[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 210 (Monday, November 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59046-59058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28489]
[[Page 59045]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VIII
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Railroad Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Chapter II and Part 209
Proposed Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over the
Safety of Railroad Operations; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 59046]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Chapter II and Part 209
[FRA Docket No. FRA-1999-5685, Notice No. 4]
RIN 2130-AB33
Proposed Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over
the Safety of Railroad Operations
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Proposed rule and policy statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Federal
Transit Administration are jointly developing a policy concerning
safety issues related to light rail transit operations taking place on
the general railroad system. That policy will describe how the two
agencies will coordinate use of their respective safety authorities
over shared use operations. FRA is issuing this proposed policy
statement to describe the extent of its statutory jurisdiction over
railroad passenger operations (which covers all railroads except urban
rapid transit operations not connected to the general railroad system)
and explain how it will exercise that jurisdiction. The proposal also
explains FRA's waiver process and discusses factors that should be
addressed in any petition submitted by light rail operators and other
railroads seeking approval of shared use of the general railroad
system.
FRA is not required by law to provide notice and opportunity for
comment on a statement of policy. However, given the number of shared
use operations being planned around the nation and the level of
interest in how the safety of those operations will be assured, the
agency concluded that it could benefit from receiving comments before
drafting its policy in final. FRA does not plan to hold a hearing, but
will discuss the proposed statement with interested groups.
DATES: Submit written comments on this document on or before January
14, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Procedures for written comments: Submit one copy to the
Department of Transportation Central Docket Management Facility located
in room PL-401 at the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. All docket material on the
proposed statement will be available for inspection at this address and
on the Internet at http://doms.dot.gov. (Docket hours at the Nassif
Building are Monday-Friday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.) Persons desiring notification that their comments have been
received should submit a stamped, self-addressed postcard with their
comments. The postcard will be returned to the addressee with a
notation of the date on which the comments were received.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel C. Smith, Assistant Chief
Counsel for Safety, FRA, RCC-10, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Mail Stop
10, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6029) or David H.
Kasminoff, Trial Attorney, FRA, RCC'12, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Mail
Stop 10, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6043).
Proposed Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over
the Safety of Railroad Passenger Operations
Introduction
In many areas of the United States, local communities are planning
or developing passenger operations that will operate over the lines of
new or existing railroads. Many of the new operations will use rail
equipment commonly referred to as ``light rail'' due to its generally
lighter construction than equipment ordinarily used by freight and most
passenger railroads. Some of these light rail operations will operate
over lines also used by conventional freight and passenger railroads.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) fully supports the
development of railroad passenger operations as an important means of
expanding transportation services in this country as we enter the new
millennium, without adding additional congestion to the nation's
crowded highways and airports. DOT's Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) will play a critical role in financing many of these new and
expanded rail systems.
DOT's most important mission is ensuring safe transportation. DOT's
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has primary responsibility for
the safety of railroad passenger operations. Consistent with FRA's
safety role, in a final rule published in the Federal Register on
December 27, 1995, FTA announced that it would begin requiring states
to oversee the safety of rail fixed guideways systems not regulated by
FRA. 60 FR 67034; see 49 U.S.C. 5530, 49 CFR part 659. Under its
statutory scheme, FTA does not directly enforce safety statutes or
regulations against rail fixed guideway systems, nor does FTA have
safety inspectors who enter upon the regulated properties to perform
inspections.
On May 25, 1999, FRA and FTA published a ``Proposed Joint Statement
of Agency Policy Concerning Shared Use of the General Railroad System
by Conventional Railroads and Light Rail Transit Systems'' (Proposed
Joint Policy Statement), in which the two agencies explained how they
intend to coordinate use of their respective safety authorities with
regard to shared use operations. 64 FR 28238. The document also
summarized how the process of obtaining waivers of FRA's safety
regulations may work, especially where the light rail and conventional
rail operations occur at different times of day. As discussed in the
Proposed Joint Policy Statement, FRA is now issuing this proposed
statement of agency policy concerning its safety jurisdiction over
railroad passenger operations in order to provide ``a thorough
discussion of the extent and exercise of [its] jurisdiction and
guidance on which of FRA's safety rules are likely to apply in
particular operational situations.'' 64 FR at 28239. Because the
proposed joint FRA/FTA statement provided some guidance on FRA's waiver
process and this proposed statement amplifies that guidance, the two
statements overlap somewhat and to some degree are repetitious.
However, when final statements are issued, the guidance on the FRA
waiver process will be found in FRA's statement, and the joint
statement will focus only on the two agencies' plans for coordination
of their respective authorities. The joint policy statement and FRA's
separate statement are being handled under the same docket number, and
the same comment deadline (January 14, 2000) applies to both, so there
is no need for commenters to file duplicative comments. Comments can
focus on both proposed statements. (The comment period on the joint
policy statement was extended further to January 14, 2000 in Notice No.
3 so that the comment periods for both notices would coincide.)
Purpose of FRA's Separate Statement
The current proliferation of railroad passenger operations,
especially those involving shared use of trackage by a conventional
railroad and a light rail operator, creates a need for FRA to clarify
the extent to which it will exercise its jurisdiction over those
operations. As explained below, FRA's safety jurisdiction is very broad
and extends to all entities that can be construed as railroads by
virtue of their providing non-highway ground transportation over rails
or
[[Page 59047]]
electromagnetic guideways (and will extend to future railroads using
other technologies not yet in use), but excludes urban rapid transit
operations not connected to the general railroad system. While FRA
believes its safety jurisdiction extends to nearly the entire universe
of railroads, for reasons of policy it sometimes chooses not to
exercise its authority over certain types of operations. For example,
because of the limitations on its inspection resources and its
assessment of the practical limitations of its role, FRA does not
currently exercise its jurisdiction over railroads whose operations are
confined to the boundaries of an industrial plant or over insular
tourist operations.
FRA's issuance of final rules on passenger train emergency
preparedness (63 FR 24630, May 4, 1998) and passenger equipment safety
standards (64 FR 25540, May 12, 1999) makes it all the more timely for
FRA to provide clarification on how it exercises its jurisdiction. This
clarification will help the developers and operators of passenger
systems plan their activities accordingly. As set forth in the text of
the applicability sections to FRA's regulations (e.g., 49 CFR 239.3),
all of FRA's regulations already apply under their own terms to
passenger operations on the general railroad system of transportation;
this proposed policy statement does not alter any of those
requirements, but rather explains the ramifications of FRA's
regulations for the various kinds of railroad passenger operations.
Also, this proposed statement offers further explanation of FRA's
waiver process and how FRA is likely to respond to waiver petitions
under certain circumstances.
While passenger railroads offer the traveling public one of the
safest forms of transportation available, passenger trains are exposed
to a variety of safety hazards. Some of these hazards are endemic to
the nation's rail passenger operating environment, involving the
operation of passenger trains commingled with freight trains, often
over track with frequent grade crossings used by heavy highway
equipment. Collisions with a wide range of objects may occur at various
speeds under a number of different circumstances. In addition to
freight trains and highway vehicles, these objects include maintenance-
of-way equipment and other passenger trains. Although most of these
collisions occur at the front or rear of the train, impact into the
side of the train can occur, especially at the junction of rail lines
and at highway-rail grade crossings. The possibility of a passenger
train collision with another train or a highway vehicle greatly
concerns FRA because of the potential for significant harm, as
demonstrated by actual accidents.
For example, on February 9, 1996, a near head-on collision occurred
between two New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. trains on the
borderline of Secaucus and Jersey City, New Jersey. Two crewmembers and
one passenger were fatally injured, and 35 other individuals sustained
injuries. The passenger fatality and most of the nonfatal injuries to
passengers occurred on a train that was operating with the cab car (a
car which provides passenger seating, as well as a location from which
the train is operated) at the front of the train, followed by four
passenger coaches and a locomotive pushing the train consist. (FRA
Accident Investigation Report B-2-96.)
One week later, on February 16, 1996, a near-head-on collision
occurred between a Maryland Rail Commuter Service (MARC) train and an
Amtrak train on track owned by CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) at
Silver Spring, Maryland. The MARC train was operating with a cab car as
the lead car in the train, followed by two passenger coaches and a
locomotive pushing the consist. The collision separated the left front
corner of the cab car from the roof to its sill plate, and tore off
much of the forward left side of the car body. Three crewmembers and
eight passengers were fatally injured, and 13 occupants of the MARC
train sustained injuries. (FRA Accident Investigation Report B-3-96.)
On March 15, 1999, a southbound Amtrak train traveling 79 miles per
hour and operating from Chicago, Illinois, to New Orleans, Louisiana,
struck a flatbed semi-tractor trailer in Bourbonnais, Illinois, while
the truck was occupying a highway-rail grade crossing. Due to the
impact, two locomotives and 11 of the 14 cars in the train derailed.
