Grade Crossing Signal System Safety

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 212 and 234

[FRA Docket No. RSGC-5; Notice No. 6]

[RIN 2130-AA70]

Grade Crossing Signal System Safety

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: FRA proposes specific maintenance, inspection, and testing

requirements for active highway-rail grade crossing warning systems.

FRA also proposes to require that railroads take specific and timely

actions to protect the traveling public and railroad employees from the

hazards posed by malfunctioning highway-rail grade crossing warning

systems. This action is taken in response to a statutory requirement

that FRA issue rules, regulations, orders, and standards to ensure the

safe maintenance, inspection, and testing of signal systems and systems

at railroad highway grade crossings.

DATES: (1) Written comments must be received no later than March 21,

1994. Comments received after that date will be considered to the

extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay.

(2) A public hearing will be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 1, 1994.

Any person who desires to make an oral statement at the hearing is

requested to notify the Docket Clerk at least five working days prior

to the hearing, by telephone or by mail, and to submit three copies of

the oral statement that he or she intends to make at the hearing.

ADDRESSES: (1) Written comments should be submitted to the Docket

Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. Persons desiring to be notified that their

written comments have been received by FRA should submit a stamped,

self-addressed postcard with their comments. The Docket Clerk will

indicate on the postcard the date on which the comments were received

and will return the card to the addressee. Written comments will be

available for examination, both before and after the closing date for

comments, during regular business hours in room 8201 of the Nassif

Building at the above address.

(2) A public hearing will be held in room 2230 of the Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Persons desiring to

make oral statements at the hearing should notify the Docket Clerk by

telephone (202-366-0628) or by writing to the Docket Clerk at the

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Goodman, Chief, Signal and

Train Control Division, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-2231), or Mark Tessler, Trial

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-0628).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 29, 1992, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) (57 FR 28819) in which FRA proposed to require that railroads

take specific and timely actions to protect the travelling public and

railroad employees from the hazards posed by malfunctioning highway-

rail grade crossing warning systems. A public hearing was held in

Washington, DC on September 15, 1992. Due to comments received and an

intention to widen the scope of this rulemaking to include proposed

standards for maintenance, inspection, and testing pursuant to the

mandate of section 202(q) of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970

(45 U.S.C. 431(q)) (Safety Act) as amended by section 2 of the Rail

Safety Enforcement and Review Act (Pub. L. 102-365), an open meeting

was held on December 11, 1992. That meeting consisted of very frank and

open discussions of both FRA's timely response proposal and the issue

of maintenance, inspection, and testing regulations. In response to a

participant's request, the comment period was extended to February 15,

1993. Among the comments received was a joint submission from the

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, the Association of American

Railroads, and The American Short Line Railroad Association. In

addition to commenting on the June NPRM, the labor/management group

proposed specific regulatory language addressing both timely response

and maintenance, inspection, and testing.

The NPRM issued today reflects the consolidation into one

rulemaking docket of the timely response rulemaking (see 57 FR 28819)

with proposed standards for maintenance, inspection, and testing of

grade crossing warning systems.

Rather than issuing a final rule on timely response, FRA is today

requesting comments on a revised proposed rule. FRA does however,

reserve the right to issue a final rule consistent in whole or in part,

either with the text contained in this NPRM, with the text of the prior

NPRM on timely response, or in response to comments received in

response to the various issues raised in these documents. In the

following section-by-section analysis, FRA will discuss the range of

comments received in response to our earlier ``timely response'' NPRM.

It is perhaps an understatement to say the June 1992 NPRM did not

receive universal acclaim among the railroad community. It was

generally thought to be too burdensome, and its requirements,

especially those regarding responses to false activations, were seen as

unnecessary and overly complicated. The earlier proposed ``timely

response'' rules would have required a railroad to take the following

three steps after learning of a malfunctioning grade crossing warning

system: (1) Notify trains and highway traffic authorities of the

malfunction; (2) take appropriate actions to warn and control highway

traffic pending inspection and repair of the system; and (3) repair the

system. The NPRM issued today is consistent with the earlier proposal.

FRA has, however, in response to helpful comments, revised certain

requirements to better fit within the present railroad operating

environment. Individual comments, and our response to them, will be

discussed in the section-by-section analysis below. FRA is also issuing

proposed maintenance, inspection and testing standards for all active

grade crossing warning systems. As added by the Rail Safety Improvement

Act of 1988, Sec. 202(q) of the Safety Act provided that ``[t]he

Secretary shall, within one year after the date of the enactment of the

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988, issue such rules, regulations,

orders, and standards as may be necessary to ensure the safe

maintenance, inspection, and testing of signal systems and devices at

railroad highway grade crossings.'' On September 3, 1992, the Rail

Safety Enforcement and Review Act was enacted. Section 2 of that act

deleted from subsection (q) the phrase ``such rules, regulations,

orders, and standards as may be necessary'' and replaced it with

``rules, regulations, orders, and standards.'' Congress clearly

intended to remove any doubt about whether maintenance, inspection, and

testing standards must be issued. FRA is therefore proceeding with

today's proposed maintenance, inspection and testing rules.

In an effort to gather sufficient data to determine the scope and

content of possible Federal maintenance, inspection and testing

standards, FRA published the present 49 CFR part 234, ``Grade Crossing

Signal System Safety,'' on September 23, 1991 (56 FR 33722). Those

reporting rules were meant to provide the accurate factual information

we felt was necessary to fashion an appropriate regulatory scheme for

maintenance, inspection, and testing. While FRA was planning on a

longer period during which to gather and analyze data generated by our

new reporting rule, information received to date has been helpful in

fashioning the proposed rules. FRA will, of course, study all

additional data as it is received and will take whatever future

regulatory action is necessary based on that additional information.

The proposed maintenance, inspection, and testing standards have

been heavily influenced by the present FRA signal rules at 49 CFR part

236, ``Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing the Installation,

Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train Control

Systems, Devices, and Appliances'' (also known among railroad signalmen

as the ``Rules, Standards, and Instructions'' or simply as the

``RS&I''). These rules, which had their genesis with the Interstate

Commerce Commission, are well known and understood among the railroad

community and have contributed to extremely safe railroad signal

systems nationwide. Generally, the same railroad employees or contract

employees who maintain and inspect a railroad's signal system will also

be maintaining the railroad's grade crossing signal system. The same

signal principles and much of the equipment used on train control

signal systems will apply to grade crossing systems. It is therefore

appropriate that much of the technical requirements which have served

the industry well in the past would be adopted to some extent in the

proposed rules.

Another major influence on the proposed rule was the previously

mentioned joint submission from the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen,

the Association of American Railroads, and The American Short Line

Railroad Association (``labor/management''). This submission, from

organizations who have historically taken diverse positions in the area

of grade crossing safety, has provided very helpful suggestions in the

drafting of this proposal. The drafters of the labor/management

submission appear to have also relied to a great extent on part 236 for

guidance.

Section-by-Section Analysis

This section-by-section analysis of the proposed rules is intended

to explain the rationale for each proposed rule. The analysis includes

the requirements of each proposed rule, the purpose each proposed rule

would serve in enhancing the effective operation of a highway-rail

grade crossing warning system, the current industry practice, comments

and recommendations contained in the industry submission, and other

pertinent comments. The comments and recommendations contained in the

industry submission are important factors in determining effective

rules because, representing both labor and management, they reflect

differing perspectives and collective grade crossing experience.

The analysis also reflects pertinent comments made at an open

meeting with interested parties, held on December 11, 1992, to discuss

current industry practices regarding maintenance, inspection, and

testing of highway-rail grade crossing warning systems.

49 CFR Part 212

Section 212.231 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inspector

This amendment to 49 CFR Part 212 ``State Safety Participation

Program'' creates a new category of state inspector within the State

Participation Program. This program, which provides for state

participation in investigative and surveillance activities under

federal railroad safety laws and regulations, would now include a

separate inspector category of ``Highway-rail grade crossing

inspector.'' New Sec. 212.231 would establish minimum qualification

standards enabling state inspectors to enforce grade crossing signal

system safety regulations at part 234. Additionally, this section

provides that all state signal and train control inspectors qualified

under Sec. 212.207 are also thereby fully qualified under new

Sec. 212.231.

Section 212.233 Apprentice Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inspector

New Sec. 212.233 would establish minimum qualification standards

which applicants must meet prior to being enrolled in the inspector

training program.

49 CFR Part 234

Section 234.1 Scope

This section is revised to expand the scope of part 234 to include

the areas covered by this NPRM. In addition to prescribing standards

for the reporting of failures of highway-rail grade crossing warning

systems, this part also prescribes minimum actions railroads must take

when such warning systems malfunction and imposes maintenance,

inspection, and testing standards for such systems. This section also

clarifies that when any person performs any function required by this

part, that person is required to perform that function in accordance

with this part.

Section 234.3 Application

This section of the regulations is not being revised. However, a

discussion of this section and its relationship to a petition for

rulemaking is appropriate.

Section 234.3(a) provides that except as provided in paragraph (b)

of the section, part 234 applies to railroads that operate on standard

gage track that is part of the general railroad system of

transportation. Paragraph (b) provides that part 234 does not apply to

rail rapid transit operations conducted over track that is used

exclusively for that purpose and that is not part of the general

railroad system of transportation.

In 1992, the President of Berkshire Scenic Railway Museum, Inc.

(Berkshire Scenic), filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that FRA

propose a discrete set of regulations applicable to scenic railroads.

The Administrator has granted the request to the extent that the

petition raised issues related to ongoing regulatory projects. FRA has

therefore reviewed the present rulemaking in light of Berkshire

Scenic's petition.

FRA does not believe that scenic railroads which are part of the

general railroad system of transportation should be treated differently

than other railroads under the proposed rules issued today. The primary

beneficiary of these rules will be the motoring public. A motorist

should have the same assurance of safety whether crossing the tracks of

a Class I railroad, a small short line, or those of a small scenic

railroad. FRA invites public comment on this issue.

As stated above, part 234 applies to railroads that operate on

standard gage track that is part of the general railroad system of

transportation. Thus, the proposed rule would apply to all highway-rail

grade crossings on trackage that is part of the general railroad system

of transportation. FRA invites comment as to whether this section

should be revised to include within the application of the rule,

crossings on trackage not part of the general railroad system of

transportation. We specifically solicit input on whether maintenance,

inspection, and testing of grade crossing warning systems at crossings

on plant or tourist railroads off the general railroad system should

remain unregulated by the Federal government. Should timely response

rules, or maintenance, inspection and testing rules, or both, be

applied to crossings on trackage not located on the general railroad

system? Should the answer depend on whether the crossing is a public or

private crossing? Should a motorist on a public highway have a

reasonable expectation that all active warning systems on that highway

will be maintained, inspected, and tested under the same standards?

