applicable.'' 48 FR 11882, March 21, 1983. However, the same
understanding that applies to the concept of ``undue delay'' with
respect to railroad signal systems is not applicable in many cases of
automated warning device malfunction. The differences are of a
practical nature, including the fact that the device in question is a
highway traffic control device.
Where railroad signal systems are at issue, train movements in any
given time period may be infrequent. Thus, although prompt diagnosis of
the situation is normally required, completion of repairs can sometimes
be completed over a matter of hours with no degradation of safety.
Grade crossing warning devices present challenges that are similar in
some respects, but different in others.
Activation Failure
Where the device fails to operate in the presence of a train
(whether partially or totally), immediate action by the railroad is
crucial to protecting train and vehicular traffic. However, even though
flagging trains through the crossing is a temporary expedient that
greatly reduces risks to the motorist, this approach is not
satisfactory as a continuing measure at most crossings where automated
warning devices are installed. Temporary measures required under
Sec. 234.105 involve additional hazards to train crews from mounting
and dismounting locomotives in areas where employees are not normally
on the ground. Whether flagging is provided by the train crew or other
employees, additional risk is posed to those persons by motorists who
may be insufficiently attentive as they approach a crossing normally
equipped with functioning automated devices. In addition, where
flagging is conducted by the train crew an increased risk of side-
collision accidents exists because the crewmember providing flagging
service must, as a practical matter, reboard the locomotive before the
remainder of the train clears the crossing. (Approximately 34% of
nighttime crossing accidents involve motor vehicles striking the side
of the train.) In this instance, a rapid response to the malfunction is
indicated, both for the safety of the motorist and the employees
involved. An exception to the need for rapid repair of the device would
be a case in which no train movement is planned for the interval of
several hours between the initial report and the time the maintainer
responds and completes the repairs.
In cases of activation failures, then, the frequency of train
movements powerfully influences any evaluation of what might be
considered an ``undue delay.''
False Activation
In the case of a false activation, the railroad may elect to
provide warning by slowing the train (and sounding the whistle) under
proposed Sec. 234.107 until necessary repairs were made. In this case,
motorists approaching the crossing with devices still functioning, but
with no train in sight, are exposed to slightly greater risk of a
traffic mishap due to the need to stop. Motorists will often be tempted
to attempt to negotiate around gate arms rather than executing a ``U''
turn and using another crossing.
More significantly, if the malfunction continues for an extended
time period, or if malfunctions are frequent, it is possible that
motorists may be conditioned to disbelieve the indication provided by
the warning device, leading to a later accident at the same crossing,
or a different crossing equipped with automated warning devices. That
is, the credibility of the warning system may be compromised. Again, a
rapid response by the signal maintainer is required. In this case, the
first stage of the response may be to deactivate the warning system,
ensuring that the procedures for an activation failure are
followed.1 If, on the other hand, the response is to provide
flagging services, that would be required under the text of the
proposed rule only during those times when a train is present. During
those periods, some risk would be presented to the persons providing
that service, since the motorist will expect to look for the indication
of the automated device, rather than presence of a flagger. At other
times, the credibility issue will arise; and early action to deactivate
the warning system will be indicated, with full repair before the next
train movement insofar as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This is not self-evident, but is posited for discussion.
Should the response to a false activation be flexible, taking into
account the frequency of both highway and rail traffic over the
crossing? What is the break point (if any) at which deactivation of
the warning device should be preferred?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking for
timely response to malfunctions, the Association of American Railroads
submitted data analysis indicating that the occurrence of false
activations does not lead to loss of credibility of warning devices.
AAR's comments and testimony at the September 15, 1992 public
hearing indicated that there was no relationship between false
activations and subsequent accidents at the grade crossings at which
the malfunction occurred. Analyzing accidents occurring during a six-
month period, the AAR concluded that only 15 accidents occurred in the
week following the malfunction, and only two in the 24 hours following
the malfunction. There was none in the period between report of the
malfunction and its repair.