The train had continued upright until reaching a switch leading into a
siding, where it struck two freight cars parked on the adjacent siding
west of the main track. The nearest car was a gondola car loaded with
steel bars and angle iron, and the second car was a covered hopper
loaded with smoke stack emission fly ash. These cars were also
derailed, destroying the gondola. The first six passenger cars of the
Amtrak train piled up along with the tenth car, a coach. Of those cars,
only the second car (a transition sleeper) was not destroyed. Fire from
ruptured locomotive fuel tanks broke out, gutting the interior of the
third car, a sleeping car. All but the last three cars derailed. The
derailment and fire resulted in the deaths of 11 passengers, all of
whom were located in the sleeping car, and injuries to 122 other
passengers. (FRA Accident Investigation Report B-02-99.)
While none of these accidents involved light rail equipment, the
accidents all illustrate the risks to passengers and crew presented by
operations on the general railroad system. Those risks are at least as
great where light rail equipment is used, especially if any potential
exists for a collision with substantially heavier and structurally
stronger conventional trains.
FRA's Legal Authority Over Railroad Safety
The Statutory Definition of ``Railroad''
By delegation from the Secretary of Transportation, FRA administers
the Federal railroad safety statutes that are codified at 49 U.S.C.
20101 through 21311 (chapters 201 through 213 of Title 49 of the United
States Code) and also exercises enforcement authority in the rail mode
under the hazardous materials transportation laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter
51). Under the railroad safety statutes, ``railroad'' is defined as
follows:
In this part--
(1) ``railroad''--
(A) means any form of nonhighway ground transportation that runs
on rails or electromagnetic guideways, including--
(i) commuter or other short-haul railroad passenger service in a
metropolitan or suburban area and commuter railroad service that was
operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation on January 1, 1979;
and
(ii) high speed ground transportation systems that connect
metropolitan areas, without regard to whether those systems use new
technologies not associated with traditional railroads; but
(B) does not include rapid transit operations in an urban area
that are not connected to the general railroad system of
transportation.
(2) ``railroad carrier'' means a person providing railroad
transportation.
49 U.S.C. 20102.
This definition, added by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988
(``1988 Safety Act'') Pub. L. No. 100-342, makes certain elements of
FRA's safety jurisdiction quite clear:
FRA, with one exception, has jurisdiction over any type of
railroad regardless of the kind of equipment it uses, its connection to
the general railroad system of transportation, or its status as a
common carrier engaged in interstate commerce.
Commuter and other short-haul railroad passenger
operations in a metropolitan or suburban area (except for one type of
short-haul operation, i.e., urban rapid transit) are railroads within
FRA's jurisdiction whether or not they
[[Page 59048]]
are connected to the general railroad system.
Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not
connected to the general railroad system are not within FRA's
jurisdiction. This is the sole exception to FRA's jurisdiction over
railroads. There is no exception for ``light rail,'' a term not found
in the statute.
Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are
connected to the general railroad system of transportation are within
FRA's jurisdiction.
The statutory definition, however, also leaves some important
questions unanswered. The statute does not provide a definition of
either ``commuter or other short-haul railroad passenger service'' or
``rapid transit operations in an urban area.'' The statute does not
state clearly whether urban rapid transit is a sub-category of ``other
short-haul'' service or is a completely separate category. The statute
distinguishes commuter from rapid transit service, but does not provide
the characteristics of each or indicate whether the two types of
service share some characteristics. The statute does not define
``connected to'' but makes connection the critical issue in determining
whether rapid transit operations are within FRA's jurisdiction. Nor
does the statute define ``the general railroad system of
transportation,'' another critical element in determining whether urban
rapid transit operations are covered.
These unanswered questions are not academic. For example, if
``commuter'' and ``rapid transit'' were defined in the statute,
distinguishing between the two types of service would be easier, and
FRA would merely have to determine if there is a connection to the
general railroad system in order to know if it had jurisdiction.
However, it is possible for a railroad system in a metropolitan area to
have characteristics of both commuter rail and rapid transit. In those
cases, assuming there is no clear connection to the general system,
what criteria should FRA use to determine whether it has jurisdiction
and, if it does, whether to assert it? A brief review of the
legislative history of the definition of the term ``railroad'' helps to
provide some answers.
Legislative History of Definition of ``Railroad'
Prior to 1970, FRA administered a variety of railroad safety
statutes that applied only to common carriers engaged in interstate or
foreign commerce by rail. For example, FRA administered the Safety
Appliance Acts, formerly 45 U.S.C. 1-16 (1982), now 49 U.S.C. 20301-
20306. However, in 1970, Congress determined that there was a need for
more comprehensive and uniform safety regulations in all areas of
railroad operations and concluded that FRA needed to reach beyond
common carriers to other types of railroads. Congress enacted the
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (``FRSA''), Pub. L. No. 91-458,
which (at Sec. 202(a)) gave FRA authority to regulate ``all areas of
railroad safety,'' and conferred all powers necessary to detect and
penalize violations of any rail safety law. Although that statute did
not define the word ``railroad,'' its legislative history made clear
the breadth that Congress intended the word to convey. For example, the
House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce stated:
The Secretary's authority to regulate extends to all areas of
railroad safety. This legislation is intended to encompass all those
means of rail transportation as are commonly included within the
term. Thus ``railroad'' is not limited to the confines of ``common
carrier by railroad'' as that language is used in the Interstate
Commerce Act.
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1194, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. at 16 (1970). Congress
clearly expected that this expanded jurisdiction would reach commuter
and other short-haul passenger operations. The House Committee report
stated: ``the Secretary's jurisdiction would extend to rail operations
in areas presently governed by compacts and other municipal authorities
such as the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York.'' Id.
FRA attempted to administer this broad mandate literally until the
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) successfully challenged FRA's assertion
of jurisdiction over its rapid transit operations in 1977. In Chicago
Transit Authority v. Flohr (``CTA''), 570 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1977),
the Seventh Circuit held that Congress did not intend the word
``railroad'' to apply to ``urban rapid transit'' such as CTA's. The
court noted, in pertinent part, that:
The CTA's rapid transit equipment consists of electrically self-
powered units, substantially smaller and lighter than railroad cars;
CTA rapid transit cars do not use the rails of any [conventional]
railroad nor conversely, can [conventional] railroads use the CTA
rails.
Id. at 1307.
The CTA decision did not address FRA's jurisdiction over commuter
operations, and left FRA with little guidance about precisely what
systems were outside of its jurisdiction. In 1982, FRA expressed to
Congress a degree of doubt about the extent of its safety jurisdiction,
particularly over a commuter line (Fox Chase-Newtown) operated by the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). Congress
responded by including in the Rail Safety and Service Improvement Act
of 1982 (``1982 Safety Act''), Pub. L. No. 97-468, a provision that
made very clear its intention that FRA assert jurisdiction over
commuter operations. Section 702(c) of that act stated that ``all areas
of railroad safety'' in the FRSA includes ``the safety of commuter or
other short-haul rail passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban
area, including any commuter rail service which was operated by the
Consolidated Rail Corporation as of January 1, 1979.'' The House
Committee explained its intention as follows:
This amendment is merely designed to clarify that commuter rail
operations, such as the Fox Chase-Newtown line, are indeed subject
to the FRSA. This clarification of FRA's jurisdiction specifically
includes service operated by a common carrier by railroad or a
successor operator (such as a commuter agency), but excludes rail
service operated by street railways or rapid transit systems unless
they are operated as a part of, or over the lines of, the general
system of rail transportation.
H.R. Rep. No. 97-571, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. at 41-42 (1982). The report
went on to note that ``this amendment does not extend FRSA jurisdiction
to rail rapid transit operations such as subways or trolley lines.''
Id.
After enactment of the 1982 Safety Act, therefore, it was clear
that Congress expected FRA to assert jurisdiction over commuter
operations but not over rapid transit operations unless they were
connected to the general railroad system, i.e., operated as a part of,
or over the lines of, that system. Rather than overturn CTA and direct
FRA to assert authority over stand-alone rapid transit lines, Congress
incorporated the basic holding of that court decision by excluding
rapid transit operations that, like CTA's, did not share any trackage
with the general railroad system. Although the commuter/rapid transit
line was not clearly drawn, FRA knew from the legislative history that
street railways, subways, and trolley lines were the kinds of
operations Congress considered to be rail rapid transit. However,
Congress did not incorporate the CTA court's distinctions about the
jurisdictional relevance of types of equipment; rather, Congress
clearly conferred jurisdiction even over trolleys and street railways
if they were connected to the general system by virtue of operating as
a part of, or over the lines of, that system.
In 1986, FRA became concerned that there could be confusion about
whether
[[Page 59049]]
its jurisdiction would extend to certain high speed transportation
systems that were being contemplated. Some would-be stand-alone systems
having only incidental connections with other railroads for the
delivery of cars and equipment, and others would use technologies
(e.g., magnetic levitation) not among those traditionally used by a
railroad. Jurisdictional confusion could impede the development of such
systems. FRA drafted proposed legislation to eliminate any potential
confusion.
