[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87166-87225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25042]



[[Page 87165]]

Vol. 89

Thursday,

No. 211

October 31, 2024

Part IV





 Department of Transportation





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





 Federal Transit Administration





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





49 CFR Part 671





Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 87166]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

49 CFR Part 671

[Docket No. FTA-2023-0024]
RIN 2132-AB41


Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is publishing a final 
rule for minimum safety standards for rail transit roadway worker 
protection (RWP) to ensure the safe operation of public transportation 
systems and to prevent safety events, fatalities, and injuries to 
transit workers who may access the roadway in the performance of work. 
This final rule applies to rail transit agencies (RTAs) covered by the 
State Safety Oversight (SSO) program, SSO agencies (SSOAs), and rail 
transit workers who access the roadway to perform work. This final rule 
sets minimum standards for RWP program elements, including an RWP 
manual and track access guide; requirements for on-track safety and 
supervision, job safety briefings, good faith safety challenges, and 
reporting unsafe acts and conditions and near-misses; development and 
implementation of risk-based redundant protections for workers; and 
establishment of RWP training and qualification and RWP compliance 
monitoring activities. RTAs are expected to comply with these Federal 
standards as a baseline and use their existing Safety Management System 
(SMS) processes to determine any additional mitigations appropriate to 
address the level of RWP risk identified. This final rule requires 
SSOAs to oversee and enforce implementation of the RWP program 
requirements.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is December 2, 2024.

ADDRESSES: FTA's Office of Transit Safety and Oversight (TSO) will host 
a webinar to discuss the requirements of the RWP final rule. Please 
visit https://www.transit.dot.gov/TSOWebinars to register for webinars 
and for information about future webinars. FTA is committed to 
providing equal access for all webinar participants. If you need 
alternative formats, options, or services, contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bafceefb97f1d4d5cdd6dfdedddffaded5ce94ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0b6a4b1ddbb9e9f879c95949795b0949f84de979f86">[email protected]</span></a> at least three business days prior to the event. If 
you have any questions, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8feecf995f3d6d7cfd4dddcdfddf8dcd7cc96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="410715006c0a2f2e362d2425262401252e356f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program matters, contact Ms. 
Margaretta ``Mia'' Veltri, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, FTA, 
telephone at (202) 366-5094 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b666a796c6a796e7f7f6a257d6e677f79624b6f647f256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="acc1cddecbcddec9d8d8cd82dac9c0d8dec5ecc8c3d882cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>. For legal 
matters, contact Ms. Emily Jessup, Attorney Advisor, FTA, telephone at 
(202) 366-8907 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03666e6a6f7a2d69667070767343676c772d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e7b7377726730747b6d6d6b6e5e7a716a30797168">[email protected]</span></a>. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. 
to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose and Summary of Regulatory Action
    B. Statutory Authority
    C. Summary of Key Provisions
    D. Summary of Economic Analysis
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Response to Comments
    A. General
    B. Section 671.1--Purpose and Applicability
    C. Section 671.3--Policy
    D. Section 671.5--Definitions
    E. Section 671.11--RWP Program
    F. Section 671.13--RWP Manual
    G. Section 671.21--Rail Transit Worker
    H. Section 671.23--Transit Worker
    I. Section 671.25--State Safety Oversight Agency
    J. Section 671.31--Roadway Worker in Charge Requirements
    K. Section 671.33--Job Safety Briefing Policies
    L. Section 671.35--Lone Worker
    M. Section 671.37--Good Faith Safety Challenge
    N. Section 671.39--Risk-Based Redundant Protections
    O. Section 671.41--RWP Training and Qualification Program
    P. Section 671.43--RWP Compliance Monitoring Program
    Q. Section 671.51--Recordkeeping
    R. Benefits and Costs
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose and Summary of Regulatory Action

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted the principles 
and methods of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis for 
enhancing the safety of public transportation in the United States. As 
part of its internal SMS, FTA established a Safety Risk Management 
(SRM) program to proactively address safety concerns impacting the 
transit industry and to systematically apply FTA's statutory oversight 
authority to improve the safety of the nation's transit infrastructure 
through the Public Transportation Safety Program.
    The process follows a five-step approach: (1) identify safety 
concerns; (2) assess safety risk; (3) develop mitigation; (4) implement 
mitigation; and (5) monitor safety performance. In general, as a result 
of the first two steps, FTA may develop and advance appropriate 
mitigations to address a safety hazard, such as safety regulations, 
general or special directives, safety advisories, or technical 
assistance and training activities.
    In 2019, FTA began piloting the SRM process to focus on high-
priority safety risks and identified the roadway worker protection 
(RWP) safety concern as a topic for analysis. As part of FTA's 
assessment of the safety risk, FTA reviewed the rail transit industry's 
existing approaches to RWP. This review showed that on a national 
level, these approaches do not adequately protect transit workers from 
rail transit vehicles and other roadway hazards. As a result, FTA 
determined that a Federal baseline RWP program is an appropriate 
mitigation and is issuing this regulation to reduce fatalities and 
serious injury events involving rail transit workers that must access 
the roadway in the performance of their work.
    This final rule requires rail transit agencies (RTAs) covered by 
the State Safety Oversight (SSO) program under 49 CFR part 674 (part 
674) to implement a baseline RWP program to provide a standardized and 
consistent approach to protecting roadway workers industry-wide, 
overseen and enforced by State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSOAs).
    This final rule prohibits the use of individual rail transit 
vehicle detection as a sole form of protection for workers on the 
roadway. It sets requirements for RTAs to conduct a safety risk 
assessment, use their existing documented SRM processes required under 
the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) regulation at 49 
CFR part 673 (part 673), to identify and establish redundant 
protections for each category of work that roadway workers perform on 
the roadway or track. Redundant protections may include procedures, 
such as foul time and advance warning systems, and also physical 
protections to stop trains in advance of workers, such as derailers and 
shunts. The SSOA must review and approve the RTA's RWP program, 
including the safety risk assessment and redundant protections.
    The safety risk assessment must be consistent with the RTA's Agency 
Safety Plan (ASP) and the SSOA's program standard. RTAs may supplement 
the safety risk assessment with engineering assessments, inputs from 
the Safety Assurance process

[[Page 87167]]

established under Sec.  673.27, the results of safety event 
investigations, and other SRM strategies and approaches.
    To ensure effective implementation and oversight of the RWP program 
and redundant protections, this final rule also requires RWP training 
and compliance-monitoring activities, supplemented by near-miss 
reporting and SSOA oversight and auditing.

B. Statutory Authority

    Congress directed FTA to establish a Public Transportation Safety 
Program in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. 
L. 112-141) (MAP-21), which was reauthorized by the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94), and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58). FTA is authorized to regulate public 
transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 
Chapter 53 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.). FTA's safety 
program is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5329.
    49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7) authorizes FTA to issue rules to carry out the 
Public Transportation Safety Program, and 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2) directs 
FTA to develop and implement a National Public Transportation Safety 
Plan (National Safety Plan) that includes minimum safety standards to 
ensure the safe operation of public transportation systems. In 2017, 
FTA published its first iteration of the National Safety Plan, which 
was intended to be FTA's primary tool for communicating with the 
transit industry about safety performance (82 FR 5628). Subsequently, 
on April 10, 2024, FTA published an updated version of the National 
Safety Plan (89 FR 25316). While FTA has previously published a 
National Safety Plan document that includes only voluntary standards, 
49 U.S.C. 5329(f) provides FTA with the discretion and authority to 
issue mandatory minimum standards to ensure the safe operation of 
public transportation systems that consider, to the extent practicable, 
relevant recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB), best practices standards developed by the public transportation 
industry, any minimum safety standards or performance criteria being 
implemented across the public transportation industry, as well as any 
additional information that the Secretary determines necessary and 
appropriate. FTA's RWP rule establishes minimum standards that consider 
and are responsive to NTSB recommendations that focus on the need for 
Federal regulation and minimum RWP requirements, best practices and 
voluntary standards issued by the American Public Transportation 
Association (APTA), as well as the results of research and safety event 
reviews conducted by FTA.