When the FRA attempted to duplicate AAR's results using FRA's grade
crossing accident/incident database, we found different results. FRA's
data showed that fewer accidents occurred in the same time period as
analyzed by the AAR. Also, fewer accidents occurred at all grade
crossings which had experienced prior malfunctions. Despite the lower
number of accidents, FRA's analysis of the same six-month period
indicates a greater number of accidents both in the week following the
malfunction (34) and in the twenty-four hour period following the
malfunction (11). It is statistically unlikely that the higher accident
rate following malfunctions is due to random causes.
In other words, FRA has found a significant concentration of
accidents in the time period shortly after malfunctions, which leads to
the opposite conclusion from that which would be drawn using AAR's
figures. It appears that the differences between AAR's and FRA's
figures are due solely to differences in the raw data used for analysis
rather than methodological differences.
Recognizing the value of the AAR methodology, FRA has attempted to
replicate and extend the analysis utilizing the more extensive data
sets now available as a result of malfunction reports under 49 CFR
234.9. FRA analyzed accident patterns associated with false activations
over the 15-month period for which data is now available. The data
shows that there were 94 accidents in the week following a false
activation, and 16 in the twenty-four hour period following a false
activation. FRA's analysis for this period indicates (as it does for
the earlier six-month period) that there is overrepresentation of
accidents in the week after a false activation malfunction. FRA's data
also shows that one to two percent of fatalities at crossings are
associated with those additional accidents. A more detailed discussion
of this research is contained in the Economic Impact Assessment and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis on file in Docket RSGC-5.
In light of these data, FRA is concerned that the inter-
relationships between this section and sections 234.105 and 234.107
have not yet been fully developed, despite the efforts of the industry
parties and FRA to resolve this issue in a practical manner that avoids
unnecessary expenditures. FRA does not believe that the answer to the
issue lies in repeated incantation of a comfortable phrase, such as
``without undue delay.'' FRA urgently requests commenters to examine
once again the structure of this proposal and the realities of the
highway-rail issues presented herein for the purpose of developing the
most effective, reasonable, objective, and enforceable approach to this
difficult problem. FRA reserves the right to issue a final rule
consistent either with the text contained in this NPRM or with the text
of the prior NPRM on timely response.
There is no current industry standard that corresponds with this
rule. However, the industry has previously testified that it currently
has provisions to repair defective warning device components in a
timely manner. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's
recommendation.
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 the safety of highway traffic. The
intent of the proposed rule is to ensure that railroads provide
alternative methods of maintaining safety 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. Most
railroads have established procedures regarding precautions to be taken
when performing such work.
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
flashing. Even when the track is temporarily out of service the mixed
message sent to the motorist diminishes the warning system's
credibililty, and must therefore be avoided. FRA solicits suggestions
as to how to accommodate both the railroad's and the motorist's needs
in such situations.
FRA also requests interested parties to discuss the safety effect
on the warning system 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. There 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
motorist 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. FRA
solicits comments on this matter. Should this situation be considered
interference with the normal functioning of a warning system? FRA
solicits comments on this problem and, if appropriate, possible
regulatory and non-regulatory solutions.
Section 234.211 Locking of Warning System Apparatus
The proposed rule permits the carrier to have managerial discretion
in the specific manner that warning system housings are secured. The
proposed rule requires that all external housings of warning system
apparatus be kept locked, sealed, or secured. This includes warning
system houses, flashing light signals, gate mechanisms, and bell or
stationary audible warning system housings. The purpose of the proposed
rule is to prevent vital components of the warning system from being
vandalized or tampered with, possibly causing a malfunction of the
warning system. The proposed rule corresponds with current industry
practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's
recommendation.
Section 234.213 Grounds
The proposed rule requires that each circuit which 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. The only
exceptions would be circuits that include any 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 basis of the proposed rule is the same as is
required in 49 CFR part 236.2. The proposed rule corresponds with
current industry practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/
management's recommendation.
Section234.215 Standby Battery and Indicator or Alarm
In drafting this proposed section, FRA is addressing the most
common type of 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 until they are discharged. The theory is that in
most situations alternating power will be restored before the batteries
run down.