In February 1987, the Secretary of Transportation submitted to
Congress the proposed rail safety reauthorization legislation that FRA
had recommended and drafted. That bill included a provision that would
define ``railroad'' in the FRSA to include all forms of nonhighway
ground transportation except urban rapid transit operations not
connected to the general railroad system. Commuter and other short-haul
passenger operations in a metropolitan or suburban area would continue
to be included. High speed systems would be included even if they used
technologies (such as magnetic levitation) not traditionally associated
with railroads. This provision, which provided the first definition in
the railroad safety statutes of the term ``railroad,'' incorporated the
1982 Safety Act text on commuter and other short-haul systems and the
1982 legislative history on urban rapid transit. With regard to rapid
transit, the bill used the phrase ``connected to'' the general system
as an abbreviated substitute for the 1982 legislative history's
direction to exclude rapid transit systems unless ``operated as a part
of, or over the lines of, the general system of rail transportation.''
H.R. Rep. No. 97-571, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. at 41-42 (1982). The
provision made clear that a connection to the general system was
relevant only in determining whether an urban rapid transit operation
was within FRA's jurisdiction. The bill also made clear that, in the
safety statutes, ``railroad'' was not confined to any traditional
definition of the term that limited it to certain types of technology
and equipment.
With only immaterial changes, Congress enacted the provision
drafted and recommended by FRA in the1988 Safety Act. This is the
current definition of ``railroad'' codified at 49 U.S.C. 20102, set
forth above. The Conference Report accompanying the 1988 Safety Act
stated that the definition of ``railroad'' was intended to clarify the
Secretary's jurisdiction in the rail safety area. See H.R. Rep. No.
100-637, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. at 24 (1988). The Senate Report noted
that, in addition to ensuring FRA's jurisdiction over high speed rail
systems and emerging technologies, the provision incorporates the 1982
language concerning commuter and other short-haul passenger service.
Sen. Rep. No. 100-153, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. at 13 (1988). Shortly
after passage of the 1988 Safety Act, FRA issued a statement of agency
policy and interpretation, found at 49 C.F.R. Part 209, Appendix A.
That statement of policy included a brief explanation of the extent and
exercise of FRA's safety jurisdiction in light of the statutory
amendments, noting that the only exception to that jurisdiction was for
``self-contained urban rapid-transit systems.'' Id.
FRA's Policy on the Exercise of Its Safety Jurisdiction
FRA distinguishes between the extent of its statutory jurisdiction
(i.e., the furthest reach of its authority under the safety laws, which
cover all railroads except urban rapid transit operations not connected
to the general system) and its exercise of that jurisdiction (the
degree to which it asserts its jurisdiction). See 49 CFR part 209,
Appendix A. FRA believes that, based on its resource limitations and
the relative degree of safety risk posed by certain operations, it
makes sense in some situations to limit the exercise of its
jurisdiction to something less than the entire universe of railroads
that could be regulated. Thus, many of its regulations exclude
operations not connected to the general railroad system, and its
policies exclude certain other operations (such as insular tourist
operations). However, nothing precludes FRA from subsequently expanding
the reach of a regulation or policy to the maximum extent permitted by
statute, or from using its emergency authority under 49 U.S.C. 20104 at
any time to address imminent hazards involving death or personal injury
arising in operations otherwise excluded from its exercise of
jurisdiction.
FRA currently exercises jurisdiction over all railroad passenger
operations in the nation except: (1) Urban rapid transit operations not
operated on or over the general railroad system; and (2) tourist,
scenic, or excursion operations that are not operated on or over the
general system and are insular. Thus, in addition to intercity
passenger service, FRA exercises jurisdiction over all commuter
operations (whether or not connected to other railroads in the general
system), all tourist operations operated on or over the general system
and those off the general system that are not insular, and all other
passenger operations that are operated on or over the general system.
FRA will assert jurisdiction over high speed intercity rail service
even if completely separated from the general railroad system that now
exists and magnetic levitation systems that are not urban rapid
transit.
Some current and planned passenger operations in metropolitan areas
are often referred to as ``light rail.'' In the transit industry, this
term usually refers to lightweight passenger cars operating on rails in
a right-of-way that is not separated from other traffic, such as street
railways and trolleys. ``Heavy rail'' generally refers to cars
operating on rails that are in separate rights-of-way from which all
other vehicular traffic is excluded. In transit terms, heavy rail is
also known as ``rapid rail,'' ``subway,'' or ``elevated railway.''
Conventional rail equipment such as that used by freight railroads,
Amtrak, and many commuter railroads is different from, and considerably
heavier and structurally stronger than, either light or heavy rail
equipment, as those terms are used in the transit industry. Although
this equipment is sometimes referred to as ``heavy'' rail, we will use
the term ``conventional'' to avoid confusion between the different ways
``heavy'' is used in the transit and general railroad communities. The
greatest risk inherent in the shared use of the trackage is a collision
between the light rail equipment and conventional equipment. The light
rail vehicles are not designed to withstand such a collision with far
heavier equipment. Were such a crash to occur with either or both
trains operating at high speeds, the results for passengers in the
light rail vehicle could be catastrophic. (Mixing of heavy rail transit
and conventional railroad operations is not likely, but would present
most of the same concerns associated with light rail. Those concerns
could be more or less acute, depending on operating speeds and other
factors. Although heavy rail transit is not directly addressed in this
notice, FRA would expect to apply similar principles to such a shared
use situation.)
Rapid transit operations may involve use of either light or heavy
transit equipment. However, it is the nature and location of the
operation, not the nature of the equipment, that determines whether FRA
has jurisdiction under the safety statutes. The sole statutory
exception is for ``rapid transit operations in an urban area that are
not connected to the general railroad system of transportation.'' 49
U.S.C. 20102. The first jurisdictional question is whether the
operations are in the nature of rapid
[[Page 59050]]
transit. If the operation is a commuter railroad, FRA has jurisdiction
regardless of its connection to other railroads, and in fact considers
the operation itself to be part of the general railroad system. To
assist in making these determinations, FRA has devised definitions of
``commuter'' and ``rapid transit'' operations, which are set forth
below in the proposed revision to its statement of policy in 49 CFR
part 209, appendix A. If the operation is rapid transit, the next
question is whether it is connected to the general railroad system. If
so, FRA has jurisdiction despite the rapid transit nature of the
system. As explained fully below, however, in the revisions to its
published statement of policy, FRA considers some connections to the
general system to be insufficient to warrant exercise of its
jurisdiction over a transit operation. Moreover, FRA intends to
exercise jurisdiction over a transit operation that does have
significant connections to the general system only to the extent it is
connected, not over the entire transit system.
Only two light rail operations (in San Diego and Baltimore)
currently share trackage with conventional equipment. In exercising
jurisdiction over these lines jointly used by light rail and a freight
railroad, FRA has made specific accommodations for the differences in
equipment and operations that distinguish these systems from more
conventional intercity or commuter operations. We have generally
addressed these joint use arrangements by exercising jurisdiction over
just those elements of the system also used by the freight line, such
as the track, signals, grade crossing warning devices, and dispatching.
The leading example is the San Diego Trolley line. FRA has not actively
exercised jurisdiction over the time-separated passenger operations on
the freight line or over any aspects of the trolley's operation on its
separate street trackage. There, the fact that the passenger operations
are completely separated in time from the limited period during which
freight operations occur was very persuasive in FRA's policy
determination not to exercise its jurisdiction more aggressively.
Of course, most of FRA's regulations apply on their face to all
railroads that operate on the general railroad system (as do the light
rail lines in San Diego and Baltimore). In the absence of a waiver,
these rules technically apply. As a policy matter, FRA has decided, up
to this point, not to insist on the filing of waiver applications for
the time-separated light rail operations. However, various factors call
for a more clearly defined policy with regard to light rail operations
on the general system. First, the number of such operations being
planned is increasing quickly across the nation. The informal
arrangements currently in place for the two current operations will not
suffice for a wide variety of light rail operations in many locations.
Second, FRA's recent issuance of two rules (passenger train
emergency preparedness and passenger equipment) dealing directly with
passenger operations makes it imperative that all current or planned
passenger operations to which those rules would apply have a plan for
either complying with the rules or seeking a waiver from them. For
example, in issuing its passenger equipment rules (49 CFR part 238) in
May 1999, FRA made clear that they will apply to light rail operations
on the general system, encouraged the filing of waiver applications as
early as possible, and noted that the two light rail shared use
operations currently in existence were covered by the rule, subject to
an appropriate period of consultation and adjustment. 64 FR 25543-
25544. It is clear that light rail equipment will not meet many of the
passenger equipment standards, such as the 800,000 pound buff strength
requirement. In that regard, FRA stated: ``Light rail operators will
have to seek a waiver of the requirement and will have to plan their
operations in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of obtaining
such a waiver.'' Id. at 25545.
Finally, from the point of view of regulatory compliance at the
Federal and State levels, rail transit operators can presumably benefit
from a comprehensive summary of what standards and procedures apply.
This will assist in governing current conduct as well as aiding
planners of such operations.
FRA's existing published statement of agency policy (49 CFR part
209, Appendix A) does not address light rail operations on the general
system. Revising that published statement will provide timely guidance,
especially in light of the number of joint use passenger/freight
operations currently under development or being contemplated. The
proposed changes to Appendix A are shown at the end of this document.
Waiver Petitions Concerning Shared Use of the General System by Light
Rail and Other Railroads
Light rail operators who intend to share use of the general
railroad system with conventional equipment will either have to comply
with FRA's safety rules or obtain a waiver of appropriate rules. By
statute, FRA may grant a waiver of any rule or order if the waiver ``is
in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety.'' 49 U.S.C.