Should a motorist entering a private crossing equipped with an active

warning system (923 such crossings nationwide) have the same

expectation?

Section 234.5 Definitions

Appropriately equipped flagger means a person other than a train

crewmember who is equipped with an orange vest, shirt, or jacket for

daytime flagging. For nighttime flagging, similar outside garments

shall be retroreflective. The retroreflective material shall be either

orange, white (including silver-colored coatings or elements that

retroreflect white light), yellow, fluorescent red-orange, or

fluorescent yellow-orange and shall be designed to be visible at a

minimum distance of 1,000 feet. The design configuration of the

retroreflective material shall provide recognition of the wearer as a

person and shall be visible through the full range of body motions.

Acceptable hand signalling devices for daytime flagging include STOP/

SLOW paddles and red flags. For nighttime flagging, a flashlight,

lantern, or other lighted signal shall be used. In addition to these

minimum standards, railroads are encouraged to provide flagging

equipment and training in accordance with ``Traffic Controls for Street

and Highway Construction, Maintenance, Utility and Emergency

Operations'' issued by the Federal Highway Administration as part VI of

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Persons needing to be appropriately equipped are railroad employees

other than a train crewmember, or others acting on behalf of the

railroad, who flag highway traffic at grade crossings with

malfunctioning warning systems. The requirement that persons be

appropriately equipped does not apply to train crewmembers who dismount

from a locomotive to flag the train through a crossing in an emergency

situation, or to law enforcement officers.

Credible report of system malfunction means specific information

regarding a malfunction at an identified highway-rail grade crossing,

supplied by an identified railroad employee, law enforcement officer,

highway traffic official, or an employee of a public agency acting in

an official capacity. The proposed definition would ensure that

legitimate malfunction reports are received and acted upon by

railroads.

FRA's original proposed definition of a credible report included

``an individual who has provided his or her name together with a

telephone number or other means of contact, and who does not have a

history of making false or misleading reports to the railroad

pertaining to system malfunctions.'' There was concern by various

parties that it would be very burdensome to require that railroads

immediately take the required responsive action upon a call from a

member of the public. We agree. Instead, we expect that railroads will,

as they have traditionally done, investigate reports of malfunctions

received from the public. After determining the accuracy of the report

a railroad would then take appropriate action in accordance with the

today's regulations. Today's proposal would not prohibit a railroad

from adopting internal rules that would trigger specific responses to

an individual's complaint, but would only mandate the required

responses to reports from ``official'' sources.

Warning system malfunction means an activation failure or a false

activation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system.

Section 234.6(a) Civil Penalties

This section is being amended to conform with Sec. 209(a) of the

Safety Act as amended by section 9 of the Rail Safety Enforcement and

Review Act. That section amended the definition of ``person.'' The

clarified definition of ``person'' includes, but is not limited to,

such entities as manufacturers and lessors of railroad equipment and

independent contractors. Congress' purpose in amending the definition

of ``person'' was to clarify the Secretary's existing power over

entities whose activities related to rail safety by explicitly defining

that authority. See 1992 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 879.

Congress made it clear that the included list of ``persons'' subject to

the Secretary's authority was intended to by illustrative and not

exhaustive.

Section 234.101 Employee Notification Rules

The proposed section requires that each railroad issue rules

requiring employees to report to a designated railroad official, by the

quickest means available, any warning system malfunction. Some

railroads may determine that the dispatcher is the appropriate official

to be contacted, while other railroads may decide that a different

official is best placed to receive and take action on reports of

malfunctions. The proposed section is consistent with the joint

submission.

Section 234.103 Timely Response To Report of Malfunction

Subsection (a) requires that upon receipt of a credible report of a

warning system malfunction, the railroad shall immediately investigate

the report and determine the nature of the malfunction. The railroad

shall then take action as required by Sec. 234.207. This subsection

would require the railroad to immediately investigate a credible report

of malfunction. Based upon the results of that investigation, and in

accordance with Sec. 234.207, the railroad would be required to adjust,

repair, or replace any faulty component without undue delay. Further

discussion of the requirement for repair without undue delay can be

found in the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 234.207.

Subsection (b) requires that, until repair or correction of the

warning is completed, the railroad shall provide alternative means of

warning highway traffic and railroad employees in accordance with this

subpart. Acceptable alternative means of protecting the travelling

public and railroad employees are described in Secs. 234.105 and

234.107, as appropriate.

Subsection (c) provides that nothing in this subpart requires

repair or correction of a warning system, if, acting in accordance with

applicable State law, the railroad proceeds to discontinue or dismantle

the warning system, provided such warning system not be left in place

unless the railroad complies with this subpart.

The proposed section is consistent with the labor/management's

recommendation.

Section 234.105 Activation Failure

This section requires that upon receiving a credible report of an

activation failure, a railroad having maintenance responsibility for

the warning system shall immediately initiate efforts to warn motorists

and railroad employees at the subject crossing by taking, at a minimum,

certain actions. Paragraph (a) provides that prior to a train's arrival

at the crossing, the railroad must notify the train crew of the report

of activation failure and notify any other railroads operating over the

crossing. Paragraph (b) requires that the railroad notify the highway

traffic control authority having jurisdiction over the crossing, and

paragraph (c) requires the railroad to provide or arrange for

alternative means of actively warning motorists of approaching trains.

Paragraph (c)(1) provides that until an appropriately equipped flagger

or law enforcement officer is stationed at the crossing to warn highway

traffic of approaching trains, each train must stop before entering the

crossing to permit a crewmember to dismount to flag highway traffic to

a stop. The locomotive may then proceed through the crossing to permit

the flagging crewmember to reboard the locomotive before the remainder

of the train proceeds through the crossing.

Paragraph (c)(2) provides that if an appropriately equipped flagger

or law enforcement officer provides warning for each direction of

highway traffic, trains may proceed through the crossing at normal

speed.

Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are the same as those proposed in

FRA's original proposal. FRA recognizes that paragraph (c)(2) may

present flagging problems in some situations. At those crossings which

involve both higher speed trains and highways with higher speed limits,

flaggers might need more warning time and greater warning distance

(depending on track curvature and sight distances) in order to

adequately warn approaching motorists of an approaching train. A

flagger may need to provide warning further down a highway to provide

sufficient stopping distance for a motorist. The flagger might also

need to set out a series of fusees or flags to provide proper warning.

It may be necessary to restrict train speeds in these situations in

order to facilitate this preparation. FRA solicits comments on this

issue.

Paragraph (c)(3) provides that if an appropriately equipped flagger

or law enforcement officer provides warning for highway traffic, but

there is not at least one flagger or law enforcement officer providing

warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed with

caution through the crossing at a speed not exceeding 10 miles per

hour. Normal speed may be resumed after the locomotive has passed

through the crossing.

Paragraph (c)(3) is different in certain respects from FRA's

original proposal. The original proposal would have required a train to

stop before entering a crossing if the crossing were not protected by

at least one appropriately equipped flagger for each direction of

highway traffic. In addition, if the crossing were flagged by a train

crewmember, the train would be required to stop again for the

crewmember to reboard the locomotive. Today's proposal would still

require the stopping of a train if no flagger is present to warn

highway traffic. However, if there is a flagger present, but there is

not at least one flagger for each direction of highway traffic, the

train would be required to pass through the crossing at a speed not

exceeding 10 miles per hour.

In their comments and recommendations, labor/management argue that

the presence of a flagger, combined with the reduction in train speed

and the use of the locomotive's horn, would provide sufficient warning

to the travelling public. The commenters state that the decision on

whether to stop the train a second time for a train crewmember to

reboard should be left to the discretion of the railroad, based on the

particular circumstances involved. Requiring a second stop also

increases the time during which the crossing is blocked by a train,

thereby increasing the possibility of side collisions. We agree with

the comments and have revised the proposed rule accordingly. To further

limit the potential of side collisions at night with one flagger

warning motorists, the provision has been revised to provide that

railroads are only required to approach the crossing with caution at a

speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour. When the locomotive of a train

has passed through the crossing, normal speed may be resumed. This

would reduce, by however small a margin, the time during which side

collisions are possible.

While FRA is not at this time proposing that railroad employees be

required to comply with flagging procedures contained in the Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) issued by the Federal Highway

Administration, they are encouraged to comply as fully as possible with

those or similar procedures.

Paragraph (c)(4) remains unchanged. This paragraph would require

that a locomotive's audible warning device be activated in accordance

with railroad rules. This provision addresses those instances in which

a ``whistle ban'' may be in effect in a local jurisdiction. FRA is

presently reviewing the entire ``whistle ban'' issue and, while there

may be disagreement as to the effect on safety of whistle bans, there

can be little doubt that a ban on sounding a train whistle or horn

should be lifted when a grade crossing warning system is

malfunctioning. In addressing whistle bans in this limited situation,

FRA does not wish to give the impression it approves of or encourages

whistle bans in other situations. FRA is opposed to local restrictions

on the use of train whistles. See FRA Emergency Order No. 15, 56 FR

36190, July 31, 1991.

Section 234.107 False Activation

This section requires a railroad to take the same initial actions

as it would take in cases of activation failure. Upon receiving a

credible report of a false activation, a railroad having maintenance

responsibility for the warning system shall immediately initiate

efforts to warn motorists and railroad employees at the subject

crossing by taking, at a minimum, certain actions.

Paragraph (a) provides that prior to a train's arrival at the

crossing, the railroad must notify the train crew of the report of

activation failure and notify any other railroads operating over the

crossing. Paragraph (b) requires that the railroad notify the highway

traffic control authority having jurisdiction over the crossing, and

paragraph (c) requires the railroad to provide or arrange for

alternative means of actively warning motorists of approaching trains.

Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) provide for the alternative means of

warning motorists. Paragraph (c)(1) provides that if an appropriately

equipped flagger or law enforcement officer is stationed at the

crossing providing warning for each direction of highway traffic,

trains may proceed through the crossing at normal speed. Paragraph

(c)(2) provides that if there is not an appropriately equipped flagger

or law enforcement officer stationed at the crossing providing warning

for each direction of highway traffic, trains may proceed with caution

through the crossing at a speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour. Normal

speed may be resumed after the locomotive has passed through the

crossing. Paragraph (c)(3) of this section provides the railroad an

option of temporarily taking the warning system out of service until

repairs are completed. However, the warning system may only be taken

out of service if the railroad complies with the protection

requirements for activation failures. From a highway traffic control

and warning system credibility perspective, it would be preferable for

a railroad with few trains traversing the crossing to take a falsely

activated warning system out of service. The railroad would then comply

with the activation failure provisions of Sec. 234.105 rather than

Sec. 234.107. We recognize that the proposed rule contains a

disincentive for a railroad to do this since under Sec. 234.107 the

railroad can operate through the crossing at 10 mph rather than

stopping at the crossing as would be required under Sec. 234.105. FRA

requests suggestions on ways to counter this disincentive while

simultaneously insuring both safe highway traffic and safe, efficient

rail operations. FRA recognizes that if gates are activated for an

extended period of time, some highway users may attempt to go around

the gates at the risk of a collision with an oncoming train. Highway

users who obey the warning signal will be diverted to another route,

resulting in inefficiencies for those travelers. The proposed rule both

requires repair of the device ``without undue delay'' and prohibits a

train from proceeding through an unflagged crossing at a speed in

excess of 10 mph. Today, there are no limitations placed on the

railroads in such situations. Thus, the proposal, while not ideal in

terms of the impacts on the highway user, should improve the situation

at crossings with malfunctioning warning devices. FRA recognizes that

this proposal impacts highway users and therefore requests that

commenters address possible alternatives to mitigate the negative

effects on the highway user of permitting gates or flashing lights to

remain activated for an extended period of time.

Although not a regulatory proposal, FRA recognizes that a railroad

may, of course, request the authority having jurisdiction over the

roadway to close the roadway and detour highway traffic to another

nearby crossing. Paragraph (d) provides that a locomotive's audible

warning device shall be activated in accordance with railroad rules

regarding the approach to a grade crossing, regardless of any State

laws or ordinances to the contrary.

FRA's original proposal stated that within two hours of receipt of

a credible report of false activation, the railroad would have to

provide or arrange for alternative means of protection at the crossing.

During the period in which there were no alternative means of highway

traffic control in place, trains would have been required to enter the

crossing at a speed of not more than 10 miles per hour. FRA noted in

the original NPRM that ``we are specifically requesting comments on the

proposed time period to find out any circumstances under which this

requirement may be difficult to fulfill.'' 57 FR 28822. The vast

majority of submissions and testimony addressing the two hour response

time of this rule have expressed the opinion that this proposal would

be too burdensome on the industry, with no measurable increase in

safety provided at the grade crossings.

Labor/management's comments recommend that FRA eliminate the ``two-

hour'' provision from the original proposed rule. They recommend, in

the absence of flagging, that the restriction on train speeds remain in

effect pending repair of the warning system or appropriate alternative

action. They state that the combined effect of the warning system being

activated, the train proceeding at no more than restricted speed, and

the use of the locomotive's audible warning device will provide

sufficient warning for highway users. After re-examining the original

proposed rule, FRA has eliminated the two-hour provision. In our view,

highway users will be adequately warned of approaching trains that are

proceeding at a speed no greater than 10 miles per hour. Additionally,

the period during which the warning system may remain malfunctioning is

limited by proposed Sec. 234.207 which requires that malfunctioning

components of a warning system be repaired, replaced or adjusted

without undue delay. Compliance with that section will ensure that

temporary warnings provided under Sec. 234.107 will be held to a

minimum period of time.

Section 234.109 Recordkeeping

Paragraph (a) of this section requires each railroad to keep

records pertaining to compliance with this subpart. Each railroad would

be required to keep the following information for each report of

warning system malfunction: Location of crossing (by highway name and

DOT/AAR Crossing Inventory Number); time and date of receipt by

railroad of report of malfunction; actions taken by railroad prior to

repair and reactivation of repaired system; and time and date of

repair.

Paragraph (b) requires that each railroad retain for at least one

year all records referred to in paragraph (a) of this section. Records

required to be kept shall be made available to FRA as provided by

Sec. 208 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 437).

Section 234.201 Location of Plans

The proposed rule requires that plans and other information

required for the proper maintenance and testing of highway-rail grade

crossing warning systems, be available for use at each warning system

location. Plans would be required to be legible and correct to protect

against errors in circuitry connections. The current industry practice

is for plans to be kept at each grade crossing location and used for

the installation and maintenance of warning systems. The proposed rule

is consistent with labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.203 Design of Control Circuits on Closed Circuit Principle

The proposed rule requires that all control circuits that affect

the safe operation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system

shall be designed on the closed circuit principle. This design

requirement ensures that failure of any part or component of the

circuit will cause the warning system to activate (fail-safe

principle). The MUTCD requires the fail-safe principle be adopted in

the design of warning systems. The proposed rule corresponds with

current industry practice.

Section 234.205 Operating Characteristics of Warning System Apparatus

The proposed rule requires that operating characteristics of

electromagnetic, electronic, or electrical apparatus of each crossing

warning system be maintained in accordance with the limits within which

it is designed to operate. In order to comply with this section, each

carrier should have available specifications setting forth the pick-up

values, release values, working values, and condemning limits of these

values for all electromagnetic, electronic, or electrical devices used

in highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. The proposed rule

corresponds with current industry practice. The proposed rule is

consistent with labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.207 Adjustment, Repair, or Replacement of Component

The proposed rule is similar to the requirement in the present FRA

signal rules at 49 CFR part 236. The proposed rule requires that when

any essential component of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system

fails to perform its intended function, the cause shall be determined

and the faulty component shall be repaired or replaced ``without undue

delay.'' The proposed rule also requires that a railroad take

appropriate action under Sec. 234.105 or Sec. 234.107, as appropriate.

It is of paramount importance that remedial action begin as soon as

possible after a credible report of a malfunction is received by a

railroad. In general, adjustment, repair, or replacement without undue

delay would require that remedial action be taken in as timely a manner

as possible. Successful, practical application of these general

principles may be the objective of this regulatory proceeding that is

most crucial to the safety of the motoring public; and the safety of

employees and rail operations is also implicated.

The term ``undue delay'' has a long and reasonably well understood

history within the railroad signalling community, as applied to signal

and train control systems. In discussing this term when issuing the

NPRM to the present part 236, FRA referred to ``[t]he interpretation of

the phrase ``undue delay'' by the ICC. ``At page 723 of 329 I.C.C., the

ICC said: `We find that the record does not support a rule which would

require that repairs be made before the next movement in all

situations. Such a rule would be unduly restrictive since adequate

temporary safety measures can be taken until necessary repairs are

made. We further find that the phrase `without undue delay' is a

reasonable provision considering the infinite variety of factual

situations in which Rule 11 [predecessor rule to Sec. 236.11] is

applicable.'' 48 FR 11882, March 21, 1983. However, the same

understanding that applies to the concept of ``undue delay'' with

respect to railroad signal systems is not applicable in many cases of

automated warning device malfunction. The differences are of a

practical nature, including the fact that the device in question is a

highway traffic control device.

Where railroad signal systems are at issue, train movements in any

given time period may be infrequent. Thus, although prompt diagnosis of

the situation is normally required, completion of repairs can sometimes

be completed over a matter of hours with no degradation of safety.

Grade crossing warning devices present challenges that are similar in

some respects, but different in others.

Activation Failure

Where the device fails to operate in the presence of a train

(whether partially or totally), immediate action by the railroad is

crucial to protecting train and vehicular traffic. However, even though

flagging trains through the crossing is a temporary expedient that

greatly reduces risks to the motorist, this approach is not

satisfactory as a continuing measure at most crossings where automated

warning devices are installed. Temporary measures required under

Sec. 234.105 involve additional hazards to train crews from mounting

and dismounting locomotives in areas where employees are not normally

on the ground. Whether flagging is provided by the train crew or other

employees, additional risk is posed to those persons by motorists who

may be insufficiently attentive as they approach a crossing normally

equipped with functioning automated devices. In addition, where

flagging is conducted by the train crew an increased risk of side-

collision accidents exists because the crewmember providing flagging

service must, as a practical matter, reboard the locomotive before the

remainder of the train clears the crossing. (Approximately 34% of

nighttime crossing accidents involve motor vehicles striking the side

of the train.) In this instance, a rapid response to the malfunction is

indicated, both for the safety of the motorist and the employees

involved. An exception to the need for rapid repair of the device would

be a case in which no train movement is planned for the interval of

several hours between the initial report and the time the maintainer

responds and completes the repairs.

In cases of activation failures, then, the frequency of train

movements powerfully influences any evaluation of what might be

considered an ``undue delay.''

False Activation

In the case of a false activation, the railroad may elect to

provide warning by slowing the train (and sounding the whistle) under

proposed Sec. 234.107 until necessary repairs were made. In this case,

motorists approaching the crossing with devices still functioning, but

with no train in sight, are exposed to slightly greater risk of a

traffic mishap due to the need to stop. Motorists will often be tempted

to attempt to negotiate around gate arms rather than executing a ``U''

turn and using another crossing.

More significantly, if the malfunction continues for an extended

time period, or if malfunctions are frequent, it is possible that

motorists may be conditioned to disbelieve the indication provided by

the warning device, leading to a later accident at the same crossing,

or a different crossing equipped with automated warning devices. That

is, the credibility of the warning system may be compromised. Again, a

rapid response by the signal maintainer is required. In this case, the

first stage of the response may be to deactivate the warning system,

ensuring that the procedures for an activation failure are

followed.1 If, on the other hand, the response is to provide

flagging services, that would be required under the text of the

proposed rule only during those times when a train is present. During

those periods, some risk would be presented to the persons providing

that service, since the motorist will expect to look for the indication

of the automated device, rather than presence of a flagger. At other

times, the credibility issue will arise; and early action to deactivate

the warning system will be indicated, with full repair before the next

train movement insofar as possible.

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

\1\This is not self-evident, but is posited for discussion.

Should the response to a false activation be flexible, taking into

account the frequency of both highway and rail traffic over the

crossing? What is the break point (if any) at which deactivation of

the warning device should be preferred?

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

In comments responding to the notice of proposed rulemaking for

timely response to malfunctions, the Association of American Railroads

submitted data analysis indicating that the occurrence of false

activations does not lead to loss of credibility of warning devices.

AAR's comments and testimony at the September 15, 1992 public

hearing indicated that there was no relationship between false

activations and subsequent accidents at the grade crossings at which

the malfunction occurred. Analyzing accidents occurring during a six-

month period, the AAR concluded that only 15 accidents occurred in the

week following the malfunction, and only two in the 24 hours following

the malfunction. There was none in the period between report of the

malfunction and its repair.

When the FRA attempted to duplicate AAR's results using FRA's grade

crossing accident/incident database, we found different results. FRA's

data showed that fewer accidents occurred in the same time period as

analyzed by the AAR. Also, fewer accidents occurred at all grade

crossings which had experienced prior malfunctions. Despite the lower

number of accidents, FRA's analysis of the same six-month period

indicates a greater number of accidents both in the week following the

malfunction (34) and in the twenty-four hour period following the

malfunction (11). It is statistically unlikely that the higher accident

rate following malfunctions is due to random causes.

