[4910-06P]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
FRA Emergency Order No. 24, Notice No.
2
[Docket No. FRA-2005-22796]
Emergency Order No. 24; amendment
SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) issues this notice
to amend Emergency Order No.24 (EO 24) in response to informal comments received
from railroads and labor organizations. This amendment provides additional
guidance, clarifying amendments and expanded relief from the EO.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas H.
Taylor, Staff Director, Operating Practices Division, Office of Safety Assurance
and Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., RRS-11, Mail Stop 25,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-493-6255); or Alan H. Nagler, Senior Trial
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., RCC-11, Mail
Stop 10, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-493-6038).
BACKGROUND: EO 24 was issued on October 19,
2005, published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61496) and
required that railroads modify their operating rules and take certain other
actions necessary to ensure that railroad employees who dispatch trains in
non-signaled territory or who operate hand-operated main track switches
(switches) in non-signaled territory, ensure the switches are restored to their
proper (normal) position after use. EO 24 required that railroads “immediately
initiate steps to implement this EO . . .[and] complete implementation no later
than November 22, 2005.” 70 FR 61496, 61500.
As
the regulated community began implementation, practical concerns were raised
with FRA regarding some aspects of the EO. In response to these informal
comments, FRA has decided to provide the railroads and employees additional
flexibility in complying with the EO. Because FRA is granting additional
flexibility to the railroads and the employees, the November 22, 2005 effective
date of the EO is not changing. On November 4, 2005, FRA posted on its website
at http://www.fra.dot.gov/ an additional
document, in a question and answer format, that provided timely guidance to the
informal comments offered by the regulated community. This Notice No. 2 reflects
the guidance provided in that question and answer document. In addition, this
Notice No. 2 specifies additional relief granted by amending the “Relief”
section in its entirety and issues clarifying amendments to the “Finding and
Order” section of EO 24, Notice No. 1.
I. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS
The comments received by FRA were informally provided by a diverse number of railroads and the following associations and labor organizations: The American Short Line & Regional Railroads Association (ASLRRA), the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED), the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) and the United Transportation Union (UTU). By discussing the comments and our responses in this notice, FRA is providing consistent information to the entire regulated community.
Jurisdiction
Some
railroads, especially tourist railroads, contacted FRA regarding whether the EO
applied to them. FRA responded that the EO applies to all railroads that have
employees or contractor employees who operate hand-operated main track switches
in non-signaled territory or dispatch trains in that type of territory unless
specific relief has been granted. 70 FR 61500. Tourist railroads, or other
railroads, that are unsure as to whether FRA exercises jurisdiction over them
should refer to FRA’s published statement on the extent and exercise of FRA’s
safety jurisdiction. 49 CFR Part 209, App. A. If a railroad is still unsure on
this issue, please contact FRA’s Office of Chief Counsel at (202)
493-6038.
Initial and Periodic
Instruction
Railroads and labor
organizations alike were concerned that FRA did not adequately describe the
method for initial and periodic instruction. Meanwhile, FRA believes the current
instruction requirement is adequate and provides the following further guidance.
Given that this is an emergency situation requiring railroads to quickly and
effectively instruct employees, FRA’s expectation is that the minimum initial
instruction and distribution of the EO would include a face-to-face on-the-job
briefing covering the requirements of this EO and the operating rules to which
they relate. In order to be effective, this job briefing must include examples
or real time applications of the EO, as well as a reasonable opportunity for
employees to ask questions. Regarding periodic instruction, railroads will
include this instruction as part of their program of instruction pursuant to 49
CFR 217.11.
Some
railroads indicated that they already had operating rules that complied with
this EO and had recently instructed their employees on those rules; thus, these
railroads asked whether the prior training could count as the required initial
training. FRA decided that any training prior to issuance of the EO was
insufficient. FRA has identified an emergency situation and wants to raise the
level of awareness for all employees who operate hand-operated switches in
non-signaled territory or who dispatch trains in that type of territory. In
addition, it is significant for affected employees to understand that the
Federal government will be able to assess civil penalties of up to $27,000 for a
violation of the EO by any person. That said, FRA does not expect railroads to
entirely discount prior instruction. This new instruction can build upon the
prior instruction -- prior instruction on an unchanged operating rule does not
need to be as in-depth as it would be if the employees were being instructed on
the relevant operating rules for the first time.