The proposed rule requires a standby battery source of power to
ensure the highway-rail grade crossing warning system continues to
function as intended if there is an interruption in primary alternating
current power. Another portion of the rule requires that an indicator
or alarm be used to indicate when the alternating current power is off.
The purpose is to alert the carrier about the loss of primary power so
remedial action can be taken before the standby battery source of power
is exhausted. Additionally, the proposed rule requires that battery
capacity be designed and maintained to provide a sufficient amount of
time for the operation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system
when primary battery charging current is removed.
An analysis of a random sample of 1,943 grade crossing signal
failure reports showed that 12.2 percent (243) involved the loss of
alternating current power as the primary cause for a malfunction of the
system.
The railroad industry and suppliers currently use standby battery
power as a standard for warning system installations that are dependent
on alternating current for their primary source of power. The
Association of American Railroads' ``Signal Manual of Recommended
Practice'' advises that standby battery power be used. Without a
standby source of power, a warning system is ineffective when
alternating current power is lost.
This topic was discussed at the December 11, 1992 open meeting, and
the consensus was that there is a need for warning systems to be
capable of operating with standby power for a sufficient period of
time. The proposed rule would not require batteries to be discharged to
determine their capacity, because it would be impractical to do so.
Warning system installations would be required to be designed to
provide the proper amount of battery capacity. Proper battery voltage
and specific gravity of the battery would be required to be maintained.
Labor/management's recommendation does not specifically state the
requirements for a standby battery source of power. However, their
recommendation does assume standby batteries are used, because they
recommend testing battery voltage at warning system installations.
FRA recognizes that systems other than the typical system addressed
in this 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. The proposed rule essentially provides a
performance standard that back-up systems should respond automatically
to loss of power and provide at least 48 hours of normal warning system
operation. We invite comment on both this approach and the appropriate
performance standard to be adopted.
Section 234.217 Flashing Light Units
The proposed rule requires that each flashing light unit be
positioned and aligned in accordance with installation plans. This is
obviously important because of motorists' reliance on the flashing
light units to warn of approaching trains. 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 highway-rail grade crossing.
The proposed rule also requires that each flashing light unit be
maintained to prevent dust and moisture from entering the interior of
the unit. Additionally, light units would be required to flash
alternately at a rate of 35 to 55 times per minute. This is consistent
with the requirements of the MUTCD. The proposed rule corresponds with
current industry practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/
management's submission.
FRA invites specific comment on those maintenance standards that
also relate to design specifications derived from compliance with the
MUTCD. For example, Sec. 234.217(c) would require that the number of
flashes per minute for each light unit be 35 minimum and 55 maximum.
This is consistent with Paragraph 8C-7 of the MUTCD, although that
paragraph provides greater detail than is contained in Sec. 234.217(c).
FRA invites comments regarding the consequences and advisability of (1)
incorporating by reference MUTCD requirements into these regulations,
(2) adopting the present MUTCD requirements, (3) adopting the present
MUTCD requirements with changes where necessary, or (4) requiring that
railroads maintain grade crossing warning systems to the specifications
established at installation (or later, if conditions change) and set
forth on the installation plans. For example, rather than requiring 35
to 55 flashes per minute, the rule could require that light units flash
as designed. Similarly, rather than requiring specific time periods in
which a gate arm should move, as is presently proposed in Sec. 234.223,
the rule might read as follows: ``Each gate arm shall extend across
each lane of approaching highway traffic and shall be maintained in a
condition sufficient to be clearly viewed by approaching motorists.
Each gate arm shall start its downward motion and shall reach its
horizontal position in accordance with time periods designed for that
specific installation.'' In addition to other areas of concern
regarding use or non-use of MUTCD standards, FRA requests that
commenters address the situation in which MUTCD standards might change.
If the MUTCD design standards were to be changed, should FRA's
maintenance standards also automatically be changed? If the MUTCD
standards are different than FRA's standards, will that result in a
warning system being designed to one set of standards, and after
installation being maintained to a different set of standards?
Section 234.219 Gate Arm Lights and Light Cable
The proposed rule requires that each gate arm light be visible to
approaching highway users and that lights and light wire be secured to
the gate arm. The proposed rule assists in alerting motorists,
particularly at night, that the gate arm is in the horizontal position.