In other words, FRA has found a significant concentration of

accidents in the time period shortly after malfunctions, which leads to

the opposite conclusion from that which would be drawn using AAR's

figures. It appears that the differences between AAR's and FRA's

figures are due solely to differences in the raw data used for analysis

rather than methodological differences.

Recognizing the value of the AAR methodology, FRA has attempted to

replicate and extend the analysis utilizing the more extensive data

sets now available as a result of malfunction reports under 49 CFR

234.9. FRA analyzed accident patterns associated with false activations

over the 15-month period for which data is now available. The data

shows that there were 94 accidents in the week following a false

activation, and 16 in the twenty-four hour period following a false

activation. FRA's analysis for this period indicates (as it does for

the earlier six-month period) that there is overrepresentation of

accidents in the week after a false activation malfunction. FRA's data

also shows that one to two percent of fatalities at crossings are

associated with those additional accidents. A more detailed discussion

of this research is contained in the Economic Impact Assessment and

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis on file in Docket RSGC-5.

In light of these data, FRA is concerned that the inter-

relationships between this section and sections 234.105 and 234.107

have not yet been fully developed, despite the efforts of the industry

parties and FRA to resolve this issue in a practical manner that avoids

unnecessary expenditures. FRA does not believe that the answer to the

issue lies in repeated incantation of a comfortable phrase, such as

``without undue delay.'' FRA urgently requests commenters to examine

once again the structure of this proposal and the realities of the

highway-rail issues presented herein for the purpose of developing the

most effective, reasonable, objective, and enforceable approach to this

difficult problem. FRA reserves the right to issue a final rule

consistent either with the text contained in this NPRM or with the text

of the prior NPRM on timely response.

There is no current industry standard that corresponds with this

rule. However, the industry has previously testified that it currently

has provisions to repair defective warning device components in a

timely manner. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's

recommendation.

Section 234.209 Interference With Normal Functioning of System

The proposed rule requires that the normal functioning of any

system shall not be interfered with in testing or otherwise without

first taking measures to provide for the safety of highway traffic. The

intent of the proposed rule is to ensure that railroads provide

alternative methods of maintaining safety while testing or performing

work on the warning systems or on track and other railroad systems or

structures which may affect the integrity of the warning system. Most

railroads have established procedures regarding precautions to be taken

when performing such work.

In some circumstances, nearby track work could activate a crossing

warning system. FRA does not believe that ``taking measures to provide

for the safety of highway traffic'' in this context includes chaining a

gate in the ``up'' position while allowing warning lights to continue

flashing. Even when the track is temporarily out of service the mixed

message sent to the motorist diminishes the warning system's

credibililty, and must therefore be avoided. FRA solicits suggestions

as to how to accommodate both the railroad's and the motorist's needs

in such situations.

FRA also requests interested parties to discuss the safety effect

on the warning system caused by railroad equipment standing or being

switched within the system's approach circuit where the warning system

is not designed to accommodate those activities. There have been

instances of such cars and locomotives activating the warning system

for an extended length of time when there is no danger in crossing the

tracks, raising the issue of credibility at that crossing. If there are

multiple tracks at the crossing, a warning system activated for a

period of time due to standing equipment may effectively entice a

motorist to cross the tracks, when in fact a train may be approaching

on the other track. This situation may be exacerbated by reduced

visibility of the approaching train due to the standing equipment. FRA

solicits comments on this matter. Should this situation be considered

interference with the normal functioning of a warning system? FRA

solicits comments on this problem and, if appropriate, possible

regulatory and non-regulatory solutions.

Section 234.211 Locking of Warning System Apparatus

The proposed rule permits the carrier to have managerial discretion

in the specific manner that warning system housings are secured. The

proposed rule requires that all external housings of warning system

apparatus be kept locked, sealed, or secured. This includes warning

system houses, flashing light signals, gate mechanisms, and bell or

stationary audible warning system housings. The purpose of the proposed

rule is to prevent vital components of the warning system from being

vandalized or tampered with, possibly causing a malfunction of the

warning system. The proposed rule corresponds with current industry

practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's

recommendation.

Section 234.213 Grounds

The proposed rule requires that each circuit which affects the

proper functioning of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system be

kept free of any ground or combination of grounds which will permit a

flow of current equal to or in excess of 75 percent of the release

value of any relay or electromagnetic device in the circuit. The only

exceptions would be circuits that include any track rail, alternating

current power distribution circuits that are grounded in the interest

of safety, and any common return wires of grounded common return single

break circuits. The basis of the proposed rule is the same as is

required in 49 CFR part 236.2. The proposed rule corresponds with

current industry practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/

management's recommendation.

Section234.215 Standby Battery and Indicator or Alarm

In drafting this proposed section, FRA is addressing the most

common type of installation in the nation--a battery-operated system in

which the batteries are constantly being recharged by alternating

current from a commercial or private source. In these systems, if the

supply of alternating current is interrupted, the batteries continue to

operate the system until they are discharged. The theory is that in

most situations alternating power will be restored before the batteries

run down.

The proposed rule requires a standby battery source of power to

ensure the highway-rail grade crossing warning system continues to

function as intended if there is an interruption in primary alternating

current power. Another portion of the rule requires that an indicator

or alarm be used to indicate when the alternating current power is off.

The purpose is to alert the carrier about the loss of primary power so

remedial action can be taken before the standby battery source of power

is exhausted. Additionally, the proposed rule requires that battery

capacity be designed and maintained to provide a sufficient amount of

time for the operation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system

when primary battery charging current is removed.

An analysis of a random sample of 1,943 grade crossing signal

failure reports showed that 12.2 percent (243) involved the loss of

alternating current power as the primary cause for a malfunction of the

system.

The railroad industry and suppliers currently use standby battery

power as a standard for warning system installations that are dependent

on alternating current for their primary source of power. The

Association of American Railroads' ``Signal Manual of Recommended

Practice'' advises that standby battery power be used. Without a

standby source of power, a warning system is ineffective when

alternating current power is lost.

This topic was discussed at the December 11, 1992 open meeting, and

the consensus was that there is a need for warning systems to be

capable of operating with standby power for a sufficient period of

time. The proposed rule would not require batteries to be discharged to

determine their capacity, because it would be impractical to do so.

Warning system installations would be required to be designed to

provide the proper amount of battery capacity. Proper battery voltage

and specific gravity of the battery would be required to be maintained.

Labor/management's recommendation does not specifically state the

requirements for a standby battery source of power. However, their

recommendation does assume standby batteries are used, because they

recommend testing battery voltage at warning system installations.

FRA recognizes that systems other than the typical system addressed

in this section are in operation or may be in the development stage. We

do not want these rules to hinder development of possible alternative

equipment and systems. The proposed rule essentially provides a

performance standard that back-up systems should respond automatically

to loss of power and provide at least 48 hours of normal warning system

operation. We invite comment on both this approach and the appropriate

performance standard to be adopted.

Section 234.217 Flashing Light Units

The proposed rule requires that each flashing light unit be

positioned and aligned in accordance with installation plans. This is

obviously important because of motorists' reliance on the flashing

light units to warn of approaching trains. It is not practical to

require a specific distance for the alignment of each flashing light

unit because of varying conditions (i.e., road curvature, fixed

obstructions, intersections, etc.) at each highway-rail grade crossing.

The proposed rule also requires that each flashing light unit be

maintained to prevent dust and moisture from entering the interior of

the unit. Additionally, light units would be required to flash

alternately at a rate of 35 to 55 times per minute. This is consistent

with the requirements of the MUTCD. The proposed rule corresponds with

current industry practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/

management's submission.

FRA invites specific comment on those maintenance standards that

also relate to design specifications derived from compliance with the

MUTCD. For example, Sec. 234.217(c) would require that the number of

flashes per minute for each light unit be 35 minimum and 55 maximum.

This is consistent with Paragraph 8C-7 of the MUTCD, although that

paragraph provides greater detail than is contained in Sec. 234.217(c).

FRA invites comments regarding the consequences and advisability of (1)

incorporating by reference MUTCD requirements into these regulations,

(2) adopting the present MUTCD requirements, (3) adopting the present

MUTCD requirements with changes where necessary, or (4) requiring that

railroads maintain grade crossing warning systems to the specifications

established at installation (or later, if conditions change) and set

forth on the installation plans. For example, rather than requiring 35

to 55 flashes per minute, the rule could require that light units flash

as designed. Similarly, rather than requiring specific time periods in

which a gate arm should move, as is presently proposed in Sec. 234.223,

the rule might read as follows: ``Each gate arm shall extend across

each lane of approaching highway traffic and shall be maintained in a

condition sufficient to be clearly viewed by approaching motorists.

Each gate arm shall start its downward motion and shall reach its

horizontal position in accordance with time periods designed for that

specific installation.'' In addition to other areas of concern

regarding use or non-use of MUTCD standards, FRA requests that

commenters address the situation in which MUTCD standards might change.

If the MUTCD design standards were to be changed, should FRA's

maintenance standards also automatically be changed? If the MUTCD

standards are different than FRA's standards, will that result in a

warning system being designed to one set of standards, and after

installation being maintained to a different set of standards?

Section 234.219 Gate Arm Lights and Light Cable

The proposed rule requires that each gate arm light be visible to

approaching highway users and that lights and light wire be secured to

the gate arm. The proposed rule assists in alerting motorists,

particularly at night, that the gate arm is in the horizontal position.

It is important that the lights and light wire are secured to the gate

arm to help prevent the lights and light wire from being damaged. The

MUTCD requires three red lights on the gate arm. Labor/management's

recommendation does not specify a standard for gate arm lights or light

cable; however, the proposed rule corresponds with current industry

practice.

Section 234.221 Lamp Voltage

The proposed rule requires that lamp voltage be maintained at no

less than 85 percent of its prescribed rating. The National

Transportation Safety Board has recommended that FRA establish a

standard for minimum lamp voltage at highway-rail grade crossing

warning systems. In the December 11, 1992 open meeting, there was a

consensus that it is impossible to maintain lamp voltage at the full

rating of the lamp, at all warning system installations. The proposed

rule will ensure that the lamp voltage is sufficient to provide

suitable illumination of the lamp, while increasing the endurance and

dependability of the lamp. The proposed rule corresponds with current

industry practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/

management's recommendation.

Section 224.223 Gate Arm

The proposed rule requires that each gate arm, when in the downward

position, extend across each lane of approaching highway traffic and be

maintained in a condition sufficient to be clearly viewed by

approaching motorists. The rule would also require that each gate arm

start its downward motion not less than three seconds after flashing

lights begin to operate and assume the horizontal position in a minimum

of five seconds before the arrival of any train at the crossing. The

proposal would assist in assuring that motorists are warned about

trains approaching the crossing. Labor/management recommends that the

gates assume the horizontal position before the arrival of any train at

the crossing.