Receipt or Acknowledgment of the EO by
Employees
Some
railroads, and the associations that represent them, questioned the necessity
for providing a copy of the EO to each employee and the method for keeping a
receipt or acknowledgment. FRA explained that because of the critical importance
of this EO and the importance of individual railroad employees’ compliance and
accountability, FRA must be assured that employees have received their own paper
copy of the EO. However, FRA did not intend to preclude the creation or
retention of the receipt or keeping of the acknowledgment electronically. As
long as the receipt or acknowledgment is a permanent record that is kept for
each affected employee and can be searched and printed for FRA upon request,
electronic recordkeeping is acceptable. The electronic recordkeeping system
should have system integrity to prevent fraudulent entries, and may be added
onto existing systems, e.g., those systems that already track attendance at
railroad operating rules classes. If those systems do not allow employees to
enter an acknowledgment, the attendance sheet at the face-to-face job briefing
on the EO should indicate that the attendee’s signature reflects both attendance
and receipt of a copy of the EO.
A
related concern is whether railroads also need to provide a copy of this Notice
No. 2, to all affected employees. This Notice No. 2 provides guidance, relief
and clarifying amendments from the earlier notice, but does not create
additional burdens, and thus it is possible for compliance to be achieved by
following Notice No. 1 only. FRA therefore is not requiring railroads to provide
a copy of this Notice No. 2 to all affected employees. Certainly, any railroad
amending its operating rules with regard to this Notice No. 2 will need to
instruct its employees accordingly and may choose to post or distribute
it.
Hand-Operated Main Track Switches – Operational
Concerns
FRA
received a number of inquiries requesting more information on the safety basis
for certain operational requirements. Some railroads requested eliminating the
requirement that the dispatcher confirm that both the conductor and engineer
have initialed the switch position awareness form (SPAF). FRA has denied this
request because of the strong safety reasons for its retention. While other
requirements involve intra-crew communication, the dispatcher’s confirmation
provides an additional level of communication so that the crewmember releasing
the train’s authority ensures that both the engineer and conductor have properly
recorded on the SPAF the position of all switches operated and that there is no
confusion among crewmembers as to the alignment of those switches. At least one
railroad wanted to do away with the requirement that the engineer initial each
entry, as opposed to only the final entry; however, FRA is denying this request
because the engineer’s action of initialing each entry encourages intra-crew
communication while employees are still at each switch. BLET asked that FRA
clarify that entry of the engineer’s initials is an affirmation that the
communication (representation) has been received and not that the engineer can
personally vouch for the actions taken on the ground. FRA affirms that the
engineer’s responsibility is to acknowledge the information provided by the
conductor or brakeman, not to act as a guarantor with respect to the actual
position in which the switch was left. Several concerns were raised regarding
what FRA meant by the term “releasing the limits of a main track authority.” The
term means releasing all or a portion of the limits (i.e., rolling up the
limits) of an existing main track authority. Railroads and labor organizations
alike raised concerns regarding whether a train crew that is relieved on
line-of-road must take the SPAF with them or whether the SPAF could be left for
the subsequent train crew. The purpose of EO 24 was to establish responsibility,
shared among the crew and the dispatcher, for confirmation of switch position
for all switches operated before the authority is released. A subsequent crew
will not have actual knowledge of the position of switches in the track
segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew. Further, the declarations made on the
SPAF are personal to each employee participating, and it is not possible for
subsequent crew members to verify information about which they did not have
contemporaneous knowledge. Accordingly, to accomplish the purpose of EO 24, the
crew being relieved should contact the dispatcher and confirm the position of
switches operated, at the same time releasing (rolling up) any portion of the
authority not required by the relieving crew. The crew going off duty would
finalize their SPAF at that time. The relieving crew would then initiate a new
SPAF. The order has been amended to so provide. At least one request was
received for clarification regarding the requirements of the EO if the limits of
a main track authority are rolled up behind a train or on-track equipment (OTE)
by the dispatcher without the train crew’s or OTE operator’s knowledge. FRA’s
position is that, in addition to determining the train’s or OTE’s location, the
dispatcher must confirm the position of all switches operated by the employees
within the limits being rolled up. There have been several concerns expressed
regarding whether the EO applied in certain specific situations. For instance,
FRA wants to make clear that the EO does not apply in Rule 251 or GCOR Rule 9.14
territory, i.e., current of traffic, signaled in one direction only. However,
the EO is applicable if the signal system for a track segment is suspended.