It is important that the lights and light wire are secured to the gate
arm to help prevent the lights and light wire from being damaged. The
MUTCD requires three red lights on the gate arm. Labor/management's
recommendation does not specify a standard for gate arm lights or light
cable; however, the proposed rule corresponds with current industry
practice.
Section 234.221 Lamp Voltage
The proposed 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. In the December 11, 1992 open meeting, there was a
consensus that it is impossible to maintain lamp voltage at the full
rating of the lamp, at all warning system installations. The proposed
rule will ensure that the lamp voltage is sufficient to provide
suitable illumination of the lamp, while increasing the endurance and
dependability of the lamp. The proposed rule corresponds with current
industry practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/
management's recommendation.
Section 224.223 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 motorists. The rule would also require 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
proposal would assist in assuring that motorists are warned about
trains approaching the crossing. Labor/management recommends that the
gates assume the horizontal position before the arrival of any train at
the crossing.
FRA also requests comments regarding MUTCD design standards. See
further discussion in section by section analysis of Sec. 234.217.
Section 234.225 Activation of Warning System
The proposed rule requires a minimum of 20 seconds warning time
prior to the grade crossing being occupied by rail traffic. This is
consistent with the requirements of the MUTCD and current industry
practices. Labor/management provides no specific recommendation
concerning a standard for warning time, however, it does recommend that
warning systems be designed to comply with provisions of the MUTCD. In
the December 11, 1992 open meeting, there was agreement among all
parties that a 20-second minimum warning time is desirable.
FRA also requests comments regarding MUTCD design standards. See
further discussion in section-by-section analysis of Sec. 234.217.
Section 234.227 Train Detection Apparatus
The proposed rule requires the detection of a train or car when any
part of a train detection circuit is occupied. The train detection
circuit would be required to extend through the entire approach
sections of the grade crossing to prevent any ``dead sections.'' The
proposed rule requires that when a highway/rail grade crossing equipped
with a warning system is fouled by a train or car, the warning system
shall continue to operate until such train or car clears the roadway.
The warning system would be required to discontinue operation after the
train or car passes the point of fouling the crossing, if there are no
other movements within the limits of the warning circuit. Where the
presence of sand, rust, dirt, grease, or other foreign matter is known
to prevent effective shunting, appropriate action under Sec. 234.105,
``Activation failure,'' must be taken.
The proposed rule corresponds with current industry practice.
Warning system installations are designed to work in this manner. The
proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.229 Shunting Sensitivity
The proposed rule 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 standard of using a shunt of 0.06 ohm resistance has been
effective in signal systems (49 CFR 236.56), since its implementation
in 1950.
There was discussion about this issue at the December 11, 1992 open
meeting. Some commenters stated it would be difficult to ensure that
certain types of constant warning time systems would react with a shunt
of 0.06 ohm resistance applied in the train detection circuit. However,
the commenters were not able to provide an alternative standard. The
majority of warning systems can be tested for shunting sensitivity with
the 0.06 ohm shunt. It is possible for the remaining warning systems,
equipped with constant time warning systems, to be tested with more
than one 0.06 ohm shunt applied in different areas of the train
detection circuit, simulating the movement of a train. There is no
current standard industry practice corresponding to the proposed rule.
Labor/management did not address this area.
Section 234.231 Fouling Wires
The proposed rule requires that each set of fouling wires located
in a highway-rail grade crossing warning system train detection circuit
consist of at least two discret conductors, and requires that each
conductor be of sufficient conductivity and maintained in such a
condition that the train detection apparatus will be in its most
restrictive state when the circuit is shunted. This rule would help
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 continued to be effective. Labor/management made no
recommendations pertaining to the proposed rule. The proposed rule
corresponds with current industry practice.
Section 234.233 Rail Joints
The proposed rule requires that each rail joint located within the
limits of a highway-rail grade crossing train detection circuit be
bonded to ensure electrical conductivity by a means other than joint
bars. It is important that all rail joints are bonded to ensure
continuity of the train detection circuit. This aids in preventing
false activations of a warning system. Labor/management's submission
did not address this issue. The proposed rule corresponds with current
industry practice.