FRA also requests comments regarding MUTCD design standards. See

further discussion in section by section analysis of Sec. 234.217.

Section 234.225 Activation of Warning System

The proposed rule requires a minimum of 20 seconds warning time

prior to the grade crossing being occupied by rail traffic. This is

consistent with the requirements of the MUTCD and current industry

practices. Labor/management provides no specific recommendation

concerning a standard for warning time, however, it does recommend that

warning systems be designed to comply with provisions of the MUTCD. In

the December 11, 1992 open meeting, there was agreement among all

parties that a 20-second minimum warning time is desirable.

FRA also requests comments regarding MUTCD design standards. See

further discussion in section-by-section analysis of Sec. 234.217.

Section 234.227 Train Detection Apparatus

The proposed rule requires the detection of a train or car when any

part of a train detection circuit is occupied. The train detection

circuit would be required to extend through the entire approach

sections of the grade crossing to prevent any ``dead sections.'' The

proposed rule requires that when a highway/rail grade crossing equipped

with a warning system is fouled by a train or car, the warning system

shall continue to operate until such train or car clears the roadway.

The warning system would be required to discontinue operation after the

train or car passes the point of fouling the crossing, if there are no

other movements within the limits of the warning circuit. Where the

presence of sand, rust, dirt, grease, or other foreign matter is known

to prevent effective shunting, appropriate action under Sec. 234.105,

``Activation failure,'' must be taken.

The proposed rule corresponds with current industry practice.

Warning system installations are designed to work in this manner. The

proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.229 Shunting Sensitivity

The proposed rule requires that each train detection circuit that

controls a highway-rail grade crossing warning system will detect the

presence of a shunt of 0.06 ohm resistance when the shunt is connected

across the track rails of the circuit, including fouling sections of

turnouts. The standard of using a shunt of 0.06 ohm resistance has been

effective in signal systems (49 CFR 236.56), since its implementation

in 1950.

There was discussion about this issue at the December 11, 1992 open

meeting. Some commenters stated it would be difficult to ensure that

certain types of constant warning time systems would react with a shunt

of 0.06 ohm resistance applied in the train detection circuit. However,

the commenters were not able to provide an alternative standard. The

majority of warning systems can be tested for shunting sensitivity with

the 0.06 ohm shunt. It is possible for the remaining warning systems,

equipped with constant time warning systems, to be tested with more

than one 0.06 ohm shunt applied in different areas of the train

detection circuit, simulating the movement of a train. There is no

current standard industry practice corresponding to the proposed rule.

Labor/management did not address this area.

Section 234.231 Fouling Wires

The proposed rule requires that each set of fouling wires located

in a highway-rail grade crossing warning system train detection circuit

consist of at least two discret conductors, and requires that each

conductor be of sufficient conductivity and maintained in such a

condition that the train detection apparatus will be in its most

restrictive state when the circuit is shunted. This rule would help

assure the detection of a train operating through turnouts located

within the limits of train detection circuits. If one wire or rail plug

were broken, a dangerous condition would be prevented if the other wire

or rail plug continued to be effective. Labor/management made no

recommendations pertaining to the proposed rule. The proposed rule

corresponds with current industry practice.

Section 234.233 Rail Joints

The proposed rule requires that each rail joint located within the

limits of a highway-rail grade crossing train detection circuit be

bonded to ensure electrical conductivity by a means other than joint

bars. It is important that all rail joints are bonded to ensure

continuity of the train detection circuit. This aids in preventing

false activations of a warning system. Labor/management's submission

did not address this issue. The proposed rule corresponds with current

industry practice.

Section 234.235 Insulated Rail Joints

The proposed rule requires that each insulated rail joint used to

separate train detection circuits within the limits of a highway-rail

grade crossing be maintained in a condition to prevent current from

flowing between rails separated by the insulation in an amount

sufficient to cause a failure of any train detection circuit. This

proposal would apply primarily to conventional train-detection

apparatus, where a failure of the insulated rail joint could result in

either a false activation or a failure to activate. The proposed rule

corresponds with current industry practice and is consistent with

labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.237 Switch Equipped With Circuit Controller

The proposed rule requires that when a switch equipped with a

switch circuit controller connected to the point is interconnected with

highway-rail grade crossing warning system circuitry, such switch shall

be maintained so that the warning system can be cut out only when the

point is within one-half inch of the full reverse position. The purpose

of the proposed rule is to prevent inadequate warning time for a

motorist.

Some railroads use switch circuit controllers to cut out (or

override) the activation of a warning system when a switch is located

within the train-detection limits of the warning system. The primary

purpose of this arrangement is to avoid the unnecessary operation of

the warning system when trains are making switching movements within

the train detection circuit, but not occupying the grade crossing. This

is a safe practice as long as the circuit controller is properly

adjusted to cut out the warning system with the switch in the reverse

position. This ensures the warning system cannot be cut out with the

switch in the normal position and train movements operating at normal

speed through the train detection circuit.

The proposed rule corresponds with current industry practice.

Labor/management's submission did not address this requirement.

However, it did recommend that where cut-out circuits are used, tests

be made to determine they function properly.

Section 234.239 Tagging of Wires and Interference of Wires or Tags

With Signal Apparatus

The proposed rule requires that each wire be tagged or otherwise so

marked that it can be identified at each terminal. All tag or wire

identification should correspond with the circuit plan. Tags and other

marks of identification would be required to be made of insulating

material and so arranged that tags and wires do not interfere with

moving parts of apparatus. The requirements of the proposed rule are

the same as those in 49 CFR 236.76. The proposed rule is consistent

with both current industry practice and labor/management's

recommendation.

Section 234.241 Protection of Insulated Wire; Splice in Underground

Wire

The proposed rule requires that insulated wire be protected from

mechanical injury. The insulation would be prohibited from being

punctured for test purposes, and a splice in underground wire would be

required to have insulation resistance at least equal to the wire

spliced. The requirements of the proposed rule are the same as those in

49 CFR 236.74. The requirements would ensure the integrity of

conductors carrying vital warning system circuitry. The proposed rule

corresponds with current industry practice. The proposed rule is

consistent with labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.243 Wire on Pole Line and Aerial Cable

The proposed rule requires that wire on a pole line be securely

tied in on an insulator and properly fastened to a crossarm or bracket

supported by a pole or other support. The rule would require that the

wire not interfere with, or be interfered with, by other wires on the

pole line. Aerial cable would be required to be supported by messenger

wire. Open-wire transmission line operating at 750 volts or more would

not be placed less than 4 feet above the nearest crossarm carrying

active warning system circuits. The requirements of the proposed rule

are the same as those in 49 CFR 236.71. The portion of the proposed

rule addressing wire on pole line would apply only to warning system

installations that utilize pole line as part of the warning system

circuitry. The proposed rule corresponds with current industry

practice. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's

recommendation.

Section 234.245 Signs

The proposed rule requires that each sign mounted on a highway-rail

grade crossing signal post be maintained in good condition and visible

to the motorist. Signs mounted on the mast could include crossbucks,

``number of tracks,'' etc. The proposed rule is consistent with current

industry practice and labor/management's recommendation.

Inspections and Tests

Section 234.247 Purpose of Inspections and Tests; Removal From Service

of Relay or Device Failing To Meet Test Requirements

The proposed rule requires that certain FRA-required tests be made

to determine whether apparatus and equipment are maintained in a

condition to perform their intended function. An electronic device,

relay, or other electromagnetic device that fails to meet the

requirements of specified tests would be required to be removed from

service and not restored to service until its operating characteristics

were in accordance with the limits within which such device or relay is

designed to operate.

The purpose of the inspections and tests is to determine whether

operating characteristics of electronic devices, relays, or other

electromagnetic devices are within specified values and if highway-rail

grade crossing warning system apparatus and equipment is being

maintained in a condition to assure the safety of motorists and train

operations. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's

recommendation.

Section 234.249 Ground Tests

The proposed rule requires a test for grounds on each energy bus

furnishing power to circuits that affect the safety of highway-rail

grade crossing warning system operation. The proposal requires that the

test be made when an energy bus is placed in service, and at least once

each month thereafter. This requirement would assist in maintaining the

integrity and safety of the warning system. The proposed rule is

consistent with labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.251 Battery Voltage

The proposed rule requires that battery voltage be checked at the

battery, with battery-charging current removed, at least once each

month to determine battery capability for instances of battery-charging

current loss. The proposed rule is consistent with both current

industry practice and labor/management's proposal.

Section 234.253 Flashing Light Units and Lamp Voltage

The proposed rule requires that each flashing light unit be tested

when installed and at least once every twelve months, with battery-

charging current removed and with battery charging current restored, to

determine that lamp voltage. Each flashing light unit would be required

to be inspected at installation and once every twelve months for

alignment, focus, and frequency of flashes in accordance with

installation specifications. The exterior of each flashing light unit

would be required to be inspected for dust and damage to roundels to

ensure visibility of the light unit, at least once each month. Labor/

management recommended that at least once each month the visibility of

warning lights be checked with battery charging current removed, and

with battery charging current restored, and and observations be made to

determine that all lights are burning with normal brilliancy. The

proposal is generally consistent with that of labor/management;

however, FRA welcomes any comments on alternative methods of testing

and ensuring normal brilliancy of lights.

Section 234.255 Gate Arm and Gate Mechanism

The proposed rule requires that each gate arm and gate mechanism be

inspected, and gate arm movement be observed for proper operation, at

least once each month. Tests of hold-clear devices would be required at

least once every 12 months. The hold-clear device is what keeps the

gate arms in the vertical position when the warning system is not

activated. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's

recommendation.

Section 234.257 Warning System Operation

The proposed rule requires that a highway/rail grade crossing

warning system be tested for proper operation when the warning system

is placed in service and thereafter when modified or disarranged, and

at least once each month. The term ``disarranged'' would be defined as:

``When a relay, circuit board, or other electronic device is replaced

with another; two or more conductors in a cable are severed; a cable or

conductor in a train detection system is replaced with another; or

wires are removed at the same time from more than one terminal of a

relay, electronic device, terminal board, or other vital component of a

train detection system.'' The extent of testing the warning system for

proper operation would be dependent on the degree of modification or

disarrangement.

Currently, the majority of the industry tests the operation of

warning systems on a monthly interval. Industry instructions vary

regarding the testing of a warning system subsequent to modification or

disarrangement of the system. The labor/management submission

recommends that operation of warning systems be checked at least once

each month. The recommendation does not address the testing of a

warning system subsequent to a modification or disarrangement of such

system.