C. Summary of Key Provisions

    This final rule establishes minimum safety standards to protect 
transit workers who may access the roadway in the performance of work.
    The final rule requires each RTA to adopt and implement an RWP 
program to improve transit worker safety that is consistent with 
Federal and State safety requirements and is approved by its SSOA. The 
RWP program must be documented in a dedicated RWP manual, which 
includes the following: (1) terminology, abbreviations, and acronyms 
used to describe the RWP program activities and requirements; (2) RWP 
program elements; (3) a definition of RTA and transit worker 
responsibilities for the RWP program; (4) training, qualification, and 
supervision required for transit workers to access the roadway, by 
labor category or type of work performed; and (5) processes and 
procedures to provide adequate on-track safety for all transit workers 
who may access the roadway in the performance of their work, including 
safety and oversight personnel.
    The RWP manual must include or incorporate by reference a track 
access guide to support on-track safety. The track access guide must be 
based on a physical survey of the track geometry and condition of the 
transit system.
    The final rule requires the RTA to completely review and update its 
RWP manual at least every two years. Updates to the manual must reflect 
current conditions, lessons learned in implementing the RWP program as 
described in the manual, and information provided by the SSOA and FTA. 
The first review must be conducted within two years of the SSOA's 
initial approval of the RWP manual.
    The final rule prohibits the use of individual rail transit vehicle 
detection. Each RTA is required to conduct a safety risk assessment to 
identify redundant protections for all workers to be included in the 
RWP program and manual. Protections must be based on the category of 
work being performed. Tasks demanding more attention from roadway 
workers, including the use of tools and equipment, may require RTAs to 
implement greater levels of protection based on the results of the 
safety risk assessment.
    In addition, the final rule requires comprehensive job safety 
briefings, a good faith safety challenge provision, and required 
reporting of near-misses. Formal training and qualification programs 
are required for all workers who access the roadway. RTAs also must 
adopt a program for RWP program compliance auditing and monitoring.
    SSOAs are responsible for approving, overseeing, and enforcing 
implementation of the requirements in the final rule for each RTA in 
their jurisdiction, including the RWP manual and supporting training 
and qualification programs.
Summary of Changes
    FTA made revisions throughout the rule in response to comments. FTA 
also made non-substantive technical edits throughout the rule to 
correct citations and typographical errors and for clarity.
    In response to questions about the timeframe for implementation of 
the new RWP program requirements, FTA has included a provision in the 
final rule that provides RTAs with one year from the effective date of 
the rule to develop a compliant RWP program and obtain SSOA approval. 
FTA made changes to several definitions used throughout the rule. Those 
specific changes are detailed in II.D. below. FTA struck the word 
``all'' from the SSOA requirement to review training and qualification 
records for transit workers who must enter a track zone to perform work 
at Sec.  671.25(c)(2)(i)(E).
    FTA added language at Sec.  671.31(a)(5) that clarifies that the 
RTA may designate a single roadway worker in charge for the entire 
working limit and that, if a single roadway worker in charge is 
designated over multiple work groups within a working limit, each work 
group should be accompanied by an employee qualified to the level of a 
roadway worker in charge who shall be responsible for direct 
communication with the roadway worker in charge.
    FTA updated Sec.  671.31(b)(2) to clarify that in the event of an 
emergency, the roadway worker in charge must warn each roadway worker 
to immediately leave the roadway and not return until on-track safety 
is reestablished and a job safety briefing is completed.
    At Sec.  671.33(b)(3), FTA removed references to Federal Railroad 
Administration and Occupation Safety and Health Administration 
guidance, and added, as clarification, the requirement for job safety 
briefing elements to explicitly address the status of power and hazards 
explicitly related to electrified system for RTAs with

[[Page 87168]]

electrified systems. FTA also added general emergency response 
information at Sec.  671.33(b)(4) and the inclusion of an emergency 
contact number for the roadway worker in charge at Sec.  671.33(b)(8).
    FTA revised Sec.  671.33(c)(2) to clarify requirements for roadway 
workers to individually acknowledge, in writing, both the receipt and 
understanding of the job safety briefing and the requirement to use 
required personal protective equipment. In addition, FTA updated the 
language in Sec.  671.33(c)(3) to clarify that the roadway worker in 
charge confirms in writing that they have received written 
acknowledgement of the job safety briefing from roadway workers rather 
than attesting that each roadway worker understands the job safety 
briefing.
    FTA also revised the language in Sec.  671.33(d) to require a 
follow-up briefing in the event of a change in on-track safety 
conditions.
    The good faith safety challenge process at Sec.  671.37(c) has been 
revised for clarity. The rule now explicitly clarifies that the roadway 
work group must remain clear of the roadway or track zone until a 
challenge and refusal is resolved.
    FTA also updated Sec.  671.39(a)(2) to clarify FTA's intent that it 
is the RTA's responsibility to establish redundant protections to 
ensure on-track safety for multiple roadway groups within a common work 
area.
    FTA has revised Sec.  671.39(d)(2) to clarify that redundant 
protections may include but are not limited to the listed protections.
    FTA changed the frequency of the RWP Compliance Monitoring Program 
reporting from monthly to quarterly (Sec.  671.43(b)(1)).

D. Summary of Economic Analysis

    The final rule, which sets minimum safety standards for RWP 
programs, will benefit roadway workers by reducing their risk of 
fatalities and injuries. FTA analyzed national transit worker safety 
data from 2008 to 2020 and identified safety events that would have 
been prevented if agencies had implemented the protections required by 
this final rule. On average, the rule would prevent an estimated 1.2 
fatalities and 2.4 injuries per year, resulting in annual safety 
benefits of $16.2 million in undiscounted 2023 dollars. To meet the 
minimum safety standards, RTAs and SSOAs would incur an estimated $2.6 
million in start-up costs plus $13.7 million in ongoing annual costs. 
The largest ongoing annual costs are for redundant worker protections 
($6.4 million) and RWP training ($5.1 million).
    Table ES-1 summarizes the potential effects of the rule over a ten-
year analysis period from 2025 to 2034. In 2023 dollars, the rule would 
have annualized net benefits of $2.0 million at a 2 percent discount 
rate (discounted to 2025), $2.0 million at a 3 percent rate, and $1.8 
million at a 7 percent rate.

                                     Table ES-1--Summary of Economic Effects
                                       [2023 Dollars, discounted to 2025]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Annualized value   Annualized value   Annualized value
                          Item                              (2% discount       (3% discount       (7% discount
                                                               rate)              rate)              rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits...............................................        $15,835,205        $15,681,465        $15,095,242
Costs..................................................         13,840,028         13,721,849         13,273,086
Net benefits...........................................          1,995,177          1,959,615          1,822,156
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Response to Comments

    FTA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Rail Transit 
Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) on March 25, 2024 (89 FR 20605).\1\ The 
public comment period for the NPRM closed on May 24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection, 88 FR 20605 (March 
25, 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/25/2024-06251/rail-transit-roadway-worker-protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA received comments from over 7100 unique respondents, including 
RTAs, SSOAs, labor unions, industry businesses and organizations, 
private individuals, and the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB). FTA also received ex parte comments about the rulemaking, which 
are summarized in the rulemaking docket.
    FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration 
when developing this final rule. FTA addresses these comments in the 
corresponding sections below. Some comments were outside the scope of 
this rulemaking, and FTA does not respond to comments in this final 
rule that were outside the scope.
    In response to comments, FTA made several changes to the final rule 
which are summarized above and discussed in more detail in the 
corresponding sections below.