Section 234.235 Insulated Rail Joints
The proposed rule requires that each insulated rail joint used to
separate train detection circuits within the limits of a highway-rail
grade crossing be maintained in a condition to prevent current from
flowing between rails separated by the insulation in an amount
sufficient to cause a failure of any train detection circuit. This
proposal would apply primarily to conventional train-detection
apparatus, where a failure of the insulated rail joint could result in
either a false activation or a failure to activate. The proposed rule
corresponds with current industry practice and is consistent with
labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.237 Switch Equipped With Circuit Controller
The proposed rule 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 purpose
of the proposed rule is to prevent inadequate warning time for a
motorist.
Some railroads use switch circuit controllers to cut out (or
override) the activation of a warning system when a switch is located
within the train-detection limits of the warning system. The primary
purpose of this arrangement is to avoid the unnecessary operation of
the warning system when trains are making switching movements within
the train detection circuit, but not occupying the grade crossing. This
is a safe practice as long as the circuit controller is properly
adjusted to cut out the warning system with the switch in the reverse
position. This ensures the warning system cannot be cut out with the
switch in the normal position and train movements operating at normal
speed through the train detection circuit.
The proposed rule corresponds with current industry practice.
Labor/management's submission did not address this requirement.
However, it did recommend that where cut-out circuits are used, tests
be made to determine they function properly.
Section 234.239 Tagging of Wires and Interference of Wires or Tags
With Signal Apparatus
The proposed rule requires that each wire be tagged or otherwise so
marked that it can be identified at each terminal. All tag or wire
identification should correspond with the circuit plan. Tags and other
marks of identification would be required to be made of insulating
material and so arranged that tags and wires do not interfere with
moving parts of apparatus. The requirements of the proposed rule are
the same as those in 49 CFR 236.76. The proposed rule is consistent
with both current industry practice and labor/management's
recommendation.
Section 234.241 Protection of Insulated Wire; Splice in Underground
Wire
The proposed rule requires that insulated wire be protected from
mechanical injury. The insulation would be prohibited from being
punctured for test purposes, and a splice in underground wire would be
required to have insulation resistance at least equal to the wire
spliced. The requirements of the proposed rule are the same as those in
49 CFR 236.74. The requirements would ensure the integrity of
conductors carrying vital warning system circuitry. The proposed rule
corresponds with current industry practice. The proposed rule is
consistent with labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.243 Wire on Pole Line and Aerial Cable
The proposed rule requires that wire on a pole line be securely
tied in on an insulator and properly fastened to a crossarm or bracket
supported by a pole or other support. The rule would require that the
wire not interfere with, or be interfered with, by other wires on the
pole line. Aerial cable would be required to be supported by messenger
wire. Open-wire transmission line operating at 750 volts or more would
not be placed less than 4 feet above the nearest crossarm carrying
active warning system circuits. The requirements of the proposed rule
are the same as those in 49 CFR 236.71. The portion of the proposed
rule addressing wire on pole line would apply only to warning system
installations that utilize pole line as part of the warning system
circuitry. The proposed rule corresponds with current industry
practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's
recommendation.
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 proposed rule is consistent with current
industry practice and labor/management's recommendation.
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 would be required to be removed from
service and not restored to service until its operating characteristics
were in accordance with the limits within which such device or relay is
designed to operate.
The purpose of the inspections and tests is to determine whether
operating characteristics of electronic devices, relays, or other
electromagnetic devices are within specified values and if highway-rail
grade crossing warning system apparatus and equipment is being
maintained in a condition to assure the safety of motorists and train
operations. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's
recommendation.
Section 234.249 Ground Tests
The proposed rule 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 proposal requires that the
test be made when an energy bus is placed in service, and at least once
each month thereafter. This requirement would assist in maintaining the
integrity and safety of the warning system. The proposed rule is
consistent with labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.251 Battery Voltage
The proposed rule 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. The proposed rule is consistent with both current
industry practice and labor/management's proposal.