The proposed rule also requires that when a warning bell or other

stationary audible warning device is used, it be checked for proper

operation when installed and at least once each month thereafter. The

proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.259 Warning Time

The proposed rule requires that a highway/rail grade crossing

warning system be tested for prescribed warning time at least once

every three months. This can be accomplished by observation of a train

movement, if practical, or by calculation and simulation of a train

movement. The proposed rule corresponds with current industry practice.

The proposed rule is consistent with labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.261 Highway Traffic Signal Pre-emption

The proposed rule requires that highway traffic signal pre-emption

interconnections, for which a railroad has maintenance responsibility,

be tested at least once each month. The pre-emption of a highway

traffic signal requires an electrical circuit between the control relay

of the highway/rail grade crossing warning system and the controller

assembly of the highway traffic signal. The railroad would only be

responsible for the maintenance and testing of its interconnections.

The proposed rule is consistent with both current industry practice and

labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.263 Relays

Paragraph (a) of this section requires that (except for certain

relays listed in paragraph (b)) each relay that affects the proper

functioning of a crossing warning system shall be tested at least once

every four years.

Paragraph (b)(2) requires that alternating current vane type

relays, direct current polar type relays, and relays with soft iron

magnetic structure shall be tested at least once every two years.

Paragraph (b)(2) requires that alternating current centrifigal type

relays shall be tested at least once every 12 months.

The requirements in the proposed rule are similar to those in 49

CFR 236.106 due to utilization of the same type relays. The proposed

rule is consistent with current industry practice and labor/

management's recommendation.

Section 234.265 Timing Relays and Timing Devices

The proposed rule requires that each timing relay and timing device

be tested at least once every twelve months. The timing would be

required to be maintained at not less than 90 percent nor more than 110

percent of the predetermined time interval, which shall be shown on the

plans or marked on the timing relay or timing device.

Time-out circuits are primarily used for train switching movements

at warning system installations. The time-out circuits enable an

activation of a highway/rail grade crossing warning system to be

overridden for a predetermined amount of time, after a train movement

has occupied the detection circuit in approach to the grade crossing.

The proposed rule is consistent with current industry practice and

labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.267 Insulation Resistance Tests, Wires in Trunking and

Cables

Paragraph (a) requires that insulation resistance tests be made

when wires or cables are installed and at least once every ten years

thereafter.

Paragraph (b) requires that insulation resistance tests be made

between all conductors and ground, between conductors in each multiple

conductor cable, and between conductors in trunking. Such tests must be

performed when wires, cables, and insulation are dry.

Paragraph (c) provides that when insulation resistance of wire or

cable is found to be less than 500,000 ohms, prompt action would be

required to be taken to repair or replace the defective wire or cable.

Until such defective wire or cable is replaced, insulation resistance

tests must be made annually. Paragraph (d) provides that a circuit with

a conductor having an insulation resistance of less than 200,000 ohms

shall not be used.

The requirements in the proposed rule are the same as those in 49

CFR 236.108, because of the utilization of the same type wires and

cable. The proposed rule is consistent with current industry practice

and labor/management's recommendation.

Section 234.269 Cut-Out Circuits

The proposed rule requires that each cut-out circuit be tested at

least once every three months to determine that the circuit functions

as intended. The proposed rule would ensure that cut-out circuits

operate correctly and that they do not permit an activation failure of

the warning system. The proposed rule is consistent with labor/

management's recommendation.

Section 234.271 Insulated Rail Joints, Bond Wires, and Track

Connections

The proposed rule requires that each insulated rail joint, bond

wire, and track connection located within the limits of a highway-rail

grade crossing train detection circuit be inspected at least once every

three months. Insulated rail joints are used to prevent current from

flowing between rails. Bondwires and track connections ensure

continuity of a train detection circuit. The proposed rule is

consistent with current industry practice and labor/management's

recommendation.

Section 234.273 Results of Tests

This section requires that results of tests made in compliance with

this part be recorded on preprinted or computerized forms provided by

the railroad, or by electronic means, approved by the Associate

Administrator for Safety. Such records would be required to show the

name of the railroad having maintenance responsibility for the warning

system, AAR/DOT inventory number, place and date, equipment tested,

results of tests, repairs, replacements, adjustments made, and

condition in which the apparatus was left. Each record would be

required to be signed or electronically coded by the employee making

the test and be filed in the office of a supervisory official having

jurisdiction. Each record would be required to be retained until the

next record for that test is filed but in no case less than one year.

If a railroad elects to use an electronic means for recording and

signing results of tests, such means must be approved by FRA prior to

use.

Regulatory Impact

E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing

policies and procedures, and is considered to be significant under DOT

policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) because it

initiates a new regulatory program. This regulatory document was

subject to review under E.O. 12866. FRA has prepared and placed in the

rulemaking docket a regulatory evaluation addressing the economic

impact of this rule. A copy of the regulatory evaluation may be

inspected and copied in room 8201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC, 20590.

In its regulatory analysis FRA posited that the benefits of this

rule would arise for several reasons. First, grade crossing signal

malfunctions would become rarer after application of subpart D

(``Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing''). Second, grade crossings

would be made safe during the period of their signals' malfunctioning

under provisions of subpart C (``Response to Reports of Warning System

Malfunction''), specifically Secs. 234.105 and 234.107. Third, the

costs of Secs. 234.105 and 234.107 would be reduced because the

railroads would fix the signals more rapidly under Sec. 234.103 of

subpart C. Some of the other sections in the rule are needed to

implement Secs. 234.103, 234.105, and 234.107.

It appears that malfunctions in the form of activation failures now

cost about $4.25 million per year in accidents. In these accidents the

highway user does not know a train is coming, enters the crossing, and

is struck by a train. This rule should reduce that annual cost to about

$400,000.

It also appears that malfunctions in the form of false activations

cause about $17.6 million a year in accident costs. In these accidents

the highway user thinks the signal is ``crying wolf,'' ignores a valid

warning, and is struck by a train. This rule should reduce the annual

cost to about $3.5 million. This rule will prevent malfunctions, reduce

their duration, and make crossings safer during a malfunction. The

total cost of this rule, discounted over twenty years, will be about

$140 million, and the total benefit will be about $230 million.

Benefits will be about 1.6 times costs.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

FRA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no

substantial economic impacts for small units of government, businesses,

or other organizations. FRA specifically requests comments on the

impact of this rule on small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed rule contains information collection requirements. FRA

is submitting these information collection requirements to the Office

of Management and Budget for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The proposed section that contains

information collection requirements is Sec. 234.273. The estimated time

to fulfill the requirement of that section is five minutes for each

record. FRA solicits comments on the accuracy of the FRA estimate; the

practical utility of the information; and the alternative methods that

might be less burdensome to obtain this information. Persons desiring

to comment on this topic should submit their views in writing to FRA

(Ms. Gloria Swanson, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590) and to the Office of

Management and Budget (Desk Officer, Regulatory Policy Branch (OMB No.

2130-AA45), Office and Management and Budget, New Executive Office

Building, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Copies of any

such comments should also be submitted to the Docket Clerk, Office of

Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Environmental Impact

FRA has evaluated these proposed regulations in accordance with its

procedure for ensuring full consideration of the potential

environmental impacts of FRA actions, as required by the National

Environmental Policy Act and related directives. This notice meets the

criteria that establish this as a non-major action for environmental

purposes.

Federalism Implications

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' and it has

been determined that the proposed rule has sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. FRA

recognizes that currently a small number of states have statutes

mandating to some extent maintenance, inspection and testing procedures

for railroads operating within those states. In an effort to maintain

state expertise and involvement in this critical safety area, FRA has

proposed to include grade crossing warning system inspection functions

within its State Participation Program. FRA has also proposed in

Secs. 234.105 and 234.107 that in instances of grade crossing warning

system malfunctions, ``a locomotive's audible warning device shall be

activated in accordance with railroad rules.'' This provision would

preempt local ``whistle ban'' ordinances. This minimal intrusion into

an area in which a handful of State and local governments have become

involved is necessary to protect the travelling public and train crews

from possible injury or death at grade crossings with malfunctioning

warning systems. A copy of the Federalism Assessment has been placed in

the public docket located in room 8201, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 212

Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, Railroad safety.

49 CFR Part 234

Railroad safety, Highway-rail grade crossings.

The Proposed Rule

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter II

of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 212--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: Secs. 202, 205, 206, and 207, of the Federal Railroad

Safety Act of 1970, as amended (45 U.S.C. 431, 434, 435, and 436);

and 49 CFR 1.49.

2. Section 212.231, ``Inapplicable qualification requirements,'' is

redesignated Sec. 212.235, and new Secs. 212.231 and 212.233 are added

to read as follows:

Sec. 212.231 Highway-rail grade crossing inspector.

(a) The highway-rail grade crossing inspector is required, at a

minimum, to be able to conduct independent inspections of all types of

highway-rail grade crossing warning systems for the purpose of

determining compliance with Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Rules

(49 CFR part 234), to make reports of those inspections, and to

recommend institution of enforcement actions when appropriate to

promote compliance.

(b) The highway-rail grade crossing inspector is required, at a

minimum, to have at least four years of recent experience in highway-

rail grade crossing construction or maintenance. A bachelor's degree in

engineering or a related technical specialization may be substituted

for two of the four years of this experience requirement. Successful

completion of an apprentice training program under Sec. 212.233 may be

substituted for the four years of this experience requirement.

(c) The highway-rail grade crossing inspector shall demonstrate the

following specific qualifications:

(1) A comprehensive knowledge of highway-rail grade crossing

nomenclature, inspection techniques, maintenance requirements, and

methods;

(2) The ability to understand and detect deviations from: (i) grade

crossing signal system maintenance, inspection and testing standards

accepted in the industry; and

(ii) the Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Rules (49 CFR part

234);

(3) Knowledge of operating practices and highway-rail grade

crossing systems sufficient to understand the safety significance of

deviations and combinations of deviations;

(4) Specialized knowledge of the requirements of the Grade Crossing

Signal System Safety Rules, including the remedial action required to

bring highway-rail grade crossing signal systems into compliance with

those Rules;

(5) Specialized knowledge of highway-rail grade crossing standards

contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and

(6) Knowledge of railroad signal systems sufficient to ensure that

highway-rail grade crossing warning systems and inspections of those

systems do not adversely affect the safety of railroad signal systems.

(d) A State signal and train control inspector qualified under this

part is deemed to meet all requirements of this section and is

qualified to conduct independent inspections of all types of highway-

rail grade crossing warning systems for the purpose of determining

compliance with Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Rules (49 CFR part

234), to make reports of those inspections, and to recommend

institution of enforcement actions when appropriate to promote

compliance.