A. General

1. Support for Regulation
    Comments: FTA received 7,103 comments of support from individuals 
as part of a ``response campaign'' that provided a form letter for 
individuals to upload to the Federal Register along with their names 
and addresses. This letter expressed strong support for FTA's proposed 
rule aimed at protecting rail transit workers, including support for 
preventing unsafe working conditions on the rail transit roadway, 
acknowledgment that FTA's proposed rule aligns with long-standing 
recommendations from the NTSB, broad concern over worker safety and 
understaffing issues, and the urgency for finalizing and implementing 
the new rule quickly to save lives and prevent injuries.
    Some individuals personalized the form letter with additional 
comments. Most of these commenters agreed that rail transit workers are 
exposed to dangerous working conditions; should have the right to 
refuse to work in unsafe conditions; and should be able to report 
unsafe acts, conditions, and near-misses without fear of retaliation. 
Other personal comments emphasized the importance of a safe working 
environment. Some commenters included details about themselves or 
mentioned that family members or friends worked on the rail transit 
roadway. Many of these personal comments also expressed the need to 
address unsafe working conditions, long hours, understaffing, and the 
prioritization of profits over safety.
    FTA also received comments of support from the NTSB, three SSOAs, 
four RTAs, two industry associations, fourteen labor organizations, one 
vendor, and multiple individuals. These commenters generally applauded 
FTA for taking action to address roadway worker safety in the transit 
industry and were supportive of FTA establishing standardized and 
robust safety standards to protect these essential workers. Commenters 
noted that the rule would signal a significant shift for

[[Page 87169]]

the industry and emphasize the importance of ensuring that tasks are 
performed safely. Commenters urged FTA to act quickly to finalize this 
rule and noted support for the rule despite possible increased costs.
    The NTSB expressed appreciation for FTA's consideration of many of 
the NTSB's safety recommendations on this topic and support for the 
proposals that address specific NTSB safety recommendations.
    One SSOA commenter stated that the SSOA agrees with the purpose and 
intent of this proposal but suggested that RTAs should be allowed to 
comply with this rule in a manner that is not obstructive to 
operations. One SSOA commenter noted the important role SSOAs play in 
enforcing Federal requirements through auditing, inspections, 
deficiency resolution, and technical assistance. The commenter added 
that the SSOA supports many of the proposed changes, but suggested 
adjustments. Another SSOA commented that they are pleased that FTA 
recognizes the potential need for SSOAs to prescribe more stringent 
standards. The SSOA expressed support for specific requirements related 
to the proposed regulation's requirements that RTAs have an RWP manual, 
review and update it biennially, and share it with their SSOA. The 
commenter added that moving from piecemeal updates to a biennial update 
process, initial and refresher training requirements, and annual audits 
would lead to greater RTA compliance with RWP programs and improved 
worker safety.
    An RTA commenter expressed support for the proposed requirement 
that RTAs develop a track access guide for on-track safety. One 
industry association commenter stated that a mandated RWP program is 
something that freight industry contractors have become accustomed to 
and fully recognize as an essential part of roadway worker safety. 
Another industry association commenter stated that the association 
supports FTA's proposed regulation where it leverages existing program 
elements, when possible, to promote efficient enhancements of the 
regulatory framework; increases involvement from frontline transit 
workers in safety-related decision-making; promotes or requires the 
meaningful use of safety data for safety-related decision-making; and 
clarifies roles, responsibilities, and reporting thresholds needed to 
comply with the regulation. In addition, the industry association 
commenter encouraged FTA to continue to hone and clarify its regulatory 
language, strengthen meaningful collaboration and communication with 
agencies and organizations to develop its standards and minimum 
requirements, and provide clear and consistent guidance to transit and 
oversight agencies affected by the public transportation safety 
regulation. Another industry organization, the American Public 
Transportation Association (APTA), emphasized its support of FTA's 
efforts and strongly urged FTA to utilize the APTA standard for RWP, 
which it noted was recently updated and was prepared with input from a 
very diverse group of RTAs and business members.
    One labor organization commenter agreed with the alignment of on-
track safety regulations with the Federal Railroad Administration's 
(FRA) standards, which would ensure a heightened level of safety for 
workers as they carry out their daily responsibilities. Another labor 
organization commenter supported FTA's recommendations for aligning 
rail industry track worker safety with best-demonstrated practices that 
have proven beneficial to freight service engineers, conductors, and 
assistant conductors. The commenter also expressed support for FTA's 
proposal to implement job safety briefings, good faith safety 
challenges for workers whose safety is in jeopardy, additional formal 
safety training and qualifications for railroad workers whose duties 
involve being on and about the tracks, and full, formal reporting of 
near-misses or close calls that occur on or near railroad tracks. The 
commenter pointed out that all of the safety redundancies in the RWP 
are necessary and welcome. Another labor organization commented that it 
is hopeful that FTA will utilize this rulemaking process as a starting 
point to establish more specific and prescriptive RWP standards in the 
future. One international labor organization shared its trackwork 
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) clauses and Rail Safety 
Management Committee rules to assist FTA in further discussions and in 
the process of implementing new safety standards to protect railway 
workers and to improve the overall safety of public transport systems.
    One vendor suggested that FTA use clarified guidance, circulars, or 
appendices, as appropriate, to define these standards in line with 
industry best practice.
    An individual commenter noted that using the SSOAs as an oversight 
metric provides additional scrutiny to ensure compliance with safety 
standards. One individual commenter stated their strong support for 
FTA's new rule protecting rail workers and commented that the rule is 
necessary because of understaffing and increased assaults on transit 
workers. Another individual commenter stated their support for FTA's 
proposal to increase safety standards for rail transit roadway workers 
and added that anyone working on a roadway or near a railroad crossing 
deserves a safe work environment. One individual noted that they 
particularly support the proposed requirements for redundant 
protections and comprehensive safety risk assessments, which are vital 
for mitigating the unique dangers rail workers face. In addition, the 
commenter stated that the requirement to prohibit reliance on 
individual rail transit vehicle detection as the sole form of 
protection resonates with the need for multifaceted safety approaches. 
One individual commenter agreed that job safety briefings; good faith 
safety challenges; and reporting unsafe acts, conditions, and near-
misses would help with information transparency, allowing for increased 
transit worker safety. One individual commenter noted that the 
proposal's requirements to enhance job safety briefings and good faith 
safety challenges and establish clear protocols for reporting unsafe 
acts and conditions align with pro-union principles of empowering 
workers and ensuring that their voices are heard and acted upon in the 
workplace. One individual who commented noted that the proposal 
emphasizes the importance of adequate training and qualifications of 
rail transportation workers and the need to establish RWP-compliance-
monitoring activities.
    One anonymous individual commenter stated that FTA's emphasis on 
the importance of comprehensive safety protocols, notably the 
prohibition of sole reliance on individual rail transit vehicle 
detection, would ensure multiple layers of protection for railway 
workers.
    FTA Response: FTA appreciates the extensive support for this rule 
from all stakeholders advocating for RWP in the rail transit industry. 
FTA agrees with the many comments that support the need for this rule 
due to the exposure of transit workers to dangerous working conditions 
when performing duties on or near the roadway. FTA has developed this 
rule to address many of the concerns that supporters have voiced in 
their comments. FTA designed the rule to be flexible and to address 
risks and challenges that RTAs face, as well as competing priorities 
for safety in the rail transit environment. This rule is also designed 
and intended to provide protections together with existing safeguards 
and regulations, including the PTASP regulation (49 CFR part 673).