Section 234.253 Flashing Light Units and Lamp Voltage
The proposed rule requires that each flashing light unit be tested
when installed and at least once every twelve months, with battery-
charging current removed and with battery charging current restored, to
determine that 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 at least once each month the visibility of
warning lights be checked with battery charging current removed, and
with battery charging current restored, and and observations be made to
determine that all lights are burning with normal brilliancy. The
proposal is generally consistent with that of labor/management;
however, FRA welcomes any comments on alternative methods of testing
and ensuring normal brilliancy of lights.
Section 234.255 Gate Arm and Gate Mechanism
The proposed rule requires that each gate arm and gate mechanism be
inspected, and gate arm movement be observed for proper operation, at
least once each month. Tests of hold-clear devices would be required at
least once every 12 months. The hold-clear device is what keeps the
gate arms in the vertical position when the warning system is not
activated. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's
recommendation.
Section 234.257 Warning System Operation
The proposed rule requires that a highway/rail grade crossing
warning system be tested for proper operation when the warning system
is placed in service and thereafter when modified or disarranged, and
at least once each month. The term ``disarranged'' would be defined as:
``When 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 would be dependent on the degree of modification or
disarrangement.
Currently, the majority of the industry tests the operation of
warning systems on a monthly interval. Industry instructions vary
regarding the testing of a warning system subsequent to modification or
disarrangement of the system. The labor/management submission
recommends that operation of warning systems be checked at least once
each month. The recommendation does not address the testing of a
warning system subsequent to a modification or disarrangement of such
system.
The proposed rule also requires that when a warning bell or other
stationary audible warning device is used, it be checked for proper
operation when installed and at least once each month thereafter. The
proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.259 Warning Time
The proposed rule requires that a highway/rail grade crossing
warning system be tested for prescribed warning time at least once
every three months. This can be accomplished by observation of a train
movement, if practical, or by calculation and simulation of a train
movement. The proposed rule corresponds with current industry practice.
The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's recommendation.
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 highway/rail grade crossing warning system and the controller
assembly of the highway traffic signal. The railroad would only be
responsible for the maintenance and testing of its interconnections.
The proposed rule is consistent with both current industry practice and
labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.263 Relays
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)(2) 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 centrifigal type
relays shall be tested at least once every 12 months.
The requirements in the proposed rule are similar to those in 49
CFR 236.106 due to utilization of the same type relays. The proposed
rule is consistent with current industry practice and labor/
management's recommendation.
Section 234.265 Timing Relays and Timing Devices
The proposed rule requires that each timing relay and timing device
be tested at least once every twelve months. The timing would be
required to 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.
Time-out circuits are primarily used for train switching movements
at warning system installations. The time-out circuits enable an
activation of a highway/rail grade crossing warning system to be
overridden for a predetermined amount of time, after a train movement
has occupied the detection circuit in approach to the grade crossing.
The proposed rule is consistent with current industry practice and
labor/management's recommendation.
Section 234.267 Insulation Resistance Tests, Wires in Trunking and
Cables
Paragraph (a) 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 when insulation resistance of wire or
cable is found to be less than 500,000 ohms, prompt action would be
required to 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.
The requirements in the proposed rule are the same as those in 49
CFR 236.108, because of the utilization of the same type wires and
cable. The proposed rule is consistent with current industry practice
and labor/management's recommendation.
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. The proposed rule would ensure that cut-out circuits
operate correctly and that they do not permit an activation failure of
the warning system. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/
management's recommendation.
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 proposed rule is
consistent with current industry practice and labor/management's
recommendation.
Section 234.273 Results of Tests
This section 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. Such records would be required to 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 would be
required to be signed or electronically coded by the employee making
the test and be filed in the office of a supervisory official having
jurisdiction. Each record would be required to be retained until the
next record for that test is filed but in no case less than one year.
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.