Sec. 212.233 Apprentice highway-rail grade crossing inspector.

(a) The apprentice highway-rail grade crossing inspector must be

enrolled in a program of training prescribed by the Associate

Administrator for Safety leading to qualification as a highway-rail

grade crossing inspector. The apprentice inspector may not participate

in investigative and surveillance activities, except as an assistant to

a qualified State or FRA inspector while accompanying that qualified

inspector.

(b) Prior to being enrolled in the program the apprentice inspector

shall demonstrate:

(1) Working knowledge of basic electricity and the ability to use

electrical test equipment in direct current and alternating current

circuits; and

(2) A basic knowledge of highway-rail grade crossing inspection and

maintenance methods and procedures.

PART 234--[AMENDED]

3. The authority citation for part 234 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: Secs. 202, 208, and 209 of the Federal Railroad

Safety Act of 1970, as amended (45 U.S.C. 431, 437, and 438, as

amended); Accident Reports Act (45 U.S.C. 38 and 42); and 49 CFR

1.49 (f), (g), and (m).

4. Section 234.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 234.1 Scope.

This part prescribes standards for the reporting of failures of

highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. This part also prescribes

actions railroads must take when such warning systems malfunction and

imposes minimum maintenance, inspection, and testing standards for such

systems. When any person performs any function required by this part,

that person is required to perform that function in accordance with

this part.

5. Section 234.4 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 234.4 Preemptive effect.

Under section 205 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45

U.S.C. 434), issuance of these regulations preempts any State law,

rule, regulation, order, or standard covering the same subject matter,

except a provision directed at an essentially local safety hazard that

is consistent with this part and that does not impose an undue burden

on interstate commerce.

6. Amend Sec. 234.5 by deleting paragraph designations, listing

definitions in alphabetical order, and adding the following definitions

to read as follows:

Sec. 234.5 Definitions.

* * * * *

Appropriately equipped flagger means a person other than a train

crewmember who is equipped with an orange vest, shirt, or jacket for

daytime flagging. For nighttime flagging, similar outside garments

shall be retroreflective. The retroreflective material shall be either

orange, white (including silver-colored coatings or elements that

retroreflect white light), yellow, fluorescent red-orange, or

fluorescent yellow-orange and shall be designed to be visible at a

minimum distance of 1,000 feet. The design configuration of the

retroreflective material shall provide recognition of the wearer as a

human being and shall be visible through the full range of body

motions. Acceptable hand signalling devices for daytime flagging

include ``STOP/SLOW'' paddles and red flags. For nighttime flagging, a

flashlight, lantern, or other lighted signal shall be used.

Credible report of system malfunction means specific information

regarding a malfunction at an identified highway-rail crossing,

supplied by a railroad employee, law enforcement officer, highway

traffic official, or other employee of a public agency acting in an

official capacity.

* * * * *

Warning system malfunction means an activation failure or a false

activation of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system.

Sec. 234.6 [Redesignated from Secs. 234.15 and 234.17]

7. Redesignate the heading and text of Sec. 234.15, and the heading

and text of Sec. 234.17, as the heading and text of paragraph (a) of a

new Sec. 234.6 and the heading and text of paragraph (b) of Sec. 234.6,

respectively; add a new section heading for newly designated

Sec. 234.6; and revise the newly designated paragraph (a) of Sec. 234.6

to read as follows:

Sec. 234.6 Penalties.

(a) Civil penalty. Any person (including but not limited to a

railroad; any manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent

of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad

equipment, track, or facilities; any employee of such owner,

manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor) who violates

any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such

requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least $500, but not

more than $10,000 per violation, except that: penalties may be assessed

against individuals only for willful violations, and where a grossly

negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an

imminent hazard of death of injury to persons, or has caused death or

injury, a penalty not to exceed $20,000 per violation may be assessed.

Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.

Appendix A to this part contains a schedule of civil penalty amounts

used in connection with this rule.

* * * * *

8. Designate Secs. 234.1 through 234.6 as ``Subpart A--General''

and designate Secs. 234.7 through 234.13 as ``Subpart B--Reports.''

9. Add new ``Subpart C--Response to Reports of Warning System

Malfunction,'' and new ``Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and

Testing,'' to read as follows:

Subpart C--Response to Reports of Warning System Malfunction

Sec.

234.101 Employee notification rules.

234.103 Timely response to report of malfunction.

234.105 Activation failure.

234.107 False activation.

234.109 Recordkeeping.

Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing

Maintenance Standards

234.201 Location of plans.

234.203 Design of control circuits on closed circuit principle.

234.205 Operating characteristics of warning system apparatus.

234.207 Adjustment, repair, or replacement of component.

234.209 Interference with normal functioning of system.

234.211 Locking of warning system apparatus.

234.213 Grounds.

234.215 Standby battery and indicator or alarm.

234.217 Flashing light units.

234.219 Gate arm lights and light cable.

234.221 Lamp voltage.

234.223 Gate arm.

234.225 Activation of warning system.

234.227 Train detection apparatus.

234.229 Shunting sensitivity.

234.231 Fouling wires.

234.233 Rail joints.

234.235 Insulated rail joints.

234.237 Switch equipped with circuit controller.

234.239 Tagging of wires and interference of wires or tags with

signal apparatus.

234.241 Protection of insulated wire; splice in underground wire.

234.243 Wire on pole line and aerial cable.

234.245 Signs.

Inspections and Tests

234.247 Purpose of inspections and tests; removal from service of

relay or device failing to meet test requirements.

234.249 Ground tests.

234.251 Battery voltage.

234.253 Flashing light units and lamp voltage.

234.255 Gate arm and gate mechanism.

234.257 Warning system operation.

234.259 Warning time.

234.261 Highway traffic signal pre-emption.

234.263 Relays.

234.265 Timing relays and timing devices.

234.267 Insulation resistance tests.

234.269 Cut-out circuits.

234.271 Insulated rail joints, bond wires, and track connections.

234.273 Results of tests.

Sec. 234.101 Employee notification rules.

Each railroad shall issue rules requiring its employees to report

to a designated railroad official, by the quickest means available, any

warning system malfunction.

Sec. 234.103 Timely response to report of malfunction.

(a) Upon receipt of a credible report of a warning system

malfunction, a railroad having maintenance responsibility for the

warning system shall immediately investigate the report and determine

the nature of the malfunction. The railroad shall take appropriate

action as required by Sec. 234.207.

(b) Until repair or correction of the warning system is completed,

the railroad shall provide alternative means of warning highway traffic

and railroad employees in accordance with this subpart.

(c) Nothing in this subpart requires repair of a warning system,

if, acting in accordance with applicable State law, the railroad

proceeds to discontinue or dismantle the warning system. However, until

repair, correction, discontinuance, or dismantling of the warning

system is completed, the railroad shall comply with this subpart to

ensure the safety of the travelling public and railroad employees.

Sec. 234.105 Activation Failure.

Upon receipt of a credible report of warning system malfunction

involving an activation failure, a railroad having maintenance

responsibility for the warning system shall immediately initiate

efforts to warn motorists and railroad employees at the subject

crossing by taking, at a minimum, the following actions:

(a) Prior to a train's arrival at the crossing, notify the train

crew of the report of activation failure and notify any other railroads

operating over the crossing;

(b) Notify the highway traffic control authority having

jurisdiction over the crossing; and

(c) Provide or arrange for alternative means of actively warning

motorists of approaching trains, consistent with the following

requirements:

(1) Until an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement

officer is stationed at the crossing to warn highway traffic of

approaching trains, each train must stop before entering the crossing

and permit a crewmember to dismount to flag highway traffic to a stop.

The locomotive may then proceed through the crossing, permitting the

flagging crewmember to reboard the locomotive before the remainder of

the train proceeds through the crossing.

(2) If an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement officer

provides warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may

proceed through the crossing at normal speed.

(3) If an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement officer

provides warning for highway traffic, but there is not at least one

flagger or law enforcement officer providing warning for each direction

of highway traffic, trains may proceed with caution through the

crossing at a speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour. Normal speed may

be resumed after the locomotive has passed through the crossing.

(4) A locomotive's audible warning device shall be activated in

accordance with railroad rules regarding the approach to a grade

crossing.

Sec. 234.107 False activation.

Upon receipt of a credible report of a false activation, a railroad

having maintenance responsibility for the highway-rail grade crossing

warning system shall immediately initiate efforts to warn highway users

and railroad employees at the crossing by taking, at a minimum, the

following actions:

(a) Prior to a train's arrival at the crossing, notify the train

crew of the report of false activation and notify any other railroads

operating over the crossing;

(b) Notify the highway traffic control authority having

jurisdiction over the crossing; and

(c) Provide or arrange for alternative means of actively warning

motorists of approaching trains, consistent with the following

requirements:

(1) If an appropriately equipped flagger or law enforcement officer

is providing warning for each direction of highway traffic, trains may

proceed through the crossing at normal speed;

(2) If there is not an appropriately equipped flagger or law

enforcement officer providing warning for each direction of highway

traffic, trains may proceed with caution through the crossing at a

speed not exceeding 10 miles per hour. Normal speed may be resumed

after the locomotive has passed through the crossing; or

(3) In lieu of complying with paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this

section, a railroad may temporarily take the warning system out of

service if the railroad complies with all requirements of Sec. 234.105,

``Activation failure''; and

(d) A locomotive's audible warning device shall be activated in

accordance with railroad rules regarding the approach to a grade

crossing.

Sec. 234.109 Recordkeeping.

(a) Each railroad shall keep records pertaining to compliance with

this subpart. Each railroad shall keep the following information for

each report of warning system malfunction:

(1) Location of crossing (by highway name and DOT/AAR Crossing

Inventory Number);

(2) Time and date of receipt by railroad of report of malfunction;

(3) Actions taken by railroad prior to repair and reactivation of

repaired system; and

(4) Time and date of repair.

(b) Each railroad shall retain for at least one year all records

referred to in paragraph (a) of this section. Records required to be

kept shall be made available to FRA as provided by section 208 of the

Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 437).

Subpart D--Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing

Maintenance Standards

Sec. 234.201 Location of plans.

Plans and other information required for proper maintenance and

testing shall be kept at each highway-rail grade crossing warning

system location. Plans shall be legible and correct.

Sec. 234.203 Design of control circuits on closed circuit principle.

All control circuits that affect the safe operation of a highway-

rail grade crossing warning system shall be designed on the closed

circuit principle.

Sec. 234.205 Operating characteristics of warning system apparatus.

Operating characteristics of electromagnetic, electronic, or

electrical apparatus of each crossing warning system shall be

maintained in accordance with the limits within which the system is

designed to operate.