[[Page 87170]]

    FTA also appreciates the references and suggestions that commenters 
provided for rule development, including the considerations to align 
this rule with FRA standards and best practices, incorporate safety 
redundancies, reference the recently updated APTA standard for RWP, and 
review clauses from an international labor organization trackwork CBA 
and rules from the Rail Safety Management Committee to assist with 
development of the new RWP safety standards. As noted by many 
supporting commenters, the rule considers RWP-related NTSB 
recommendations as well as existing practices implemented through the 
FRA and RTAs that effectively support roadway worker safety. Some of 
these practices include requiring job safety briefings, instituting 
practices for good faith safety challenges to allow workers to refuse 
in good faith assignments in unsafe conditions, establishing a safety 
reporting program, ensuring adequate training and qualifications for 
workers, and ensuring multiple layers of protection for workers.
    FTA welcomes the support for the role of the SSOA in enforcing the 
RWP programs and practices at RTAs including the review of the RWP 
manuals and RWP program implementation. While a few SSOAs suggested 
more stringent timeframes for RWP manual updates, training 
requirements, and audit activities, FTA's rule does provide 
opportunities for SSOAs to go above and beyond its requirements, as 
appropriate, in order to effectively oversee and enforce RWP practices 
at the RTAs within their jurisdiction.
    FTA is encouraged to hear from a commenter that the freight 
industry has become accustomed to and fully recognizes RWP as an 
essential part of roadway worker safety. FTA also appreciates the 
support for the track access guide for on-track safety and the rule's 
application to railroad crossings.
    FTA confirms that this rulemaking is a starting point for RWP and 
will consider strengthening requirements through the rulemaking 
process, if necessary, in the future. As requested by a number of 
commenters, FTA will plan to provide further guidance on RWP practices 
outside of this final rule, as well as present opportunities for 
collaboration with the rail transit industry and SSOAs in sharing best 
practices on RWP.
    Finally, FTA is pleased to hear from many commenters that this rule 
signals a positive shift for the safety of rail transit RWP.
2. Implementation Timeframe
    Comments: One industry association, two RTAs, and one individual 
commented on the implementation timeframe for the rule. The industry 
association expressed concern with the requirement for RTAs to submit 
their RWP program and manual to the SSOA for initial approval within 90 
days, and strongly urged FTA to extend the deadline to at least 180 
days. One RTA remarked that developing, implementing, updating, and 
maintaining an RWP program, as well as addressing ``numerous downstream 
effects,'' will require a substantial investment of time and effort. 
The RTA noted that it is imperative that enough time is provided to 
safely roll out and manage a new rules program and suggested that FTA 
set an implementation period of no less than three years.
    Another RTA commented that transitioning to a new RWP program could 
be challenging for RTAs that will have to overhaul their existing 
safety protocols and stated that the regulation should provide a 
flexible timeline for implementation to allow agencies enough time to 
adapt to the new requirements without compromising current safety 
measures.
    One individual questioned why the regulation is just now going into 
effect and then asked how long it will take for everything to be put in 
place.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees with the commenter that 90 days would be 
an insufficient timeframe to accommodate the development of the RTA's 
RWP program. Further, FTA agrees that setting up an RWP program will 
take time and effort and may require RTAs to revise existing programs. 
FTA has included in the final rule a provision, at Sec.  671.1(d), that 
provides RTAs with one year from the effective date of the rule to 
develop an RWP program and manual and obtain SSOA approval. FTA 
believes that this one-year implementation timeframe balances the 
urgency of addressing RWP-related safety risk with the time and effort 
required by RTAs and SSOAs to comply with the rule requirements. FTA 
believes that the suggestion of three years is too long, given that FTA 
offers agencies significant flexibilities in how to structure their RWP 
programs under this rule, and recent FTA audits have revealed that 
unsafe conditions and practices persist in the industry and pose a 
substantial risk to workers.
    FTA notes that safety-related regulations for RTAs have been in 
place since the initial 49 CFR part 659 Rail Fixed Guideway Systems 
State Safety Oversight rule was finalized and went into effect January 
26, 1996. Since then, rail transit safety has seen improvements, and in 
some cases setbacks, and regular revisions of regulations have 
continued enhancing safety for the rail transit industry.
3. Standards
    Comments: One labor organization, one industry association, and one 
RTA provided comments related to RWP standards. The labor organization 
expressed concern over FTA's management-driven approach of issuing 
open-ended directives to address identified hazards instead of 
promulgating specific safety standards. They recommended that FTA adopt 
a standards-driven approach and develop specific standards for each 
element of the RWP program following the publication of this rule.
    One RTA and industry association (APTA) recommended that FTA adopt 
the APTA standards because they provide a solid foundation for the 
governing documents of a rail system and are meant to be scalable 
without being overly prescriptive.
    FTA Response: Due to the varying RTA operating characteristics and 
environments, this final rule establishes minimum standards as a 
baseline for rail transit RWP, which will provide important protections 
for workers. While FTA did not adopt APTA's standards, in developing 
this rule FTA did consider APTA's standards along with FTA's internal 
Safety Risk Assessment findings, NTSB recommendations, FRA regulations, 
California General Order No. 175-A regulations, common industry 
practices, and recommendations from the Transit Advisory Committee for 
Safety (TRACS). FTA declines to adopt wholesale any of the above-
mentioned RWP standards and views the requirements finalized in this 
final rule as most appropriate for the transit industry. FTA notes that 
the final rule allows RTAs and SSOAs to establish additional or more 
stringent rules that are consistent with this part. FTA believes that 
it would be difficult to develop standards for all RWP elements that 
would be appropriate for the varying sizes of agencies subject to this 
rule. However, FTA will continue to monitor RWP safety concerns after 
the implementation of this rule to ensure effectiveness and may take 
additional action in the future.
4. Other Comments
    Comments: One SSOA, one labor organization, one individual, two 
RTAs, and the NTSB provided additional

[[Page 87171]]