Furthermore, the EO is applicable if a track, or portion thereof, is out-of
service, unless the operating rules or special instructions require all trains
to approach all facing point hand-operated switches prepared to stop during the
entire period the track is out-of-service.
Finally, at least one
comment was received regarding the requirement that before releasing the limits
of a main track authority, the employee releasing the limits must report to the
train dispatcher that all hand-operated main track switches operated have been
restored to their normal position, unless the train dispatcher directs
otherwise. The commenter noted that another sentence in this section regarding
“hand-operated main track switches” permitted the normal position of a main
track switch to be designated by the railroad and the switch to be lined and
locked in that position when not in use, except “when the switch is left in the
charge of a crewmember of another train” or the train dispatcher directs
otherwise. Accordingly, the commenter requested a clarifying amendment so that
in addition to the train dispatcher exception, the switch may be left in the
charge of a crewmember of another train before releasing the limits. FRA agrees
with the commenter that this exception provides at least an equivalent level of
safety and a clarifying amendment has been made in this notice.
BLET
asked that language in item (2) of the order be amended to delete “except when
the switch is left in the charge of a crewmember of another train or the train
dispatcher directs otherwise,” following the requirement that switches be left
in normal position when not in use. BLET suggested that this would heighten the
sense of individual responsibility that the order seeks to promote. FRA
appreciates the suggestion and recognizes that it is thematically consistent
with the general thrust of the order. However, FRA is unable to act upon it for
three reasons. First, this change does not appear to be necessary to abate the
emergency. Recent accidents caused by misaligned switches have generally
involved error on the part of the crew initially reversing the switch, rather
than miscommunication or lapses associated with handing off responsibility for
the switch. Second, such a change could expose employees to hazards
unnecessarily, as when it might be necessary to cross live tracks, walk on
uneven ballast, or traverse areas covered with snow or ice. Third, imposing this
requirement would cause significant delay and inefficiency in railroad
operations.
Line Segment Relief versus System Basis Relief Previously
Granted
Several railroads
requested that the automatic relief granted to a railroad, where operating rules
require trains to approach all facing point hand-operated switches prepared to
stop on a system basis, be extended to a line segment basis. The request also
covered the two other situations articulated in the EO; i.e., where
hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory (unless out of
service) are protected by either distant switch indicators or by switch point
indicators. FRA is granting this relief although, in our opinion, this relief is
a logical extrapolation from the relief previously provided. FRA will grant
automatic relief on a line segment basis when the relief is predicated on a
permanent application of the relevant operating rules and special instructions
for the territory involved. Employees or dispatchers involved with more than one
line segment may require instruction if one of the other line segments does not
meet any of the conditions for relief. Distant switch indicators are
arrangements that provide crews with advance indication of switch position in a
manner similar to an approach signal. These arrangements are typically designed
and maintained in a manner similar to technology employed under 49 CFR Part 236,
the Rules, Standards and Instructions for signal and train control systems and
have a well-established history of performance in the industry.
In this Notice, FRA has required specific acceptance of “switch point indicators” as alternative to the rule because the term does not apply to a closed set of technologies and in order to provide FRA an opportunity to evaluate whether the technology provides safety equivalent to that provided by compliance with this order by properly qualified employees. In part because of the risk to trains associated with unauthorized operation of switches by vandals, FRA is encouraging exploration and implementation of appropriate technology that can detect misaligned main track switches and provide a means of safeguarding train operations.
On-Track Safety
Many
comments were received expressing concern that the EO was largely silent
regarding employees involved with on-track safety such as signalmen,
maintenance-of way employees, bridge workers, and others. Some commenters were
unsure of whether the EO applied to employees involved with on-track safety.
When FRA explained that the EO applied to these workers, more comments were
received questioning the logistics of how the EO would apply in practice. In
consideration of these comments, FRA has decided to issue clarifying amendments
(discussed below) that should allow for smoother operations – although the EO
24, Notice No. 1 requirement of having each employee fill out a SPAF is a
feasible option as well.