Regulatory Impact
E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed 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 its regulatory analysis FRA posited that the benefits of this
rule would arise for several reasons. First, grade crossing signal
malfunctions would become rarer after application of subpart D
(``Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing''). Second, grade crossings
would be made safe during the period of their signals' malfunctioning
under provisions of subpart C (``Response to Reports of Warning System
Malfunction''), specifically Secs. 234.105 and 234.107. Third, the
costs of Secs. 234.105 and 234.107 would be reduced because the
railroads would fix the signals more rapidly under Sec. 234.103 of
subpart C. Some of the other sections in the rule are needed to
implement Secs. 234.103, 234.105, and 234.107.
It appears that malfunctions in the form of activation failures now
cost about $4.25 million per year in accidents. In these accidents the
highway user does not know a train is coming, enters the crossing, and
is struck by a train. This rule should reduce that annual cost to about
$400,000.
It also appears that malfunctions in the form of false activations
cause about $17.6 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 $3.5 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
$140 million, and the total benefit will be about $230 million.
Benefits will be about 1.6 times costs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
FRA certifies that this proposed 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. FRA specifically requests comments on the
impact of this rule on small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed 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 proposed 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. FRA solicits comments on the accuracy of the FRA estimate; the
practical utility of the information; and the alternative methods that
might be less burdensome to obtain this information. Persons desiring
to comment on this topic should submit their views in writing to FRA
(Ms. Gloria Swanson, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590) and to the Office of
Management and Budget (Desk Officer, Regulatory Policy Branch (OMB No.
2130-AA45), Office and Management and Budget, New Executive Office
Building, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Copies of any
such comments should also be submitted to the Docket Clerk, Office of
Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated these proposed 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. This notice meets the
criteria that establish this as a non-major action for environmental
purposes.
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 proposed 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 an effort to maintain
state expertise and involvement in this critical safety area, FRA has
proposed to include grade crossing warning system inspection functions
within its State Participation Program. FRA has also proposed 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 would
preempt local ``whistle ban'' ordinances. This minimal intrusion into
an area in which a handful of 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, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 212
Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, Railroad safety.
49 CFR Part 234
Railroad safety, Highway-rail grade crossings.
The Proposed Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter II
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 212--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 205, 206, and 207, 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;
(4) Specialized knowledge of the requirements of the Grade Crossing
Signal System Safety Rules, 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 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) The apprentice highway-rail grade crossing inspector must 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 knowledge of basic electricity and the ability to use
electrical test equipment in direct current and alternating current
circuits; and
(2) 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: 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); 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 prescribes standards for the reporting of failures of
highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. This part also prescribes
actions railroads must take when such warning systems malfunction and
imposes minimum maintenance, inspection, and testing standards for such
systems. When any person performs any function required by this part,
that person is required to perform that function in accordance with
this part.
5. Section 234.4 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 234.4 Preemptive effect.
Under 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.
6. Amend Sec. 234.5 by deleting 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 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.
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.
Sec. 234.6 [Redesignated from Secs. 234.15 and 234.17]
7. Redesignate the heading and text of Sec. 234.15, and the heading
and text of Sec. 234.17, as the heading and text of paragraph (a) of a
new 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.
* * * * *
8. Designate Secs. 234.1 through 234.6 as ``Subpart A--General''
and designate Secs. 234.7 through 234.13 as ``Subpart B--Reports.''
9. 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 Design of control circuits on closed circuit principle.
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 Locking of warning system apparatus.
234.213 Grounds.
234.215 Standby battery and indicator or alarm.
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 Battery voltage.
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.
Sec. 234.101 Employee notification rules.
Each railroad shall issue rules requiring its employees to report
to a designated railroad official, 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 immediately 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 this subpart.
(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 immediately initiate
efforts to warn motorists and railroad employees at the subject
crossing by taking, at a minimum, the following actions:
(a) Prior to a 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 highway traffic control authority having
jurisdiction over the crossing; and
(c) Provide or arrange for alternative means of actively warning
motorists of approaching trains, consistent with the following
requirements:
(1) 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
and permit a crewmember to dismount to flag highway traffic to a stop.
The locomotive may then proceed through the crossing, permitting the
flagging crewmember to reboard the locomotive before the remainder of
the train proceeds through the crossing.
(2) 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.