general comments on FTA's proposed part 671. The SSOA suggested that 
FTA should use the term ``Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan 
(PTASP)'' rather than ``Agency Safety Plan (ASP)'' since ``PTASP'' is 
defined throughout Federal regulations and is used as an industry 
standard for consistency with Federal statute and regulation.
    The labor organization suggested that FTA provide a process for 
RTAs to request a variance where the RTAs can propose an alternative 
approach that does not compromise roadway worker safety to address any 
concerns regarding flexibility (size and scope) for RTAs. The commenter 
emphasized that FTA must take responsibility for enforcing standards 
and discouraged RTA self-monitoring, citing that this practice has 
contributed to the troubling roadway worker safety record that 
necessitated the proposed rule. Similarly, regarding implementation and 
oversight of the RWP requirements, an individual recommended FTA 
increase monitoring and evaluation of local implementation to ensure 
these measures are effective and support safety improvements for rail 
transit workers.
    The NTSB encouraged FTA to address Safety Recommendation R-14-41 in 
future rulemaking, which recommends that FTA revise its SSO program 
regulation to require all federally funded rail transit properties to 
comply with certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) requirements.
    An RTA commenter noted that the proposed rule will impact how an 
RTA handles city permits, traffic control, maintenance, and operations. 
The commenter added that allowing flexibility in following the law will 
help RTAs better protect transit workers in a format consistent with 
the rule's intent and meet industry best practices. Another RTA asked 
FTA to consider the burden that this and other additional regulations 
place on small transit providers and consider that regulations that 
might be manageable for larger systems could be overwhelming for small 
urban and rural transit systems, especially given their limited labor 
pool and high-cost operating environment. The commenter warned that 
implementing new regulations before recent PTASP requirements are fully 
adopted may not be sustainable with existing resources and funding 
levels.
    FTA Response: FTA uses the acronym ``PTASP'' to refer to the 
regulation, 49 CFR part 673, and to describe associated regulatory 
requirements established in part 673. FTA uses the acronym ``ASP'' to 
refer to the agency safety plan required by the PTASP regulation. FTA 
reiterates that, due to the varying RTA operating characteristics and 
environments, this final rule establishes minimum safety standards as a 
baseline for rail transit RWP and allows RTAs flexibility in developing 
RWP programs. Because there is significant flexibility in how RTAs can 
interpret and implement protections, FTA does not believe a formal 
process for requesting a variance is necessary. Congress has delegated 
direct safety oversight of RTAs to the SSOAs through 49 U.S.C. 5329(e). 
Therefore, FTA believes that the SSOA is best equipped to provide 
first-level oversight of compliance with this rule that goes beyond RTA 
self-monitoring. FTA will continue to monitor SSOA oversight through 
existing processes and will receive RTA RWP programs from the SSOAs 
following their approval.
    FTA confirms that it will consider the NTSB recommendation for 
potential future efforts.
    FTA is mindful of burdens on localities and small RTAs and 
reiterates that this final rule allows RTAs flexibility in developing 
RWP programs that best fit an RTA's needs based on operating 
characteristics and environments. For small urban and rural systems, 
FTA expects that RWP programs developed by these systems may be less 
complex, and therefore may not significantly impact staffing needs. FTA 
will provide additional technical assistance to smaller transit 
providers regarding the expectations of the rule. Additionally, as 
noted above, FTA is including in the final rule a provision that 
provides RTAs a one-year implementation timeframe to finalize their RWP 
programs and obtain SSOA approval, by which time all agencies subject 
to PTASP will have fully adopted the updated requirements under part 
673.

B. Section 671.1--Purpose and Applicability

    FTA received submissions from 16 commenters related to Sec.  
671.1's proposed requirements.
1. Flexibility and Scalability
    Comments: FTA received comments from SSOAs, RTAs, an industry 
association, and individuals regarding the flexibility and scalability 
of the proposed rule. One commenter emphasized that FTA should consider 
the particular needs and realities of RTAs because operating 
environments and technical conditions among RTAs vary significantly. 
The commenter recommended that FTA work with local safety regulators 
and railroad operators before the regulation is implemented to ensure 
the regulation considers local specifics. One SSOA and multiple RTAs 
noted that the proposed requirements appear to focus on larger RTA 
systems and the safety events occurring on those systems and 
recommended that FTA consider how the size of an RTA system will impact 
the RTA's implementation of RWP requirements.
    Two SSOAs, several RTAs, and one industry association expressed 
their view that the proposals did not sufficiently consider different 
levels of risk and operating environments and may be burdensome or 
unattainable for street-running streetcar systems, inclined planes, or 
systems in similar environments and small and medium-sized RTAs in 
small urban or rural communities. The RTAs and an SSOA emphasized the 
need for scalability, including one RTA request that the rule be 
flexible or that FTA grant waivers or alternatives at a scaled-down 
level for RTAs that do not experience the same roadway worker risk as 
heavy rail agencies. One industry association requested a bifurcated 
final rule that imposes requirements that are commensurate with the 
system size and level of risk, while another industry association 
advocated for a nationally recognized program consistent with the 
regulation with consideration for the nuances of different operations. 
A commenter suggested that differentiating rule requirements between 
types of rail systems will help RTAs track what is more applicable to 
their systems.
    FTA Response: FTA acknowledges commenters' concerns regarding the 
applicability of the rule for diverse RTAs providing service in 
different operating environments, under different operating plans, with 
different equipment and conditions, and with varying levels of 
associated risk. FTA intends the rule to be flexible enough to allow 
RTAs to craft an RWP program that complies with the RWP program 
requirements and fits the size and complexity of each agency. While FTA 
agrees that larger and heavy rail systems may experience more frequent 
RWP-related events or have a need for a more robust RWP program, FTA 
believes that hazards exist on and near the roadway for all RTAs, 
regardless of size. FTA has considered the difference in size and 
operating environments across the country and anticipates that RWP 
programs will not look the same due to the variability of needs. For 
example, the requirement for redundant protections prescribes that 
agencies use a safety risk assessment to implement protections that are 
proportional to the

[[Page 87172]]

RTA's determined risk, which will not be the same across agencies.
    Smaller systems may opt to develop RWP programs and correlated 
documentation that are briefer and more basic based on the RTA's self-
assessed level of risk, while larger and more complex systems will 
necessarily have more complex and detailed RWP programs.
    While FTA acknowledges that a bifurcated rule could potentially 
create more specific requirements based on the size of the RTA, FTA 
believes it would be difficult, even in a bifurcated rule, to address 
the nuances of various RTAs' operating practices and environments more 
fully. FTA believes the rule is sufficiently flexible to address all 
system sizes and therefore that it does not need to be bifurcated. 
Likewise, FTA declines to establish a nationally recognized program 
consistent with the regulation, as a national program would face the 
same challenge of attempting to cover the nuances of various operators.
2. Revenue Service
    Comments: FTA received comments from one RTA and one industry 
association seeking clarification on whether the rule would apply to 
vehicles on storage tracks and/or during the design and construction of 
a system, or whether the rule applies only to vehicles in revenue 
service. The industry organization recommended that the requirements 
apply only when trains are in revenue service because of the difference 
in risks.
    FTA Response: To protect workers against various hazards, FTA 
confirms that this rule applies to any rail fixed guideway public 
transportation system, including those in engineering or construction. 
In FTA's safety risk analysis of hazards associated with RWP, it was 
determined that hazards are not limited to times when vehicles are in 
revenue service. FTA is aware of RWP-related safety events that have 
involved other on-track rail equipment, outside of revenue service 
times and off revenue service tracks. As such, FTA has defined ``on-
track safety'' to mean freedom from the danger of being struck by a 
moving rail transit vehicle or other equipment,'' which includes non-
revenue service vehicles. While there may be a difference in the level 
of risk between revenue and non-revenue service, FTA believes that all 
transit workers working on revenue and non-revenue service will benefit 
from the protections identified by this rule.
3. Roadway Workers and Transit Workers
    Comments: FTA received several comments requesting clarification of 
the difference between ``roadway workers'' and ``transit workers'' and 
their respective responsibilities under the regulation. One RTA 
commenter recommended that the RWP program be specific to roadway 
workers and not include transit workers. One vendor suggested modifying 
the end of Sec.  671.1(c) to remove the language ``in the performance 
of work,'' which they commented would broaden the applicability of the 
rule. An RTA and an industry association suggested adding language to 
Sec.  671.1(c) to specify that this part applies to transit workers who 
``perform work within a track zone'' to clarify the applicability of 
the rule.
    FTA Response: FTA appreciates the request to clarify the difference 
between the terms ``transit workers'' and ``roadway workers'' as used 
throughout the rule. FTA intends for the rule to provide protection for 
all transit workers who access the roadway to perform work. FTA has 
defined a ``transit worker'' to mean ``any employee, contractor, or 
volunteer working on behalf of the RTA or SSOA.'' In comparison, a 
``roadway worker means a transit worker whose duties involve 
inspection, construction, maintenance, repairs, or providing on-track 
safety such as flag persons and watchpersons on or near the roadway or 
right-of-way or with the potential of fouling track.'' In other words, 
not all transit workers will be roadway workers. Because FTA intends 
for RWP policies, process, and procedures to prevent safety events for 
all transit workers, not just roadway workers, FTA disagrees with the 
suggestion to make the rule specific to ``roadway workers.''
    FTA declines to revise Sec.  671.1(c) as suggested by commenters 
because FTA believes the language in Sec.  671.1(c) is sufficiently 
clear and has identified the individuals subject to the rule 
requirements throughout the regulation.
4. General
    Comments: FTA received general comments on the applicability of the 
rule. An industry association inquired about the applicability of this 
rule to transit systems with shared corridors with FRA tracks. An SSOA 
asked about the applicability of the regulation to individuals or 
groups performing work on the right-of-way that are not associated with 
the RTA, such as personnel from Federal, State, and local agencies, and 
utilities. One RTA asked that FTA clarify how it determined that 
existing measures across the nation are not adequately protecting 
transit workers and whether FTA's identification of RWP as a safety 
risk included data specific to streetcar or light rail systems.
    FTA Response: Nothing in this final rule changes any existing FRA 
requirement that may apply to a rail transit system, and this part does 
not apply to rail systems that are already subject to the safety 
oversight of FRA. This final rule applies to all RTAs covered by the 
SSO program and RTAs that share corridors with FRA tracks should 
consider this configuration when developing their RWP programs.
    The rule applies to RTAs, SSOAs, and transit workers who access any 
rail fixed guideway public transportation system in the performance of 
their work. The rule does not apply to individuals who are trespassing, 
transit workers accessing the track for reasons other than the 
performance of work, or routine pedestrian activity where applicable. 
Transit workers who access the roadway in the performance of their work 
must follow the RTA's RWP program access and rules practices with 
minimum standards established by this regulation. FTA agrees that there 
are others who may need to access the track who are not transit 
workers. Therefore, and in response to comments, FTA has added language 
to the final rule, at Sec.  671.21(a)(8) that requires RTAs to include 
procedures in their RWP programs to provide an escort, as needed, for 
individuals that are not RWP-certified and do not fall into the 
categories of roadway worker, transit worker, or emergency personnel, 
who may need to access the track zone such as utilities workers.
    FTA's internal SRM process identified RWP as a safety concern for 
analysis and determined that a Federal baseline RWP program is an 
appropriate mitigation. FTA considered information and data specific to 
streetcar and light rail systems during the SRM process and while 
drafting the NPRM and final rule.