FRA
is issuing a clarifying amendment to allow an employee responsible for ontrack
safety, such as an employee in charge (EIC), to complete the SPAF for all
employees working under the EIC’s jurisdiction. The employee responsible for
on-track safety pursuant to 49 CFR 214, Subpart C, may maintain the SPAF in lieu
of the individual worker(s) operating switches. Likewise, FRA is amenable to
issuing a clarifying amendment so that each railroad could choose whether to
create a SPAF specifically tailored to the communications among employees
involved with on-track safety. Of course, if a worker operates a switch, that
worker must still be qualified, i.e., instructed on, the relevant operating
rules for operating a switch, even if they are not the employee completing a
SPAF.
Additionally, FRA is
clarifying that if an EIC of on-track safety permits a train into the EIC’s
authority limits and there are switches operated by that train crew, both the
EIC and the train crew must complete a SPAF. This clarification does not require
an amendment to the EO.
Some
commenters did not understand whether the EO required the EIC to complete the
SPAF in a situation when trains are operating through the limits of an EIC’s
authority and the EIC instructs all trains to operate at restricted speed. FRA
explained that the EO does not need amending as this is a temporary application
of the relevant operating rules for the territory involved and thus the EIC in
that situation must complete a SPAF.
Another concern
regarding OTE was a request for clarification on the SPAF requirements when an
OTE is moving to a work location. FRA’s expectation is that the employee that
receives the authority will complete the SPAF for all switches operated while
under that authority.
Furthermore, a SPAF is
still required if an employee operates a switch when it is not necessary to
receive permission from a dispatcher.
Switch Position Awareness Form
(SPAF)
Some
commenters were confused as to how the EO applied to an employee, other than a
crewmember, who lines a switch for a train. FRA believes the EO clearly conveys
that each employee, other than a crewmember, operating a switch for a train must
complete a SPAF for all switches operated.
The
SPAF’s content was also criticized as being too specific to train crews, rather
than more general in nature so as to apply to any employee handling a switch. By
requiring both the engineer’s and conductor’s names, the engineer’s initials for
each entry, and the conductor’s signature when the form is completed, FRA
addressed the common situation of a two-person crew in which the conductor is
operating the switches. The commenters explained that there may be regular
circumstances in which someone other than the conductor is operating a switch
and therefore that person’s initials must appear on the SPAF instead of the
conductor’s. One commenter asked whether a SPAF can provide spaces for the
engineer and the person handling the switch to initial, and a space for the
conductor to sign when the form is completed. FRA finds that such a SPAF would
be in compliance with the EO.
A
question was raised regarding the requirement that the date be entered on the
SPAF when an employee’s tour of duty spans two calendar days. FRA’s requirement
is fulfilled as long as the date entered is the date that the tour of duty
began. Of course, this is a minimum requirement and railroads are permitted to
require multiple dates. For example, a railroad would be in compliance with the
EO if it chooses to require the date for each switch entry instead of the date
the crew started its tour of duty. Furthermore, FRA would certainly not find
fault with an employee who chose to be more exacting than FRA has required –
even if not required by railroad operating rules. Some railroads raised concerns
that the SPAF was too specific in requiring employees to identify the track
segment by a “subdivision” entry in that some railroads do not have
subdivisions. FRA understands that some railroads do not have subdivisions and
that instead of “subdivision” the SPAF may be filled out to include branch,
secondary track, or some other appropriate designation. FRA has added a
clarifying amendment to address this issue.
Communication
A
concern shared by many commenters was that the EO was written in such a way as
to indicate that unless radio communication was inoperable, no alternative
method of communication among crewmembers would be acceptable to indicate a
switch position. Some railroads requested an amendment because they preferred to
use a method of communication other than radio as their primary method, such as
hand or whistle signals. FRA has issued a clarifying amendment to indicate that
it will accept alternate methods of intra-crew communication when they afford an
equivalent level of communication integrity relevant to the prevailing operating
conditions. FRA agrees with a comment from BLET that there will be situations
where hand signals do not provide unambiguous information, as where a ground
employee is expected to restore a switch behind a movement that will not be
using the switch to exit the area. In those cases, radio communications or
face-to-face communication will be required.