20103(d). Waiver petitions are reviewed by FRA's Railroad Safety Board
(the ``Safety Board'') under the provisions of 49 CFR Part 211. Waiver
petitions must contain the information required by 49 CFR 211.9. The
Safety Board can, in granting a waiver, impose any conditions it
concludes are necessary to assure safety or are in the public interest.
If the conditions under which the waiver was granted change
substantially, or unanticipated safety issues arise, FRA may modify or
withdraw a waiver in order to ensure safety.
FRA asks that the light rail operator and all other affected
railroads jointly file a Petition for Approval of Shared Use. Like all
waiver petitions, a Petition for Approval of Shared Use will be
reviewed by the Safety Board. FTA will appoint a non-voting liaison to
the Safety Board, and that person will participate in the Safety
Board's consideration of all such petitions. This close cooperation
between the two agencies will ensure that FRA benefits from the
insights, particularly with regard to operational and financial issues,
that FTA can provide about light rail operations, as well as from FTA's
knowledge of and contacts with state safety oversight programs. This
working relationship will also ensure that FTA has a fuller
appreciation of the safety issues involved in each specific shared use
operation and a voice in shaping the safety requirements that will
apply to such operations.
In general, the greater the safety risks inherent in a proposed
operation the greater will be the mitigation measures required. It is
the intention of FTA and FRA to maintain the level of safety typical of
conventional rail passenger operations while accommodating the
character and needs of light rail transit operations.
General Factors To Address in a Petition for Approval of Shared Use
FRA resolves each waiver request on its own merits based on the
information presented and the agency's own investigation of the issues.
While FRA cannot state in advance what kinds of waivers will be granted
or denied, we can provide guidance to those who may likely be
requesting waivers to help ensure that their petitions address factors
that FRA will no doubt consider important.
FRA's procedural rules give a general description of what any
waiver petition should contain, including an explanation of the nature
and extent of
[[Page 59051]]
the relief sought; a description of the persons, equipment,
installations, and locations to be covered by the waiver; an evaluation
of expected costs and benefits; and relevant safety data. 49 CFR 211.9.
The procedural rules, of course, are not specifically tailored to
situations involving light rail operations over the general system,
where waiver petitions are likely to involve many of FRA's regulatory
areas. In such situations, FRA suggests that a Petition for Approval of
Shared Use address the following general factors.
Description of operations. Explain the frequency and speeds of all
operations on the line and the nature of the different operations.
Explain the nature of any connections between the light rail and
conventional operations.
If the light rail line will operate on any segments that
are not part of the general railroad system (e.g., a street railway
portion), describe those segments and their connection with the general
system segments. In such situations, explain, using the criteria of
this statement of policy, whether the light rail operation is, in the
petitioner's view, a commuter operation or urban rapid transit. The
petition need not address the commuter/rapid transit issue if the light
rail operations will be conducted entirely as part of or over the lines
of the general system.
If the light rail and conventional operations will share
any trackage, describe precisely what the respective hours of operation
will be for each type of equipment. If light rail and conventional
operations will occur only at different times of day, describe what
means of protection will ensure that the different types of equipment
are not operated simultaneously on the same track, and how protection
will be provided to ensure that, where one set of operations begins and
the other ends, there can be no overlap that would possibly result in a
collision.
If the light rail and conventional operations will share
trackage during the same time periods, the petitioners will face a
steep burden of demonstrating that extraordinary safety measures will
be taken to adequately reduce the likelihood and/or severity of a
collision between conventional and light rail equipment to the point
where the safety risks associated with joint use would be acceptable.
Explain the nature of such simultaneous joint use. Describe the system
of train control, the frequency and proximity of both types of
operations, and all methods that would be used to prevent collisions.
Include a quantitative risk assessment concerning the risk of collision
between the light rail and conventional equipment under the proposed
operating scenario.
Description of Equipment. Describe all equipment that will be used
by the light rail and conventional operations. Where the light rail
equipment does not meet the standards of 49 CFR part 238, provide
specifics on the crash survivability of the light rail equipment, such
as static end strength, sill height, strength of corner posts and
collision posts, side strength, etc.
Given the structural incompatibility of light rail and conventional
equipment, FRA has grave concerns about the prospect of operating these
two types of equipment simultaneously on the same track. If the light
rail and conventional operations will share trackage during the same
time periods, provide an engineering analysis of the light rail
equipment's resistance to damage in various types of collisions,
including a worst case scenario involving a failure of the collision
avoidance systems resulting in a collision between light rail and
conventional equipment at track speeds.
Alternative safety measures to be employed in place of each rule
for which waiver is sought. The petition should specify exactly which
rules the petitioner desires to be waived. For each rule, the petition
should explain exactly how a level of safety at least equal to that
afforded by the FRA rule will be provided by the alternative measures
the petitioner proposes.
Most light rail operations that entail some shared use of the
general system will also have segments that are not on the general
system. FTA's rules on rail fixed guideway systems will probably apply
to those other segments. If so, the petition for waiver of FRA's rules
should explain how the system safety program plan adopted under FTA's
rules may affect safety on the portions of the system where FRA's rules
apply. Under certain circumstances, effective implementation of such a
plan may provide FRA sufficient assurance that adequate measures are in
place to warrant waiver of certain FRA rules. In its petition, the
light rail operator may want to certify that the subject matter
addressed by the rule to be waived is addressed by the system safety
plan and that the light rail operation will be monitored by the state
safety oversight program. That is likely to expedite FRA's processing
of the petition. FRA will analyze information submitted by the
petitioner to demonstrate that a safety matter is addressed by the
light rail operator's system safety plan. Alternately, conditional
approval may be requested at an early stage in the project, and FRA
would thereafter review the system safety program plan's status to
determine readiness to commence operations. Where FRA grants a waiver,
the state agency will oversee the area addressed by the waiver, but FRA
will actively participate in partnership with FTA and the state agency
to address any safety problems.
Factors to Address Related To Specific Regulations and Statutes
Operators of light rail systems are likely to apply for waivers of
many FRA rules. FRA offers the following suggestions on factors
petitioners may want to address concerning specific areas of
regulation. (All ``part'' references are to title 49 CFR.) Parts 209
(Railroad Safety Enforcement Procedures), 211 (Rules of Practice), 212
(State Safety Participation), and 216 (Special Notice and Emergency
Order Procedures) are largely procedural rules that are unlikely to be
the subject of waivers, so those parts are not discussed further.
Track, Structures, and Signals
Track Safety Standards (Part 213)
For segments of a light rail line not involving operations over the
general system, assuming the light rail operation meets the definition
of ``rapid transit,'' the track safety standards do not apply. However,
for general system track used by both the conventional and light rail
lines, the standards apply and a waiver is very unlikely. A light rail
operation that owns track over which the conventional railroad operates
may wish to consider assigning responsibility for that track to the
other railroad. If so, the track owner must follow the procedure set
forth in 49 CFR 213.5(c). Where such an assignment occurs, the owner
and assignee are responsible for compliance.
Signal Systems Reporting Requirements (Part 233)
This part contains reporting requirements with respect to methods
of train operation, block signal systems, interlockings, traffic
control systems, automatic train stop, train control, and cab signal
systems, or other similar appliances, methods, and systems. In the case
of the separate street railway segments of a light rail line, assuming
that the system meets the definition of ``rapid transit,'' the
reporting requirements of this part do not apply. However, if a signal
system failure occurs on general system track which is used by both
conventional and light rail lines, and triggers the reporting
requirements of this part, the light rail
[[Page 59052]]
operator must file, or cooperate fully in the filing of, a signal
system report. The petition should explain whether the light rail
operator or conventional railroad is responsible for maintaining the
signal system. Assuming that the light rail operator (or a contractor
hired by this operator) has responsibility for maintaining the signal
system, that entity is the logical choice to file each signal failure
report, and a waiver is very unlikely. Moreover, since a signal failure
first observed by a light rail operator can later have catastrophic
consequences for a conventional railroad using the same track, a waiver
would jeopardize rail safety on that general system trackage. Even if
the conventional railroad is responsible for maintaining the signal
systems, the light rail operator must still assist the railroad in
reporting all signal failures by notifying the conventional railroad of
such failures.