C. Section 671.3--Policy

    Comments: One SSOA and one RTA provided FTA with comments relevant 
to Sec.  671.3. One commenter suggested referencing the ASP in this 
section because that is the document where the RTA establishes its SMS 
process. An RTA recommended adding a section into this requirement 
stating that if the SSOA desires more stringent RWP-related 
requirements beyond the regulation, then the SSOA must collaborate with 
the RTA in the

[[Page 87173]]

development of these additional requirements.
    FTA Response: FTA has included references to part 673 where 
appropriate throughout this rule, including in this section at Sec.  
671.3(b), where FTA requires RWP standards to be integrated into the 
RTA's SMS and Safety Assurance processes. FTA declines to add to this 
section a requirement for an SSOA to collaborate with the RTAs on any 
additional RWP-related requirements contained in the SSO's program 
standard that go beyond the requirements established in this final 
rule. While FTA encourages SSOAs and RTAs to work together whenever 
feasible, SSOAs play a critical role overseeing safety at RTAs, and as 
such, should have latitude to prioritize safety concerns and hazards at 
the RTAs they oversee. The SSO regulation at 49 CFR part 674 requires 
SSOAs to establish a disposition process that defines how the SSOA will 
address any comments the RTA makes with respect to the SSO program 
standard and FTA expects the requirements of this final rule and part 
674 requirements to operate in concert.

D. Section 671.5--Definitions

    FTA received several comments, both general and specific, related 
to Sec.  671.5 definitions.
1. General
    Comments: One industry association commenter requested flexibility 
to allow RTAs to continue to use their existing, long-standing agency 
RWP terminology since transit workers have been trained on and are 
familiar with the terminology unique to their operating environments. 
The association expressed concern that changing RTA terminology may 
introduce hazards, including the potential for miscommunication and 
misapplication.
    One RTA commenter recommended that FTA revise the definitions 
proposed in the NPRM to be consistent with those in APTA's RWP Program 
Requirements Standard (APTA RT-OP-S-106-11, Rev.2), noting that 
misalignment with APTA terminology may have a broader impact beyond the 
RWP manual such as on other RTA governing documents. The commenter 
noted that updating existing RTA terminology, such as in procedures and 
on forms, would require significant work and additional resources.
    One vendor commented that RTAs should work with APTA and other 
industry groups to develop common operations terminology by geography 
and/or type of operations.
    FTA Response: FTA acknowledges that changes to terms and 
definitions may have an impact on RTAs and their existing RWP programs. 
FTA encourages RTAs to use the definitions in this final rule in their 
RWP programs for consistency in RWP programs across RTAs. However, the 
final rule does not require RTAs to adopt these terms, and RTAs may use 
their own definitions as appropriate. Through the final rule, FTA has 
developed a set of common terminology and considered multiple sources 
for definitions to be used in the development of this rule, including 
APTA's standard. However, FTA declines to simply adopt the definitions 
in APTA's RWP standard. When possible, FTA has opted to be consistent 
with FRA regulations. This decision will create commonly understood 
practices and terminology across the rail systems subject to Federal 
oversight, helps align FTA and FRA safety priorities, and ensure 
consistency for agencies that may be subject to both FRA and FTA 
regulations, among other benefits.
2. Accountable Executive
    Comments: FTA received a comment from an SSOA that suggested 
removing ``ultimate responsibility'' from the proposed definition of 
Accountable Executive, and replacing it with ``the power and 
authority,'' because the meaning of ``ultimate responsibility'' is 
unclear and potentially unattainable. The SSOA commenter noted that the 
Board of Directors can also control or direct the human and capital 
resources needed to develop, maintain, and implement the ASP.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise the definition as it would be 
inconsistent with the definition of Accountable Executive that FTA has 
established in part 673 and part 674. As these terms all refer to the 
same person within a transit agency, FTA believes consistency across 
the regulations is imperative and is finalizing the definition as 
proposed.
3. Ample Time
    Comments: FTA received comments from two RTAs, one SSOA, and one 
vendor regarding the proposed definition of ``ample time.'' One RTA 
commenter noted that the definition implies two options for work crews 
to exercise: vacating the track zone or entering a place of safety, 
which is defined as ``outside of the track zone.'' This commenter 
recommended that FTA review the ``place of safety'' definition in 
conjunction with the ``ample time'' proposed definition to ensure the 
two do not conflict. Another RTA commenter submitted a recommendation 
for revising the ``ample time'' definition by replacing ``to be clear 
of the track zone or in a place of safety 15 seconds before'' with ``to 
occupy a place of safety for no less than 15 seconds before'' and ``at 
the maximum authorized speed'' with ``at the civil speed limit.'' The 
RTA noted that using ``maximum authorized speed'' could potentially 
introduce human error to reduce the time needed to find safety. The 
SSOA commenter suggested adding ``at least'' before ``15 seconds'' and 
``or equipment'' after ``a rail transit vehicle.'' The comment from the 
vendor noted support for the definition with the clarification that 
``ample time'' should be calculated from the moment the roadway worker 
is in a place of safety and clear of the track zone. Additionally, the 
vendor asked for clarification about whether ``maximum authorized 
speed,'' as used in this proposed definition, is calculated based on 
line speed or a reduced speed enforced through control measures.
    FTA Response: As suggested by the commenters, FTA reviewed the 
definitions of ``place of safety'' and ``ample time'' and determined 
they are not conflicting and notes these terms are consistent with the 
FRA RWP regulation. FTA considered the suggestions to revise the 
definition but declines to make changes as it views them as 
unnecessary. First, FTA notes that if a rail vehicle is moving above 
the authorized speed, the operator is violating the operating rules. 
Second, FTA declines to add ``at least'' before ``15 seconds'' to the 
definition, as the definition as proposed sufficiently establishes that 
15 seconds is the baseline required time for workers to be clear of the 
track zone or in a place of safety. While 15 seconds is commonly 
adopted in the industry as an appropriate minimum time for workers to 
clear the track zone or enter a place of safety, FTA recognizes that 
some RTAs may wish to prescribe additional or more stringent time 
requirements consistent with this part. FTA believes it is unnecessary 
to add ``or equipment'' to the definition because the final rule 
defines ``rail transit vehicle'' as ``any rolling stock.'' Therefore, 
FTA is finalizing the definition as proposed. FTA declines to opine on 
how to calculate ``ample time'' in this final rule but may provide 
guidance to RTAs in the future. FTA notes this calculation will vary 
based on an RTA's unique operating characteristics. FTA refers readers 
to the ``maximum authorized speed'' definition in this rule, which is 
calculated and established by an RTA based on the rail transit vehicle 
control