An Exception to Initialing the SPAF Prior to Leaving a
Switch
Several commenters
raised concerns regarding the requirement that before employees leave the
location of a switch, they must make the required entries on the SPAF “as soon
as practicable.” Some commenters did not understand what the phrase “as soon as
practicable” meant, and asked for clarification. Other commenters requested an
amendment because there could be situations in which all involved employees
might find it impracticable to initial the SPAF prior to leaving the switch.
Regarding the phrase “as soon as practicable,” FRA’s expectations are that when
employees are in close proximity, the required SPAF entries will be personally
completed by the individual employees before they actually leave the location of
the switch. FRA is not concerned if there is some delay in filling out the
entries on the SPAF if other duties would normally, logically, or operationally
be performed first. Of course, if the SPAF is readily available to the employee,
it is a best practice for the employee to fill out the form first lest the
employee forget either to fill it out or record exactly how the switch was last
positioned.
FRA
recognizes that there are operating conditions, such as extreme physical
separation, which would make recording the required entries on the SPAF before
employees leave a location of a switch impracticable. In circumstances such as
this, where it is logistically unfeasible, and in some situations unsafe, to
record the required entries on the SPAF before leaving the location of a switch,
FRA is issuing a clarifying amendment so that the crewmember completing the SPAF
may make an appropriate entry on the SPAF. An appropriate entry would state that
the necessary radio job briefing concerning the switch position was
accomplished. Furthermore, the crewmember completing the SPAF should then enter
the required employee’s initials for that employee, clearly reflecting who made
the entry (e.g., “AD for CS”). FRA will consider the entries on the SPAF for
that switch to be complete at that time. For example, a conductor reverses a
main switch for an intended 100-car shoving movement into a 2-mile industrial
lead. After lining the switch, the conductor begins the shoving movement,
remaining on the leading end to protect the movement. When the engine clears the
switch, the movement stops, and the brakeman lines the main track switch to its
normal position, and the shoving movement resumes, with the conductor still
protecting the leading end of the movement. In this case, it would be
impracticable to require the conductor to walk back 100 car-lengths to the
engine in order to obtain the brakeman’s initials on the SPAF, and then walk
back 100 car-lengths to the leading end to continue protecting the movement.
Thus, the clarifying amendment would allow the conductor to complete the SPAF by
(1) noting that the brakeman confirmed that the switch was normalized by radio,
or other acceptable communication, and (2) entering the brakeman’s name or
initials.
Application of the Hours of Service
Laws
Some
comments regarded the application of the hours of service laws in conjunction
with the EO. One question was whether the act of filling out a SPAF is itself
covered service. This issue raised the biggest concern for maintenance-of-way
employees because they are not otherwise typically performing work that is
considered covered service under the hours of service laws. FRA wants to be
clear that the act of filling out any portion of a SPAF does not by itself
trigger covered service. Meanwhile, for employees that are covered by the hours
of service laws, the act of filling out a SPAF is commingled service that should
be performed within the statutory period. Railroads and employees are
responsible for completing all activities required of them within that period. A
railroad that requires an employee to perform a task in the last few minutes of
a tour of duty must be mindful of whether it is possible to complete all
required tasks within the allotted time. Meanwhile, employees should be mindful
that many of the accidents that led to FRA issuing this EO could have been
prevented if the employees had been more diligent about complying with railroad
operating rules regarding the alignment of hand-operated main track switches in
non-signaled territory at the end of their tours of duty. Thus, regardless of
the hours of service implications, employees should not hastily fill out a SPAF
at the end of a tour of duty, with disregard to its accuracy, or release or roll
up their limits without conferring that the entries on the SPAF have been
completed, as these actions require the type of communication among employees
that can prevent life-threatening accidents. At least one commenter was
concerned about the logistical issue of how the time associated with completion
of the SPAF should be recorded on the time return or in the hours of service
electronic system. For employees otherwise subject to the hours of service laws,
there is no requirement to make a separate entry of the time associated with
completion of the form. It is intended that completion of the form be integral
to the accomplishment of the work, so it may be considered as part of covered
service for hours of service recordkeeping purposes.
II. AMENDMENT TO EMERGENCY ORDER NO.
24
The
“Finding and Order” section of EO 24 is amended by adding the following
clarifying amendments.
CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS
Instruction
• Given that this is an emergency situation requiring railroads to quickly and effectively instruct employees, the minimum initial instruction and distribution of the EO would include a face-to-face on-the-job briefing covering the requirements of this EO and the operating rules to which they relate. In order to be effective, this job briefing must include examples or real time applications of the EO, as well as a reasonable opportunity for employees to ask questions. Regarding periodic instruction, railroads will include this instruction as part of their program of instruction pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11.
•
Any instruction completed prior to issuance of the EO is insufficient to meet
the instruction requirement. However, FRA does not expect railroads to entirely
discount prior instruction as this new instruction can build upon the prior
instruction. Thus, prior instruction on an unchanged operating rule does not
need to be as in-depth as it would be if the employees were being instructed on
the relevant operating rules for the first time.
Hand-operated main track switches
• EO
24 contains a requirement that before releasing the limits of a main track
authority, the employee releasing the limits must report to the train dispatcher
that all hand-operated main track switches operated have been restored to their
normal position, unless the train dispatcher directs otherwise. This requirement
remains in effect except that FRA will also permit the employee releasing the
limits to report to the train dispatcher the switches that were left in the
charge of a crewmember of another train before releasing the limits, if left in
other than normal position.
•
The EO does not apply in Rule 251 or GCOR Rule 9.14 territory, i.e., current of
traffic, signaled in one direction only. However, the EO is applicable if the
signal system for a track segment is suspended or a track is out-of-service,
unless the operating rules or special instructions require trains to approach
all facing point hand-operated switches prepared to stop during the entire
period the signal system is suspended or the track is out of
service.
Switch Position Awareness Form
(SPAF)
•
FRA is specifically amending the requirement that an employee operating a hand
operated main track switch in non-signaled territory shall be the employee to
complete a SPAF. As an alternative, FRA will allow an employee responsible for
on-track safety, such as an employee in charge (EIC), to complete a SPAF for all
employees working under the EIC’s jurisdiction. An employee responsible for
on-track safety pursuant to 49 CFR Part 214, Subpart C, may maintain a SPAF in
lieu of the individual worker(s) operating switches.
• In
conjunction with the above clarifying amendment for on-track safety, FRA is
clarifying the requirement in EO 24 that the SPAF must contain the engineer’s
initials for each entry and the conductor’s signature when the form is completed
because those SPAF requirements would not be applicable to an on-track safety
situation. Each railroad may continue to use the train crew oriented SPAF, as
described in EO 24, Notice 1, for its on-track safety situations. Similarly, a
railroad may permit its employees involved in on-track safety the discretion to
make notes or modify the SPAF so that it both contains the mandatory information
and is understandable in the context of an on-track safety situation.
Alternatively, FRA has no objection to railroads exceeding the EO’s requirements
by creating a SPAF that is tailored to communications among employees involved
with on-track safety.
• FRA is amending the requirement that each SPAF must identify the track segment by a “subdivision” entry as not every railroad has subdivisions. Employees cannot be expected to provide a subdivision designation when no such designation exists. However, a railroad that does not have subdivisions should instruct its employees to provide some other appropriate designation, such as branch or secondary track, for the subdivision” entry. To facilitate the appropriate designation entry, a railroad that does not have subdivisions is encouraged to amend its SPAF by replacing the “subdivision” entry with a more suitable entry. If the exact name and location of a main track switch to be operated by an employee is identified, but there is no suitable entry for subdivision, branch, secondary track, etc., an employee may leave that entry blank or identify that entry as not applicable.
• EO
24 requires that entries made with respect to a specific hand-operated main
track switch in non-signaled territory must be recorded as soon as
practicable after the switch is reversed, and as soon as practicable after
the switch is returned to its normal position before leaving the location. FRA
recognizes that there are operating conditions which would make recording the
required entries on the SPAF before employees leave a location of a switch
impracticable due to extreme physical separation. Thus, in circumstances in
which it is logistically unfeasible or unsafe to record the required entries on
the SPAF before leaving the location of a switch, FRA will allow the crewmember
completing the SPAF to make an appropriate entry on the SPAF. Such entry would
state that the necessary radio job briefing concerning the switch position was
accomplished. Furthermore, the crewmember completing the SPAF should then enter
the required employee’s initials for that employee. FRA will consider the
entries on the SPAF for that switch complete at that time.