Sec. 234.207 Adjustment, repair, or replacement of component.

(a) When any essential component of a highway-rail grade crossing

warning system fails to perform its intended function, the cause shall

be determined and the faulty component adjusted, repaired, or replaced

without undue delay.

(b) Until repair of an essential component is completed, a railroad

shall take appropriate action under Sec. 234.105, ``Activation

failure,'' or Sec. 234.107, ``False activation,'' of this part.

Sec. 234.209 Interference with normal functioning of system.

The normal functioning of any system shall not be interfered with

in testing or otherwise without first taking measures to provide for

safety of highway traffic that depends on normal functioning of such

system.

Sec. 234.211 Locking of warning system apparatus.

Highway-rail grade crossing warning system apparatus shall be

secured against unauthorized entry.

Sec. 234.213 Grounds.

Each circuit that affects the proper functioning of a highway-rail

grade crossing warning system shall be kept free of any ground or

combination of grounds that will permit a current flow of 75 percent or

more of the release value of any relay or electromagnetic device in the

circuit. This requirement does not apply to: circuits that include

track rail; alternating current power distribution circuits that are

grounded in the interest of safety; and common return wires of grounded

common return single break circuits.

Sec. 234.215 Standby battery and indicator or alarm.

(a) If alternating current power is used as the primary source of

power, a standby battery source of power shall be provided. Each

battery shall be maintained in accordance with specifications of the

manufacturer. An indicator, visible from the cab of the locomotive of a

passing train, or an alarm, transmitted to a designated location, shall

be used to indicate that alternating current power is off.

(b) Battery capacity shall be designed and maintained to provide at

least 48 hours of normal operations of the crossing warning device when

primary battery-charging current is removed.

Sec. 234.217 Flashing light units.

(a) Each flashing light unit shall be positioned and aligned in

accordance with installation plans.

(b) Each flashing light unit shall be maintained to prevent dust

and moisture from entering the interior of the unit. Roundels shall be

clean and in good condition.

(c) All light units shall flash alternately. The number of flashes

per minute for each light unit shall be 35 minimum and 55 maximum.

Sec. 234.219 Gate arm lights and light cable.

Each gate arm light shall be visible to approaching highway users.

Lights and light wire shall be secured to the gate arm.

Sec. 234.221 Lamp voltage.

The voltage at each lamp shall be maintained at not less than 85

percent of the prescribed rating for the lamp.

Sec. 234.223 Gate arm.

Each gate arm, when in the downward position, shall extend across

each lane of approaching highway traffic and shall be maintained in a

condition sufficient to be clearly viewed by approaching motorists.

Each gate arm shall start its downward motion not less than three

seconds after flashing lights begin to operate and shall assume the

horizontal position at least five seconds before the arrival of any

train at the crossing.

Sec. 234.225 Activation of warning system.

A highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall activate to

provide a minimum of 20 seconds warning time before the grade crossing

is occupied by rail traffic.

Sec. 234.227 Train detection apparatus.

(a) Train detection apparatus shall detect the presence of a train

or railcar when any part of a train detection circuit is occupied. The

train detection circuit shall extend through the entire approach

sections of the grade crossing and include the fouling section of a

turnout.

(b) When an active highway-rail grade crossing is occupied by a

train or railcar, the warning system shall continue to operate until

such train or railcar clears the roadway.

(c) If there are no other movements within the limits of the

warning circuit, the warning system shall discontinue operation after

the train or railcar passes the point of fouling the crossing.

(d) If the presence of sand, rust, dirt, grease, or other foreign

matter is known to prevent effective shunting, a railroad shall take

appropriate action under Sec. 234.105, ``Activation failure,'' to

safeguard motor vehicle operation.

Sec. 234.229 Shunting sensitivity.

Each highway-rail grade crossing train detection circuit shall

detect the presence of a shunt of 0.06 ohm resistance when the shunt is

connected across the track rails of the circuit, including fouling

sections of turnouts.

Sec. 234.231 Fouling wires.

Each set of fouling wires in a highway-rail grade crossing train

detection circuit shall consist of at least two discrete conductors.

Each conductor shall be of sufficient conductivity and shall be

maintained in such condition that the train detection apparatus will be

in its most restrictive state when the train detection circuit is

shunted.

Sec. 234.233 Rail joints.

Each rail joint located within the limits of a highway-rail grade

crossing train detection circuit shall be bonded by means other than

joint bars to ensure electrical conductivity.

Sec. 234.235 Insulated rail joints.

Each insulated rail joint used to separate train detection circuits

of a highway-rail grade crossing shall prevent current from flowing

between rails separated by the insulation in an amount sufficient to

cause a failure of the train detection circuit.

Sec. 234.237 Switch equipped with circuit controller.

A switch, when equipped with a switch circuit controller connected

to the point and interconnected with warning system circuitry, shall be

maintained so that the warning system can only be cut out when the

switch point is within one-half inch of full reverse position.

Sec. 234.239 Tagging of wires and interference of wires or tags with

signal apparatus.

Each wire shall be tagged or otherwise so marked that it can be

identified at each terminal. Tags and other marks of identification

shall be made of insulating material and so arranged that tags and

wires do not interfere with moving parts of the apparatus.

Sec. 234.241 Protection of insulated wire; splice in underground wire.

Insulated wire shall be protected from mechanical injury. The

insulation shall not be punctured for test purposes. A splice in

underground wire shall have insulation resistance at least equal to

that of the wire spliced.

Sec. 234.243 Wire on pole line and aerial cable.

Wire on a pole line shall be securely attached to an insulator that

is properly fastened to a crossarm or bracket supported by a pole or

other support. Wire shall not interfere with, or be interfered with by,

other wires on the pole line. Aerial cable shall be supported by

messenger wire. An open-wire transmission line operating at voltage of

750 volts or more shall be placed not less than 4 feet above the

nearest crossarm carrying active warning system circuits.

Sec. 234.245 Signs.

Each sign mounted on a highway-rail grade crossing signal post

shall be maintained in good condition and be visible to the motorist.

Standards for such signs are found in Part VIII (``Traffic Control

Systems for Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings'') of the MUTCD.

Inspections and Tests

Sec. 234.247 Purpose of inspections and tests; removal from service of

relay or device failing to meet test requirements.

The following inspections and tests shall be made to determine if

the apparatus and equipment is maintained in a condition to perform its

intended function. Any electronic device, relay, or other

electromagnetic device that fails to meet the requirements of tests

required by this part shall be removed from service and shall not be

restored to service until its operating characteristics are in

accordance with the limits within which such device or relay is

designed to operate.

Sec. 234.249 Ground tests.

A test for grounds on each energy bus furnishing power to circuits

that affect the safety of warning system operation shall be made when

such energy bus is placed in service and at least once each month

thereafter.

Sec. 234.251 Battery voltage.

Battery voltage shall be checked at the battery, with battery-

charging current removed, at least once each month.

Sec. 234.253 Flashing light units and lamp voltage.

(a) Each flashing light unit shall be inspected when installed and

at least once every twelve months for alignment, focus, and frequency

of flashes in accordance with installation specifications shown on the

plans.

(b) Lamp voltage shall be tested when installed and at least once

every 12 months thereafter.

(c) Each flashing light unit shall be inspected for dirt and damage

to roundels at least once each month.

Sec. 234.255 Gate arm and gate mechanism.

(a) Each gate arm and gate mechanism shall be inspected at least

once each month.

(b) Gate arm movement shall be observed for proper operation at

least once each month.

(c) Hold-clear devices shall be tested for proper operation at

least once every 12 months.

Sec. 234.257 Warning system operation.

(a) Each highway-rail crossing warning system shall be tested to

determine that it functions as intended when it is placed in service.

Thereafter, it shall be tested at least once each month and whenever

modified or disarranged.

(b) Warning bells or other stationary audible warning devices shall

be tested when installed to determine that they function as intended.

Thereafter, they shall be tested at least once each month and whenever

modified or disarranged.

Sec. 234.259 Warning time.

Each crossing warning system shall be tested for the prescribed

warning time at least once every three months.

Sec. 234.261 Highway traffic signal pre-emption.

Highway traffic signal pre-emption interconnections, for which a

railroad has maintenance responsibility, shall be tested at least once

each month.

Sec. 234.263 Relays.

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (b) of this section, each relay

that affects the proper functioning of a crossing warning system shall

be tested at least once every four years.

(b)(1) Alternating current vane type relays, direct current polar

type relays, and relays with soft iron magnetic structure shall be

tested at least once every two years.

(2) Alternating current centrifigal type relays shall be tested at

least once every 12 months.

Sec. 234.265 Timing relays and timing devices.

Each timing relay and timing device shall be tested at least once

every twelve months. The timing shall be maintained at not less than 90

percent nor more than 110 percent of the predetermined time interval.

The predetermined time interval shall be shown on the plans or marked

on the timing relay or timing device.

Sec. 234.267 Insulation resistance tests.

(a) Insulation resistance tests shall be made when wires or cables

are installed and at least once every ten years thereafter.

(b) Insulation resistance tests shall be made between all

conductors and ground, between conductors in each multiple conductor

cable, and between conductors in trunking. Insulation resistance tests

shall be performed when wires, cables, and insulation are dry.

(c) Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, when insulation

resistance of wire or cable is found to be less than 500,000 ohms,

prompt action shall be taken to repair or replace the defective wire or

cable. Until such defective wire or cable is replaced, insulation

resistance tests shall be made annually.

(d) A circuit with a conductor having an insulation resistance of

less than 200,000 ohms shall not be used.

Sec. 234.269 Cut-out circuits.

Each cut-out circuit shall be tested at least once every three

months to determine that the circuit functions as intended.

Sec. 234.271 Insulated rail joints, bond wires, and track connections.

Insulated rail joints, bond wires, and track connections shall be

inspected at least once every three months.

Sec. 234.273 Results of tests.

(a) Results of tests made in compliance with this part shall be

recorded on forms provided by the railroad, or by electronic means,

subject to approval by the Associate Administrator for Safety. Each

record shall show the name of the railroad, AAR/DOT inventory number,

place and date, equipment tested, results of tests, repairs,

replacements, adjustments made, and condition in which the apparatus

was left.

(b) Each record shall be signed or electronically coded by the

employee making the test and shall be filed in the office of a

supervisory official having jurisdiction.

(c) Each record shall be retained until the next record for that

test is filed but in no case for less than one year.

(d) If a railroad elects to use an electronic means for recording

and signing results of tests, such means must be approved by the

Associate Administrator for Safety prior to use.

Issued in Washington D.C. on January 11, 1994.

Jolene M. Molitoris,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-1257 Filed 1-19-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P