[[Page 87174]]

system, service schedule, and operating rules.
4. Equivalent Protection
    Comments: One SSOA commenter asked FTA to clarify in the definition 
whether the SSOA must approve or concur with the ``equivalent 
protection'' after the RTA demonstrates to the SSOA that the 
alternative design, material, or method will provide equal or greater 
safety for roadway workers. The commenter recommended clarification on 
what happens if the SSOA does not agree with the protection.
    FTA Response: FTA is finalizing the definition as proposed. FTA 
believes it is unnecessary to clarify the definition because Sec.  
671.39(d)(3) establishes that an equivalent protection for lone workers 
must be ``approved by the SSOA.'' In accordance with an SSOA's 
oversight responsibilities, FTA expects the SSOA to exercise judgment 
and authority in the review and approval of the RTA's RWP program 
elements. In the event the SSOA does not agree with the RTA's proposed 
equivalent protection in lieu of foul time for lone workers, the SSOA 
must notify the RTA expeditiously so that the RTA may propose revisions 
or an alternate equivalent protection that both parties agree is 
adequate.
5. Flag Person
    Comments: One RTA and one industry association recommended that FTA 
revise the proposed definition of ``flag person'' by changing 
``designated by the RTA'' to ``designated by the Roadway Worker in 
Charge.'' Both commenters noted this would further clarify that the 
roadway worker in charge is the authority for safety while overseeing 
an active work zone and is typically the one to designate a qualified 
transit worker as a flag person. The industry association commenter 
added that a designated flag person should be able to perform work done 
by other crew members and not be restricted to solely flagging. 
Otherwise, RTAs will need additional personnel on every work crew, 
which is overly burdensome and inefficient.
    FTA Response: In response to these comments, FTA has revised the 
definition of ``flag person'' to provide additional flexibility for the 
designation of a flag person across the diverse operating 
characteristics of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems 
and notes that the revised definition supports the designation of a 
flag person by the roadway worker in charge. FTA disagrees that a flag 
person should be able to perform other work while flagging. FTA 
believes it is necessary for the flag person to be engaged solely in 
performing the flagging function to ensure the on-track safety of the 
roadway work group. Even minor tasks risk diverting a flagger's 
attention, which increases the risk that they may err in their flagging 
duties. Flaggers also must be prepared to respond immediately to novel 
hazards or quickly changing situations and should not be engaged in any 
tasks that may divert their focus or delay their reaction time. In 
previous safety incidences, it is clear that undefined roles have 
resulted in communication breakdowns, with very serious consequences.
    In accordance with Sec.  671.31(a)(4) a roadway worker in charge 
serves in the function of maintaining on-track safety for members of 
the roadway group. FTA notes that, in the function of maintaining on-
track safety, a roadway worker in change may perform flagging duties in 
some situations. When a roadway worker in charge performs flagging 
duties, they cannot perform other duties. If a roadway worker in charge 
performing flagging duties needs to respond to a work crew issue, prior 
to responding, the roadway worker in charge must suspend flagging 
activity by stopping work, designating another flag person, or taking 
other action. While a roadway worker in charge position carries 
considerably more training experience and qualification than a flag 
person, FTA understands that in some situations a roadway worker in 
charge may carry out flagging duties as described above. In these 
scenarios, FTA expects that the roadway worker in charge would perform 
their other duties such as providing the job safety briefing prior to 
fouling the track and would perform the associated recordkeeping tasks 
prior to, and after, flagging duties are complete.
6. Foul Time Protection
    Comments: Three commenters suggested revisions to the proposed 
definition of ``foul time protection.'' One SSOA commenter suggested 
adding ``RTA designated'' in front of the first instance of ``roadway 
worker.'' One RTA commenter suggested adding the following: ``on 
controlled track when that work will not disturb the track or third 
rail structure in a manner that would prevent movements at normal 
speeds'' after ``working limits,'' ``qualified'' in front of the first 
instance of ``roadway worker,'' and ``controlled'' in front of 
``track.'' They also suggested replacing ``will be authorized to 
operate'' with ``will operate.'' One vendor recommended adding ``for a 
defined time period'' after ``working limits,'' ``and issued 
authority'' after ``notified,'' ``to occupy a specific segment of track 
under which'' after ``control center,'' and ``or on-track equipment'' 
after ``no rail transit vehicles.''
    FTA Response: FTA declines to make any of the recommended changes 
as they are too specific given the varied complexities in the operating 
characteristics of the rail fixed guideway public transportation 
systems this rule addresses and are not necessary for clarity of 
purpose in this final rule. Therefore, FTA is finalizing the definition 
as proposed.
7. Fouling a Track
    Comments: FTA received comments from three RTAs regarding the 
proposed definition of ``fouling a track.'' One RTA commenter asked if 
FTA will also define the term ``proximity'' as used in the definition. 
One RTA commenter recommended adopting the definition of ``fouling a 
track'' from 49 CFR part 214. The commenter noted that based on the 
proposed definitions of ``fouling a track'' and ``track zone,'' the 
distance from the running rail considered to be ``fouling the track'' 
would increase from four feet to six feet. The commenter added that 
this may require protection for some inspection and maintenance 
activities that currently do not need it. In addition, the commenter 
suggested that if these two proposed definitions become the standard, 
passengers would be fouling the track while standing behind the tactile 
warning strip. One RTA commenter recommended that FTA incorporate a 
standard distance for ``fouling a track,'' such as four feet from the 
nearest running rail or require RTAs to establish a set distance based 
on their fleets.
    FTA Response: In response to comments, FTA has revised the 
definition of ``fouling a track'' in the final rule by adding 
``typically within four feet of the outside rail on both sides of any 
track'' and has removed the last sentence of the proposed definition 
for clarity. The distance and language are adopted from the 
recommendations of the commenters and are consistent with FRA 
requirements in 49 CFR 214, which considers an individual or item of 
equipment to be fouling the track if ``within four feet'' of the rail. 
However, FTA opted to use the term ``typically,'' as FTA intends for 
RTAs to have flexibility to define greater distances, as needed. FTA 
has removed any distance language from the definition of ``track 
zone,'' and instead has included distance-related language in the 
definition of ``fouling a track'' to further parallel the definitional 
approach used