•
When a train crew is relieved on line-of-road, a member of the train crew,
typically the conductor, shall either retain the SPAF for the required five days
or turn it in to the designated railroad official who shall retain it for the
required period. A SPAF should not be left for the subsequent train crew unless
the relieved crew purposely makes an extra copy for the benefit of the relieving
crew. The purpose of EO 24 was to establish responsibility, shared among the
crew and the dispatcher, for confirmation of switch position for all switches
operated before the authority is released. A subsequent crew will not have
actual knowledge of the position of switches in the track segment(s) utilized by
the relieved crew. Further, the declarations made on the SPAF are personal to
each employee participating, and it is not possible for subsequent crew members
to verify information about which they did not have contemporaneous knowledge.
Accordingly, to accomplish the purpose of EO 24, the crew being relieved must
contact the dispatcher and confirm the position of switches operated, at the
same time releasing (rolling up) any portion of the authority not required by
the relieving crew and closing out the SPAF. The crew going off duty would
finalize its SPAF at that time. The relieving crew would then initiate a new
SPAF.
Radio Communication
• EO
24 requires that train crewmembers shall communicate by radio unless the radio
is inoperable. FRA amends the EO so that alternate methods of intra-crew
communication will be acceptable, regardless of whether the radios are operable,
when they afford an equivalent level of communication integrity relevant to the
prevailing operating conditions. Hand or whistle signals are examples of
acceptable methods of alternate intra-crew communication.
Distribution of Emergency Order
• A railroad may retain an electronic receipt or acknowledgment, as an alternative to a written receipt or acknowledgment, for each employee affected by the EO that indicates that the employee was provided with a copy of EO 24, Notice No. 1. As long as the receipt or acknowledgment is a permanent record that is kept for each affected employee and can be searched and printed for FRA upon request, electronic recordkeeping is acceptable. The electronic recordkeeping system should have system integrity, to prevent fraudulent entries, and may be added onto existing systems, e.g., those systems that already track attendance at railroad operating rules classes. If those systems do not allow employees to enter an acknowledgment, the attendance sheet at the face-to-face job briefing on the EO should reflect that the attendee’s signature reflects both attendance and receipt of a copy of the EO.
•
FRA is not requiring railroads to provide a copy of this Notice No. 2 to all
affected employees. Certainly, any railroad that amends its operating rules with
regard to Notice No. 2 will need to instruct its employees accordingly and may
choose to post or distribute this notice.
The “Relief” section of Emergency Order No. 24 is amended
in its entirety to read as
follows:
RELIEF: Petitions for special approval to take
actions not in accordance with EO 24 may be submitted to the Associate
Administrator for Safety, who shall be authorized to dispose of those requests
without the necessity of amending this EO. In reviewing any petition for special
review, the Associate Administrator for Safety shall only grant petitions in
which a petitioner has clearly articulated an alternative action that will
provide, in the Associate Administrator for Safety’s judgment, at least an
equivalent level of safety as this EO provides. A copy of this petition should
be submitted to the Docket Clerk, Department of Transportation Central Docket
Management System, Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590. Such request may be in written or electronic form
consistent with the standards and requirements established by the Central Docket
Management System and posted on its web site at http://dms.dot.gov.
FRA
recognizes that certain railroad operating rules or equipment used by some
railroads already provide a level of safety equivalent to this EO. If all of a
railroad’s hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory are
covered by one or more of the protective measures identified below, a railroad
need not apply for relief from this EO as relief shall be deemed automatically
granted. FRA also grants automatic relief on a line segment basis when the
relief is predicated on a permanent application of the relevant operating rules
and special instructions for the territory involved. Relief from this EO is
automatically granted when:
•
Operating rules require trains to approach all facing point hand-operated
switches in non-signaled territory prepared to stop;
•
Hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory (unless out of
service) are protected by distant switch indicators; or
•
Hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory are protected
byswitch point indicators accepted by the Associate Administrator as providing
safety equivalent to that provided by positioning and securing of switches in
compliance with this order.
This amendment is effective from the date of issue of this
notice.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on November 18,
2005.
[Original signed by]
Joseph H. Boardman
Administrator