Grade Crossing Signal System Safety (Part 234)
This part contains minimum standards for the maintenance,
inspection, and testing of highway-rail grade crossing warning systems,
and also prescribes standards for the reporting of system failures and
minimum actions that railroads must take when such warning systems
malfunction. In the case of the separate street railway segments of a
light rail line, assuming that the system meets the definition of
``rapid transit,'' the reporting requirements of this part do not
apply. However, if a grade crossing accident or warning activation
failure occurs on general system track which is used by both
conventional and light rail lines, and triggers the reporting
requirements of this part, the light rail operator must file, or
cooperate to ensure the filing of, a report to FRA within 24 hours of
such an accident or a grade crossing signal system failure report
concerning any failure that occurs during its operations. The petition
should explain whether the light rail operator or conventional railroad
is responsible for maintaining the grade crossing devices. Assuming
that the light rail operator (or a contractor hired by this operator)
has responsibility for maintaining the grade crossing devices, that
entity is the logical choice to file each grade crossing signal failure
report, and a waiver is very unlikely. Moreover, since a grade crossing
warning device failure first observed by a light rail operator can
later have catastrophic consequences for a conventional railroad using
the same track, a waiver would jeopardize rail safety on that general
system trackage. However, if the conventional railroad is responsible
for maintaining the grade crossing devices, the light rail operator
will still have to assist the railroad in reporting all grade crossing
signal failures. Moreover, regardless of which railroad is responsible
for maintenance of the grade crossing signals, any railroad (including
a light rail operation) operating over a crossing that has experienced
an activation failure, partial activation, or false activation must
take the steps required by this rule to ensure safety at those
locations. While the maintaining railroad will retain all of its
responsibilities in such situations (such as contacting train crews and
notifying law enforcement agencies), the operating railroad must
observe requirements concerning flagging, train speed, and use of the
locomotive's audible warning device.
Approval of Signal System Modifications (Part 235)
This part contains instructions governing applications for approval
of a discontinuance or material modification of a signal system or
relief from the regulatory requirements of part 236. In the case of the
separate street railway segments of a light rail line, assuming that
the system meets the definition of ``rapid transit,'' the application
requirements of this part do not apply, and no waiver would be
necessary. In the case of a signal system located on general system
track which is used by both conventional and light rail lines, a light
rail operation is subject to this part only if it (or a contractor
hired by the operator) owns or has responsibility for maintaining the
signal system. If the conventional railroad does the maintenance, then
that railroad would file any application submitted under this part; the
light rail operation would have the right to protest the application
under Sec. 235.20. The petition should discuss whether the light rail
operator or conventional railroad is responsible for maintaining the
signal system.
Standards for Signal and Train Control Systems (Part 236)
This part contains rules, standards, and instructions governing the
installation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of signal and train
control systems, devices, and appliances. In the case of the separate
street railway segments of a light rail line, assuming that the system
meets the definition of ``rapid transit,'' the requirements of this
part do not apply, and no waiver would be necessary. In the case of a
signal system located on general system track which is used by both
conventional and light rail lines, a light rail operation is subject to
this part only if it (or a contractor hired by the operation) owns or
has responsibility for installing, inspecting, maintaining, and
repairing the signal system. If the light rail operation has these
responsibilities, a waiver would be unlikely because a signal failure
would jeopardize the safety of both the light rail operation and the
conventional railroad. If the conventional railroad assumes all of the
responsibilities under this part, the light rail operation would not
need a waiver, but it would have to abide by all operational
limitations imposed on this part and by the conventional railroad. The
petition should discuss whether the light rail operator or conventional
railroad has responsibility for installing, inspecting, maintaining,
and repairing the signal system.
Motive Power and Equipment
Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations (Part 210)
If the light rail equipment would normally meet the standards in
this rule, there would be little reason to seek a waiver of it. This
part has an exception for ``street, suburban, or interurban electric
railways unless operated as a part of the general railroad system of
transportation.'' 49 CFR 210.3(b)(2). The petition should address
whether this exception may apply to the light rail operation. The
greater the integration of the light rail and conventional operations,
the less likely this exception would apply. If it appears that the
light rail system would neither meet the standards nor fit within the
exception, the petition should address noise mitigation measures used
on the system, especially as part of a system safety program.
Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards (Part 215)
A light rail operator is likely to move freight cars only in
connection with maintenance-of-way work. As long as such cars are
properly stenciled in accordance with section 215.305, this part does
not otherwise apply, and a waiver would seem unnecessary.
Rear End Marking Devices (Part 221)
This part requires that each train occupying or operating on main
line track be equipped with a display on the trailing end of the rear
car of that train, and continuously illuminate or flash a marking
device. The device, which must be approved by FRA, must have specific
intensity, beam arc width, color, and flash rate characteristics. A
light rail operation seeking a waiver of this part will need to explain
how other marking
[[Page 59053]]
devices with which it equips its vehicles, or other means such as train
control, will provide the same assurances as this part of a reduced
likelihood of collisions attributable to the inconspicuity of the rear
end of a leading train. The petition should describe the light rail
vehicle's existing marking devices (e.g., headlights, brakelights,
taillights, turn signal lights), and indicate whether the vehicle
contains reflectors. If the light rail system will operate in both a
conventional railroad environment and in streets mixed with motor
vehicles, the petition should discuss whether adapting the design of
the vehicle's lighting characteristics to conform to FRA's regulations
would adversely affect the safety of its operations in the street
environment. A light rail system that has a system safety program
developed under FTA's rules may choose to discuss how that program
addresses the need for equivalent levels of safety when its vehicles
operate on conventional railroad corridors.
Safety Glazing Standards (Part 223)
This part provides that passenger car windows be equipped with FRA-
certified glazing materials in order to reduce the likelihood of injury
to railroad employees and passengers from the breakage and shattering
of windows and avoid ejection of passengers from the vehicle in a
collision. This part, in addition to requiring the existence of at
least four emergency windows, also requires window markings and
operating instructions for each emergency window, as well as for each
window intended for emergency access, so as to provide the necessary
information for evacuation of a passenger car. FRA will not permit
operations to occur on the general system in the absence of effective
alternatives to the requirements of this part that provide an
equivalent level of safety. The petition should explain what equivalent
safeguards are in place to provide the same assurance as part 223 that
passengers and crewmembers are safe from the effects of objects
striking a light rail vehicle's windows. The petition should also
discuss the design characteristics of its equipment when it explains
how the safety of its employees and passengers will be assured during
an evacuation in the absence of windows meeting the specific
requirements of this part. A light rail system that has a system safety
program plan developed under FTA's rule may be able to demonstrate that
the plan satisfies the safety goals of this part.
Locomotive Safety Standards (Part 229)
This part contains minimum safety standards for all locomotives,
except those propelled by steam power. FRA recognizes that due to the
unique characteristics of light rail equipment, some of these
provisions may be irrelevant to light rail equipment, and that others
may not fit properly in the context of light rail operations. To the
extent that the light rail operation encompasses the safety risks
addressed by the provisions of this part, a waiver petition should
explain precisely how the light rail system's practices will provide
for the safe condition and operation of its locomotive equipment. In
order to reduce the risk of grade crossing accidents, it is important
that all locomotives used by both conventional railroads and light rail
systems present the same distinctive profile to motor vehicle operators
approaching grade crossings. If uniformity is sacrificed by permitting
light rail systems to operate locomotives with varying levels of
illumination, or with lights placed in different locations on the
equipment, safety could be compromised. Accordingly, although light
rail headlights are likely to be of lower candela, the vehicle design
should maintain the triangular pattern required of other locomotives
and cab cars to the extent practicable.
Safety Appliance Laws (49 U.S.C. 20301-20305)
Since certain safety appliance requirements (e.g., automatic
couplers) are statutory, they can only be ``waived'' by FRA under the
exemption conditions set forth in 49 U.S.C. 20306. Because exemptions
requested under this statutory provision do not involve a waiver of a
safety rule, regulation, or standard (see 49 CFR 211.41), FRA is not
required to follow the rules of practice for waivers contained in part
211. However, whenever appropriate, FRA will combine its consideration
of any request for an exemption under Sec. 20306 with its review under
part 211 of a light rail operation's petition for waivers of FRA's
regulations.
FRA may grant exemptions from the statutory safety appliance
requirements in 49 U.S.C. 20301-20305 only if application of such
requirements would ``preclude the development or implementation of more
efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation
innovations.'' 49 U.S.C. 20306. The exemption for technological
improvements was originally enacted to further the implementation of a
specific type of freight car, but the legislative history shows that
Congress intended the exemption to be used elsewhere so that ``other
types of railroad equipment might similarly benefit.'' S. Rep. 96-614
at 8 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1156,1164.
FRA recognizes the potential public benefits of allowing light rail
systems to take advantage of underutilized urban freight rail corridors
to provide service that, in the absence of the existing right-of-way,
would be prohibitively expensive. Any petitioner requesting an
exemption for technological improvements should carefully explain how
being forced to comply with the existing statutory safety appliance
requirements would conflict with the exemption exceptions set forth at
49 U.S.C. 20306. The petition should also show that granting the
exemption is in the public interest and is consistent with assuring the
safety of the light rail operator's employees and passengers.
Safety Appliance Standards (Part 231)
The regulations in this part specify the requisite location,
number, dimensions, and manner of application of a variety of railroad
car safety appliances (e.g., handbrakes, ladders, handholds, steps),
and directly implement a number of the statutory requirements found in
49 U.S.C. 20301-20305. These very detailed regulations are intended to
ensure that sufficient safety appliances are available and able to
function safely and securely as intended.
FRA recognizes that due to the unique characteristics of light rail
equipment, some of these provisions may be irrelevant to light rail
operation, and that others may not fit properly in the context of light
rail operations (e.g., crewmembers typically do not perform yard duties
from positions outside and adjacent to the light rail vehicle or near
the vehicle's doors). However, to the extent that the light rail
operation encompasses the safety risks addressed by the regulatory
provisions of this part, a waiver petition should explain precisely how
the light rail system's practices will provide for the safe operation
of its passenger equipment. The petition should focus on the design
specifications of the equipment, and explain how the light rail
system's operating practices, and its intended use of the equipment,
will satisfy the safety purpose of the regulations while providing at
least an equivalent level of safety.