(3) If an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement officer
provides warning for highway traffic, but there is not at least one
flagger or law enforcement officer providing warning for each direction
of highway traffic, trains may proceed with caution through the
crossing at a speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour. Normal speed may
be resumed after the locomotive has passed through the crossing.
(4) 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 immediately initiate efforts to warn highway users
and railroad employees at the crossing by taking, at a minimum, 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 highway traffic control authority having
jurisdiction over the crossing; and
(c) Provide or arrange for alternative means of actively warning
motorists of approaching trains, consistent with the following
requirements:
(1) If an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement officer
is providing warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may
proceed through the crossing at normal speed;
(2) If there is not an appropriately equipped flagger or law
enforcement officer providing warning for each direction of highway
traffic, trains may proceed with caution through the crossing at a
speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour. Normal speed may be resumed
after the locomotive has passed through the crossing; or
(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''; and
(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. Each railroad shall keep the following information for
each 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 all records
referred to in paragraph (a) of this section. Records required to be
kept shall be made available to FRA as provided by section 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 and other information 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 Design of control circuits on closed circuit principle.
All control circuits that affect the safe operation of a highway-
rail grade crossing warning system shall be designed on the closed
circuit principle.
Sec. 234.205 Operating characteristics of warning system apparatus.
Operating characteristics of electromagnetic, electronic, or
electrical apparatus of each 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.
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.
Sec. 234.211 Locking 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 battery and indicator or alarm.
(a) If alternating current power is used as the primary source of
power, a standby battery source of power shall be provided. Each
battery shall be maintained in accordance with specifications of the
manufacturer. An indicator, visible from the cab of the locomotive of a
passing train, or an alarm, transmitted to a designated location, shall
be used to indicate that alternating current power is off.
(b) Battery capacity shall 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.
Sec. 234.217 Flashing light units.
(a) Each flashing light unit shall be positioned and aligned in
accordance with installation plans.
(b) Each flashing light unit shall be maintained to prevent dust
and moisture from entering the interior of the unit. Roundels 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 55 maximum.
Sec. 234.219 Gate arm lights and light cable.
Each gate arm light shall be 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 motorists.
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.
Sec. 234.225 Activation of warning system.
A highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall activate to
provide a minimum of 20 seconds warning time before the grade crossing
is occupied by rail traffic.
Sec. 234.227 Train detection apparatus.
(a) Train detection apparatus shall detect the presence of a train
or railcar when any part of a train detection circuit is occupied. The
train detection circuit shall extend through the entire approach
sections of the grade crossing and include the fouling section of a
turnout.
(b) When an active highway-rail grade crossing is occupied by a
train or railcar, the warning system shall continue to operate until
such train or railcar clears the roadway.
(c) If there are no other movements within the limits of the
warning circuit, the warning system shall discontinue operation after
the train or railcar passes the point of fouling the crossing.
(d) 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 motor vehicle operation.
Sec. 234.229 Shunting sensitivity.
Each highway-rail grade crossing train detection circuit shall
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.
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 that the train detection apparatus will be
in its most restrictive state when the train detection circuit is
shunted.
Sec. 234.233 Rail joints.
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.
Sec. 234.235 Insulated rail joints.
Each insulated rail joint used to separate train detection circuits
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 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 motorist.
Standards for such signs are found in Part VIII (``Traffic Control
Systems for Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings'') of the MUTCD.
Inspections and Tests
Sec. 234.247 Purpose of inspections and tests; removal from service of
relay or device failing to meet test requirements.
The following inspections and tests shall be made to determine if
the apparatus and equipment is maintained in a condition to perform its
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 Battery voltage.
Battery voltage shall be checked at the battery, with battery-
charging current removed, 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 alignment, focus, and frequency
of flashes in accordance with installation specifications shown on the
plans.
(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 dirt and damage
to roundels 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 three months.
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 centrifigal 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.
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.
(c) Each record shall be retained until the next record for that
test is filed but in no case for less than one year.
(d) If a railroad elects to use an electronic means for recording
and signing results of tests, such means must be approved by the
Associate Administrator for Safety prior to use.
Issued in Washington D.C. on January 11, 1994.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-1257 Filed 1-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P