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (Part 238)
This part prescribes minimum Federal safety standards for railroad
passenger
[[Page 59054]]
equipment. Since a collision on the general railroad system between
light rail equipment and conventional rail equipment could prove
catastrophic, because of the significantly greater mass and structural
strength of the conventional equipment, a waiver petition should
describe the light rail operation's system safety program that is in
place to minimize the risk of such a collision. The petition should
discuss the light rail operation's operating rules and procedures,
train control technology, and signal system. If the light rail operator
and conventional railroad will operate simultaneously on the same
track, the petition should include a quantitative risk assessment that
incorporates design information and provide an engineering analysis of
the light rail equipment and its likely performance in derailment and
collision scenarios. The petitioner should also demonstrate that risk
mitigation measures to avoid the possibility of collisions, or to limit
the speed at which a collision might occur might occur, will be
employed in connection with the use of the equipment on a specified
shared-use rail line. This part also contains requirements concerning
power brakes on passenger trains, and a petitioner seeking a waiver in
this area should refer to these requirements, not those found in 49 CFR
part 232.
Operating Practices
Railroad Workplace Safety (Part 214)
This part contains standards for protecting bridge workers and
roadway workers. The petition should explain whether the light rail
operator or conventional railroad is responsible for bridge work on
shared general system trackage. If the light rail operator does the
work and does similar work on segments outside of the general system,
it may wish to seek a waiver permitting it to observe OSHA standards
throughout its system.
There are no comparable OSHA standards protecting roadway workers.
The petition should explain which operator is responsible for track and
signal work on the shared segments. If the light rail operator does
this work, the petition should explain how the light rail operator
protects these workers. However, to the extent that protection varies
significantly from FRA's rules, a waiver permitting use of the light
rail system's standards could be very confusing to train crews of the
conventional railroad who follow FRA's rules elsewhere. A waiver of
this rule is unlikely. A petition should address how such confusion
would be avoided and safety of roadway workers would be ensured.
Railroad Operating Rules (part 217)
This part requires filing of a railroad's operating rules and that
employees be instructed and tested on compliance with them. A light
rail operation would not likely have difficulty complying with this
part. However, if a waiver is desired, the light rail system will need
to explain how other safeguards it has in place provide the same
assurance that operating employees are trained and periodically tested
on the rules that govern train operation. A light rail system that has
a system safety program plan developed under FTA's rules may be in a
good position to give such an assurance.
Railroad Operating Practices (Part 218)
This part requires railroads to follow certain practices in various
aspects of their operations (protection of employees working on
equipment, protection of trains and locomotives from collisions in
certain situations, prohibition against tampering with safety devices,
protection of occupied camp cars). Some of these provisions (e.g., camp
cars) may be irrelevant to light rail operations. Others may not fit
well in the context of light rail operations. To the extent the light
rail operation presents the risks addressed by the various provisions
of this part, a waiver provision should explain precisely how the light
rail system's practices will address those risks. FRA is not likely to
waive the prohibition against tampering with safety devices, which
would seem to present no particular burden to light rail operations.
Moreover, blue signal regulations, which protect employees working on
or near equipment, are not likely to be waived to the extent that such
work is performed on track shared by a light rail operation and a
conventional railroad, where safety may best be served by uniformity.
Control of Alcohol and Drug Use (Part 219)
FRA will not permit operations to occur on the general system in
the absence of effective rules governing alcohol and drug use by
operating employees. FTA's own rules may provide a suitable alternative
for a light rail system that is otherwise governed by those rules.
However, to the extent that light rail and conventional operations
occur simultaneously on the same track, FRA is not likely to apply
different rules to the two operations, particularly with respect to
post-accident testing, for which FRA requirements are more extensive.
Railroad Communications (Part 220)
A light rail operation is likely to have an effective system of
radio communication that may provide a suitable alternative to FRA's
rules. However, the greater the need for radio communication between
light rail personnel (e.g., train crews or dispatchers) and personnel
of the conventional railroad (e.g., train crews, roadway workers), the
greater will be the need for standardized communication rules and,
accordingly, the less likely will be a waiver.
Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting (Part 225)
FRA's accident/incident information is very important in the
agency's decisionmaking on regulatory issues and strategic planning. A
waiver petition should indicate precisely what types of accidents and
incidents it would report, and to whom, under any alternative it
proposes. FRA is not likely to waive its reporting requirements
concerning train accidents or highway-rail grade crossing collisions
that occur on the general railroad system. Reporting of accidents under
FTA's rules is quite different and would not provide an effective
substitute. However, with regard to employee injuries, the light rail
operation may, absent FRA's rules, otherwise be subject to reporting
requirements of FTA and OSHA and may have an interest in uniform
reporting of those injuries wherever they occur on the system.
Therefore, it is more likely that FRA would grant a waiver with regard
to reporting of employee injuries.
Hours of Service Laws (49 U.S.C. 21101-21108)
The hours of service laws apply to all railroads subject to FRA's
jurisdiction, and govern the maximum work hours and minimum off-duty
periods of employees engaged in one or more of the three categories of
covered service described in 49 U.S.C. 21101. If an individual performs
more than one kind of covered service during a tour of duty, then the
most restrictive of the applicable limitations control. Under current
law, a light rail operation could request a waiver of the substantive
provisions of the hours of service laws only under the ``pilot
project'' provision described in 49 U.S.C. 21108, provided that the
request is based upon a joint petition submitted by the railroad and
its affected labor organizations. Because waivers requested under this
statutory provision do not involve a waiver of a
[[Page 59055]]
safety rule, regulation, or standard (see 49 CFR 211.41), FRA is not
required to follow the rules of practice for waivers contained in part
211. However, whenever appropriate, FRA will combine its consideration
of any request for a waiver under Sec. 21108 with its review under part
211 of a light rail operation's petition for waivers of FRA's
regulations.
If such a statutory waiver is desired, the light rail system will
need to assure FRA that the waiver of compliance is in the public
interest and consistent with railroad safety. The waiver petition
should include a discussion of what fatigue management strategies will
be in place for each category of covered employees in order to minimize
the effects of fatigue on their job performance. However, FRA is
unlikely to grant a statutory waiver covering employees of a light rail
operation who dispatch the trains of a conventional railroad or
maintain a signal system affecting shared use trackage.
Hours of Service Recordkeeping (Part 228)
This part prescribes reporting and recordkeeping requirements with
respect to the hours of service of employees who perform the job
functions set forth in 49 U.S.C. 21101. As a general rule, FRA
anticipates that any waivers granted under this part will only exempt
the same groups of employees for whom a light rail system has obtained
a waiver of the substantive provisions of the hours of service laws
under 49 U.S.C. 21108. Since it is important that FRA be able to verify
that a light rail operation is complying with the on- and off-duty
restrictions of the hour of service laws for all employees not covered
by a waiver of the laws' substantive provisions, it is unlikely that
any waiver granted of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
would exclude those employees. However, in a system with fixed work
schedules that do not approach 12 hours on duty in the aggregate, it
may be possible to utilize existing payroll records to verify
compliance.
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness (Part 239)
This part prescribes minimum Federal safety standards for the
preparation, adoption, and implementation of emergency preparedness
plans by railroads connected with the operation of passenger trains.
FRA's expectation is that by requiring affected railroads to provide
sufficient emergency egress capability and information to passengers,
along with mandating that these railroads coordinate with local
emergency response officials, the risk of death or injury from
accidents and incidents will be lessened. A waiver petition should
state whether the light rail system has an emergency preparedness plan
in place under a state system safety program developed under FTA's
rules for the light rail operator's separate street railway segments.
Under a system safety program, a light rail operation is likely to have
an effective plan for dealing with emergency situations that may
provide an equivalent alternative to FRA's rules. To the extent that
the light rail operation's plan relates to the various provisions of
this part, a waiver petition should explain precisely how each of the
requirements of this part is being addressed. The petition should
especially focus on the issues of communication, employee training,
passenger information, liaison relationships with emergency responders,
and marking of emergency exits.
Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers (Part 240)
This part contains minimum Federal safety requirements for the
eligibility, training, testing, certification, and monitoring of
locomotive engineers. Those who operate light rail trains may have
significant effects on the safety of light rail passengers, motorists
at grade crossings, and, to the extent trackage is shared with
conventional railroads, the employees and passengers of those
railroads. The petition should describe whether a light rail system has
a system safety plan developed under FTA's rules that is likely to have
an effective means of assuring that the operators, or ``engineers,'' of
its equipment receive the necessary training and have proper skills to
operate a light rail vehicle in shared use on the general railroad
system. The petition should explain what safeguards are in place to
ensure that light rail engineers receive at least an equivalent level
of training, testing, and monitoring on the rules governing train
operations to that received by locomotive engineers employed by
conventional railroads.
Waivers That May be Appropriate for Time-Separated Light Rail
Operations
The foregoing discussion of factors to address in a petition for
approval of shared use concerns all such petitions and, accordingly, is
quite general. FRA is willing to provide more specific guidance on
where waivers may be likely with regard to light rail operations that
are time-separated from conventional operations. FRA's greatest concern
with regard to shared use of the general system is a collision between
light rail and conventional trains on the same track. Because the
results could well be catastrophic, FRA places great emphasis on
avoiding such collisions. The surest way to guarantee that such
collisions will not occur is to strictly segregate light rail and
conventional operations by time of day so that the two types of
equipment never share the same track at the same time. This is not to
say that FRA will not entertain waiver petitions that rely on other
methods of collision avoidance such as sophisticated train control
systems. However, petitioners who do not intend to separate light rail
from conventional operations by time of day will face a very steep
burden of demonstrating an acceptable level of safety. FRA does not
insist that all risk of collision be eliminated. However, given the
enormous severity of the likely consequences of a collision, the
demonstrated risk of such an event must be extremely remote.
There are various ways of providing such strict separation by time.
For example, freight operations could be limited to the hours of
midnight to 5 a.m. when light rail operations are prohibited. Or, there
might be both a nighttime and a mid-day window for freight operation.
The important thing is that the arrangement not permit simultaneous
operation on the same track by clearly defining specific segments of
the day when only one type of operation may occur. Mere spacing of
train movements by a train control system does not constitute this
temporal separation.
FRA is very likely to grant waivers of many of its rules where
complete temporal separation between light rail and conventional
operations is demonstrated in the waiver request. The chart below,
which differs only slightly from the one published in the joint FRA/FTA
policy statement issued in May 1999, lists each of FRA's railroad
safety rules and provides FRA's early thinking on whether the operator
of a light rail system that shares trackage with a conventional
railroad should expect to comply with the rule on the shared track or
may receive a waiver. This chart assumes that the operations of the
local rail transit agency on the general railroad system are completely
separated in time from conventional railroad operations, and that the
light rail operation poses no atypical safety hazards. FRA's procedural
rules on matters such as enforcement (49 CFR parts 209 and 216), and
its statutory authority to take emergency action to address an imminent
hazard of death or
[[Page 59056]]
injury, would apply to these operations in all cases.
Where waivers are granted, a light rail operator would be expected
to operate under a system safety plan developed in accordance with the
FTA state safety oversight program. The state safety oversight agency
would be responsible for the safety oversight of the light rail
operation, even on the general system, with regard to aspects of that
operation for which a waiver is granted. FRA will actively participate
in partnership with the state agency to address any safety problems. If
the conditions under which the waiver was granted change substantially,
or unanticipated safety issues arise, FRA may modify or withdraw a
waiver in order to ensure safety.
Time-Separated Light Rail Operations: Possible Waivers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 49 CFR
part Subject of rule Likely treatment Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track, Structures, and Signals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
213............ Track Safety Comply (assuming If the
Standards. light rail conventional RR
operator owns owns the track,
track or has light rail will
been assigned have to observe
responsibility speed limits for
for it). class of track.
233, 235, 236.. Signal and train Comply (assuming If conventional
control. light rail RR maintains
operator or its signals, light
contractor has rail will have
responsibility to abide by
for signal operational
maintenance). limitations and
report signal
failures.
234............ Grade Crossing Comply (assuming If conventional
Signals. light rail RR maintains
operator or its devices, light
contractor has rail will have
responsibility to comply with
for crossing sections
devices). concerning
activation
failures and
false
activations.
213, Appendix C Bridge safety Not a rule. .................
policy. Compliance
voluntary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motive Power and Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
210............ Noise emission... Waive............ State safety
oversight.
215............ Freight car Waive............ State safety
safety standards. oversight.
221............ Rear end marking Waive............ State safety
devices. oversight.
223............ Safety glazing Waive............ State safety
standards. oversight.
229............ Locomotive safety Waive, except State safety
standards. perhaps for oversight.
alerting lights,
which are
important for
grade crossing
safety.
231*........... Safety appliance Waive............ State safety
standards. oversight; see
note below on
statutory
requirements.
238............ Passenger Waive............ State safety
equipment oversight.
standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
214............ Bridge Worker.... Waive............ OSHA standards.
214............ Roadway Worker Comply........... .................
Safety.
217............ Operating Rules.. Waive............ State safety
oversight.
218............ Operating Waive, except for State safety
Practices. prohibition on oversight.
tampering with
safety devices
related to
signal system,
and blue signal
rules on shared
track.
219............ Alcohol and Drug. Waive if FTA rule FTA rule may
otherwise apply.
applies.
220............ Radio Waive, except to State safety
communications. extent oversight.
communications
with freight
trains and
roadway workers
are necessary.
225............ Accident Comply with Employee injuries
reporting and regard to train would be
investigation. accidents and reported under
crossing FTA or OSHA
accidents; waive rules.
as to injuries.
228**.......... Hours of service Waive (in concert See note below on
recordkeeping. with waiver of possible waiver
statute); waiver of statutory
not likely for requirements.
personnel who
dispatch
conventional RR
or maintain
signal system on
shared use track.
239............ Passenger train Waive............ State safety
emergency oversight.
preparedness.
240............ Engineer Waive............ State safety
certification. oversight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Certain safety appliance requirements (e.g., automatic couplers) are
statutory and can only be waived under the conditions set forth in 49
U.S.C. 20306, which permits exemptions if application of the
requirements would ``preclude the development or implementation of
more efficient railroad transportation equipment or other
transportation innovations.'' If consistent with employee safety, FRA
could probably rely on this provision to address most light rail
equipment that could not meet the standards.
** Currently, 49 U.S.C. 21108 permits FRA to waive substantive
provisions of the hours of service laws based upon a joint petition by
the railroad and affected labor organizations, after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing. This is a ``pilot project'' provision, so
waivers are limited to two years but may be extended for additional
two-year periods after notice and an opportunity for comment.
In light of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend its published
statement of agency policy in the manner explained below.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 209
Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Policy Statement
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 209 is amended as
follows:
[[Page 59057]]
PART 209--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 209 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20111, 20112, 20114, and 49
CFR 1.49.
2. Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209 is amended as follows.
A. Under the heading ``The Extent and Exercise of FRA's Safety
Jurisdiction,'' the seventh paragraph (which begins, ``For example, all
of FRA's regulations'') is removed, and the following paragraphs are
added in its place:
Appendix A to Part 209--Interim Statement of Agency Policy
Concerning Enforcement of the Federal Railroad Safety Laws
* * * * *
For example, all of FRA's regulations exclude from their reach
railroads whose entire operations are confined to an industrial
installation (i.e., ``plant railroads''), such as those in steel
mills that do not go beyond the plant's boundaries. E.g., 49 CFR
225.3(a)(1) (accident reporting regulations). Other regulations
exclude not only plant railroads but all other railroads that are
not operated as a part of, or over the lines of, the general
railroad system of transportation. E.g., 49 CFR 214.3 (railroad
workplace safety). By ``general railroad system of transportation,''
FRA refers to the network of standard gage track over which goods
may be transported throughout the nation and passengers may travel
between cities and within metropolitan and suburban areas. Much of
this network is interconnected, so that a rail vehicle can travel
across the nation without leaving the system. However, mere physical
connection to the system does not bring trackage within it. For
example, trackage within an industrial installation that is
connected to the network only by a switch for the receipt of
shipments over the system is not a part of the system.
Moreover, portions of the network may lack a physical connection
but still be part of the system by virtue of the nature of
operations that take place there. For example, the Alaska Railroad
is not physically connected to the rest of the general system but is
part of it. The Alaska Railroad exchanges freight cars with other
railroads by car float and exchanges passengers with interstate
carriers as part of the general flow of interstate commerce.
Similarly, an intercity high speed rail system with its own right of
way would be part of the general system although not physically
connected to it. The presence on a rail line of any of these types
of railroad operations is a sure indication that such trackage is
part of the general system: the movement of freight cars in trains
outside the confines of an industrial installation, the movement of
intercity passenger trains, or the movement of commuter trains
within a metropolitan or suburban area. Urban rapid transit
operations are ordinarily not part of the general system, but may
have sufficient connections to that system to warrant exercise of
FRA's jurisdiction (see discussion of passenger operations, below).
Tourist railroad operations are not inherently part of the general
system and, unless operated over the lines of that system, are
subject to few of FRA's regulations.
The boundaries of the general system are not static. For
example, a portion of the system may be purchased for the exclusive
use of a single private entity and all connections, save perhaps a
switch for receiving shipments, severed. Depending on the nature of
the operations, this could remove that portion from the general
system. The system may also grow, as with the establishment of
intercity service on a brand new line. However, the same trackage
cannot be both inside and outside of the general system depending
upon the time of day. If trackage is part of the general system,
restricting a certain type of traffic over that trackage to a
particular portion of the day does not change the nature of the
line--it remains the general system.
* * * * *
B. Appendix A to 49 CFR part 209 is further amended by adding the
following paragraphs immediately before the section called
``Extraordinary Remedies:''
* * * * *
FRA'S Policy on Jurisdiction Over Passenger Operations
Under the Federal railroad safety laws, FRA has jurisdiction
over all railroads except urban rapid transit operations not
connected to the general railroad system of transportation. 49
U.S.C. 20102. Within the limits imposed by this authority, FRA
exercises jurisdiction over all railroad passenger operations,
regardless of the equipment they use, unless FRA has specifically
stated below an exception to its exercise of jurisdiction for a
particular type of operation. This policy is stated in general terms
and does not change the reach of any particular regulation under its
applicability section. That is, while FRA may generally assert
jurisdiction over a type of operation here, a particular regulation
may exclude that kind of operation from its reach. Therefore, this
statement should be read in conjunction with the applicability
sections of all of FRA's regulations.
Intercity Passenger Operations
FRA exercises jurisdiction over all intercity passenger
operations. Because of the nature of the service they provide, they
are all considered part of the general railroad system, even if not
physically connected to other portions of the system.
Commuter Operations
FRA exercises jurisdiction over all commuter operations.
Congress apparently intended that FRA do so when it enacted the
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, and made that intention very
clear in the 1982 and 1988 amendments to that act. FRA has attempted
to follow that mandate consistently. A commuter system's connection
to other railroads is not relevant under the rail safety statutes.
In fact, FRA considers commuter railroads to be part of the general
railroad system regardless of such connections.
In general, FRA considers an operation to be a commuter railroad
if its primary purpose is transporting commuters to and from work
within a metropolitan area and no substantial portion of its
operations is devoted to moving people within a city's boundaries.
Examples of commuter railroads include Metra and the Northern
Indiana Commuter Transportation District in the Chicago area;
Virginia Railway Express and MARC in the Washington area; and Metro-
North, the Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, and the Port
Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) in the New York area. Incidental
service from point to point within a an urban area does not make an
operation something other than a commuter railroad if the primary
purpose is serving commuters within the broader metropolitan and
suburban area.
Other Short Haul Passenger Service
The federal railroad safety statutes give FRA authority over
``commuter or other short-haul railroad passenger service in a
metropolitan or suburban area.'' 49 U.S.C. 20902. This means that,
in addition to commuter service, there are other short-haul types of
service that Congress intended that FRA reach. For example, a
passenger system designed primarily to move intercity travelers from
a downtown area to an airport, or from an airport to a resort area,
would be one that does not have the transportation of commuters
within a metropolitan area as its primary purpose. FRA would
ordinarily exercise jurisdiction over such a system as ``other
short-haul service'' unless it meets the definition of urban rapid
transit and is not connected in a significant way to the general
system.
Urban Rapid Transit Operations
One type of short-haul passenger service requires special
treatment under the safety statutes: rapid transit operations in an
urban area. Only these operations are excluded from FRA's
jurisdiction, and only if they are not connected to the general
system. FRA considers an operation to be urban rapid transit if one
of its major purposes is, and a substantial portion of its
operations is devoted to, moving people from point to point within
an urban area where there are multiple stops within the city for
that purpose. Such an operation could still have the transportation
of commuters within the larger metropolitan area as one of its major
purposes without being considered a commuter railroad. For example,
the Washington Metro system carries large numbers of people to and
from the suburbs daily, but one of its primary functions is to
provide transportation within the city, where a large proportion of
its station stops are located. Other examples of urban rapid transit
systems include the CTA in Chicago and the subway systems in New
York, Boston, and Philadelphia. The type of equipment used by such a
system is not determinative of its status. However, the kinds of
vehicles ordinarily associated with street railways, trolleys,
subways, and elevated railways are the types of vehicles
[[Page 59058]]
most often used for urban rapid transit operations.
FRA can exercise jurisdiction over a rapid transit operation
only if it is connected to the general railroad system, but need not
exercise jurisdiction over every such operation that is so
connected. FRA is aware of several different ways that rapid transit
operations can be connected to the general system. Our policy on the
exercise of jurisdiction will depend upon the nature of the
connection(s). In general, a connection that involves operation of
transit equipment as a part of, or over the lines of, the general
system will trigger FRA's exercise of jurisdiction. Below, we review
some of the more common types of connections and their effect on the
agency's exercise of jurisdiction. This is not meant to be an
exhaustive list of connections.
Rapid Transit Connections Sufficient To Trigger FRA's Exercise of
Jurisdiction
Certain types of connections to the general railroad system will
cause FRA to exercise jurisdiction over the rapid transit line to
the extent it is connected. FRA will exercise jurisdiction over the
portion of a rapid transit operation that is conducted as a part of
or over the lines of the general system. For example, rapid transit
operations are conducted on the lines of the general system where
the rapid transit operation and other railroad use the same track,
and where the rapid transit operation and other railroad have a
railroad crossing at grade. In the first example, FRA will exercise
its jurisdiction over the operations conducted on the general
system. In the second example, FRA will exercise its jurisdiction
sufficiently to assure safe operations over the at-grade railroad
crossing. FRA will also exercise jurisdiction to a limited extent
over a rapid transit operation that, while not operated on the same
tracks as the conventional railroad, is connected to the general
system by virtue of operating in a shared right of way involving
joint control of trains. For example, if a rapid transit line and
freight railroad were to operate over a movable bridge and were
subject to the same authority concerning its use (e.g., the same
tower operator controls trains of both operations), FRA will
exercise jurisdiction in a manner sufficient to ensure safety at
this point of connection. FRA believes these connections present
sufficient intermingling of the rapid transit and general system
operations to pose significant hazards to one or both operations.
In situations involving joint use of the same track, it does not
matter that the rapid transit operation occupies the track only at
times when the freight, commuter, or intercity passenger railroad
that shares the track is not operating. While such time separation
could provide the basis for waiver of certain of FRA's rules, it
does not mean that FRA will not exercise jurisdiction. However, FRA
will exercise jurisdiction over only the portions of the rapid
transit operation that are conducted on the general system. For
example, a rapid transit line that operates over the general system
for a portion of its length but has significant portions of street
railway that are not used by conventional railroads would be subject
to FRA's rules only with respect to the general system portion. The
remaining portions would not be subject to FRA's rules. If the non-
general system portions of the rapid transit line are considered a
``rail fixed guideway system'' under 49 CFR part 659, those rules,
issued by the Federal Transit Administration, would apply to them.
Similarly, geographically isolated connections such as rail-rail
crossings and common control of bridges will warrant exercise of
jurisdiction only with regard to the safety of operations at those
locations. However, FRA will apply its equipment, track, signal, and
other regulatory requirements at this location as benchmark levels
against which safety conditions in waiver applications can be
tested.
Rapid Transit Connections Not Sufficient To Trigger FRA's Exercise
of Jurisdiction
Although FRA could exercise jurisdiction over a rapid transit
operation based on any connection it has to the general railroad
system, FRA believes there are certain connections that are too
minimal to warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction. For example, a
rapid transit system that has a switch for receiving shipments from
the general system railroad is not one over which FRA would assert
jurisdiction. This assumes that the switch is used only for that
purpose. In that case, any entry onto the rapid transit line by the
freight railroad would be for a very short distance and solely for
the purpose of dropping off or picking up cars. In this situation,
the rapid transit line is in the same situation as any shipper or
consignee; without this sort of connection, it cannot receive goods
by rail.
Mere use of a common right of way in which the conventional
railroad and rapid transit operation do not share any means of train
control would not trigger FRA's exercise of jurisdiction. In this
context, the presence of intrusion detection devices to alert one or
both carriers to incursions by the other one would not be considered
a means of common train control. These common rights of way are
often designed so that the two systems function completely
independently of each other. However, where transit operations share
highway-rail grade crossings with conventional railroads, FRA
expects both systems to observe its rules on grade crossing signals
that, for example, require prompt reports of warning system
malfunctions. See 49 CFR part 234. In addition, FRA and FTA will
coordinate with rapid transit agencies and railroads wherever there
are concerns about sufficient intrusion detection and related safety
measures designed to avoid a collision between rapid transit trains
and conventional equipment.
Where these very minimal connections exist, and except with
regard to shared highway-rail grade crossings, FRA will not exercise
jurisdiction unless and until an emergency situation arises
involving such a connection, which is a very unlikely event.
However, if such a system is properly considered a rail fixed
guideway system, FTA's rules (49 CFR part 659) will apply to it.
Coordination of the FRA and FTA Programs
FTA's rules on rail fixed guideway systems (49 CFR part 659)
apply to any such systems or portions thereof not subject to FRA's
rules. On rapid transit systems that are not sufficiently connected
to the general railroad system to warrant FRA's exercise of
jurisdiction (as explained above), FTA's rules will apply
exclusively. On those rapid transit systems that are connected to
the general system in such a way as warrant exercise of FRA's
jurisdiction, only those portions of the rapid transit system that
entail operations over the lines of the general system will be
subject to FRA's rules.
A rapid transit railroad may apply to FRA for a waiver of any
FRA regulations. See 49 CFR part 211. FRA will seek FTA's views
whenever a rapid transit operation petitions FRA for a waiver of its
safety rules. In granting or denying any such waiver, FRA will make
clear whether its rules do not apply to any segments of the
operation so that it is clear where FTA's rules do apply.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C., on September 30, 1999.
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-28489 Filed 10-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P