[[Page 87175]]

by the FRA and recommended by the commenters.
8. Individual Rail Transit Vehicle Detection
    Comments: One RTA and one SSOA commented on the proposed definition 
of ``individual rail transit vehicle detection.'' The RTA commenter 
noted that including lone worker provisions in the definition 
contradicts the proposed requirement regarding redundant protection. 
The SSOA commenter suggested rewording the proposed definition for 
clarity by adding ``information on'' before ``approaching rail transit 
vehicles,'' removing ``and leaving the track,'' and changing ``in ample 
time'' to ``within ample time.''
    FTA Response: FTA intends for this definition to describe the 
practice of relying on an individual to detect approaching vehicles or 
equipment and does not believe it conflicts with the requirements for 
redundant protections. FTA declines to revise the definition as 
suggested because it does not believe that the suggested revisions 
would make the definition clearer. Since individual rail transit 
vehicle detection is a commonly understood term in the industry, FTA 
has opted to adopt the FRA definition of this term and is finalizing 
the definition as proposed.
9. Job Safety Briefing
    Comments: FTA received comments from several commenters, including 
the NTSB, one RTA, one SSOA, and two vendors, regarding the proposed 
definition of ``job safety briefing.'' The NTSB expressed concern that 
the definition allows virtual job safety briefings without providing 
limitations for when RTAs can employ them and urged FTA to indicate 
when RTAs are permitted to conduct virtual job safety briefings. A 
vendor recommended adding for emphasis, ``including the on-track safety 
being provided'' after ``the protections to eliminate or protect 
against those hazards.'' One SSOA commenter suggested rewording the 
definition to, ``Job safety briefing means a meeting conducted by the 
RTA designated Roadway Worker in Charge that addresses the requirements 
of this part.'' The commenter noted that, if the regulation refers to 
the ``requirements of this part'' at the end of the definition, it is 
unnecessary to include some of the requirements within the definition. 
The commenter added that the definition also creates confusion by 
outlining only some of the requirements when all the requirements are 
important. Further, the commenter suggested that FTA clarify in the 
regulation where and when a job safety briefing should be conducted 
rather than in the definition. One vendor commenter suggested that FTA 
clarify in the definition that a job safety briefing is conducted prior 
to commencing work or fouling the track because the information 
conveyed in a briefing is critical to safely fouling a track.
    FTA also received a comment from an RTA regarding the use of ``job 
safety briefing'' compared with ``roadway job safety briefing.''
    FTA Response: While FTA understands the concern regarding virtual 
job safety briefings, the final rule permits virtual job safety 
briefings to account for situations where a roadway worker in charge is 
not physically located with a crew or lone worker. This may include 
situations where a lone worker calls in to receive a job safety 
briefing or where a work crew may be spread out over a larger working 
limit. FTA believes this flexibility is necessary for the unique 
operating environments of the RTAs covered by this rule and will help 
ensure that job safety briefings are provided. FTA leaves it to the 
RTAs to determine when a virtual briefing is permissible, and each RTA 
may establish its own limitations as necessary. FTA declines to adopt 
suggested revisions to the definition because FTA believes that the 
language as it is written is inclusive of all topics relating to the 
protections that may be necessary for on-track safety, and emphasis is 
not needed. FTA declines to remove the words ``requirements of this 
part'' as it makes it clear that the definition of ``job safety 
briefing'' is inclusive of all requirements specified elsewhere in the 
rule. The requirements of a job safety briefing and its use are 
included throughout the rule and not every aspect of these requirements 
can be captured within the definition. Details on the particular 
circumstances or events that may require a roadway worker in charge to 
provide the job safety briefing are included in the relevant sections 
of the rule, including Sec.  671.31(b)(1), which describes when the 
roadway worker in charge must provide a job safety briefing. FTA also 
declines to revise the term ``job safety briefing'' to ``roadway job 
safety briefing'' because FTA intends to cover all individuals 
responsible for on-track safety or who are required to access the track 
zone to perform work and does not believe the suggested addition helps 
provide clarity.
10. Lone Worker
    Comments: One RTA asked whether rail supervisors perform activities 
that fall into the lone worker category, and if so, should rail 
supervisors also be qualified as lone workers. This RTA commenter also 
requested clarification regarding the definition of ``Lone Worker'' and 
its implications related to brief track access (under 1 minute in 
duration).
    FTA Response: If a rail supervisor is performing duties that fit 
the ``lone worker'' definition of ``an individual roadway worker who is 
not afforded on-track safety by another roadway worker, who is not a 
member of a roadway work group, and who is not engaged in a common task 
with another roadway worker,'' then the rail supervisor is a ``lone 
worker'' and must have the appropriate qualifications. The provisions 
in Sec.  671.35 apply to lone workers as a subclassification of roadway 
workers, whose duties involve inspection, construction, maintenance, 
repairs, or providing on-track safety, such as flag persons and 
watchpersons, on or near the roadway or right-of-way or with the 
potential of fouling track. Transit workers who are not roadway workers 
and who must momentarily access the roadway in the performance of work 
are covered under the RWP program under Sec.  671.23(b). Individual 
transit workers may only foul the track in the performance of work once 
they have received the appropriate permissions and redundant 
protections, such as foul time, that have been established as specified 
in the RWP manual. However, individual transit workers fouling the 
track momentarily in the performance of work are not roadway workers or 
lone workers and, therefore, are not subject to Sec.  671.35 
provisions.
11. Maximum Authorized Speed
    Comments: FTA received two comments on the proposed definition of 
``maximum authorized speed.'' One RTA proposed that FTA change the 
definition to ``the highest speed permitted for the movement of trains 
permanently established by timetable/special instructions.'' One vendor 
requested FTA clarify whether an operating rule requiring speed 
reduction when personnel are trackside would be considered the 
``maximum authorized speed'' per this definition.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees that the maximum authorized speed includes 
the highest speed permitted on the rail transit system and therefore a 
definitional change is not necessary. This speed could be determined by 
the RTA's design or engineering; it could be enforced by the train 
control system; or it could be specified in procedures, operating 
requirements, and timetables. FTA is finalizing the definition as 
proposed to ensure the highest or

[[Page 87176]]

maximum speed permitted on the system is used, wherever and however it 
may be specified, when calculating ample time. In response to the 
vendor, FTA confirms that the maximum authorized speed applies to the 
highest speed permitted for the movement of rail transit vehicles on 
the system, or part of the system, but does not extend to a general 
operating rule requiring speed reduction when personnel are trackside, 
unless that speed reduction was required for the entire system, or part 
of the system, not just when workers are encountered.
12. Minor Tasks
    Comments: FTA received comments about the proposed definition of 
``minor tasks'' from one SSOA, one industry association, and one 
vendor. The SSOA commenter noted that FTA should clarify in the 
definition whether it intends to allow the use of individual rail 
transit vehicle detection for minor tasks. The comment from the 
industry association recommended that FTA change the definition to make 
clear that if a roadway worker performing a task with a tool can 
visually assess their surroundings every five seconds, the task remains 
a minor task under this regulation. The vendor also asked FTA to 
clarify the definition of ``tool'' because certain necessary inspection 
devices, such as a tape measure or track gauge, could be considered 
tools. The vendor recommended that minor tasks could include, but need 
not be limited to, visually inspecting, examining, or patrolling on a 
track. These tasks do not use tools and allow workers to hear and 
visually assess their surroundings regularly. The vendor recommended 
that ``can hear'' be added to the ``minor task'' definition because 
hearing is critical to receiving immediate notice of train movement. 
Further, the vendor recommended that a minor task should be defined 
based on a safety risk assessment of the task, which is necessary to 
determine whether a worker performing the task can assess their 
surroundings every five seconds.
    FTA Response: FTA does not believe that it is necessary to provide 
greater clarity regarding the use of individual rail transit vehicle 
detection while conducting minor tasks within the definition because, 
as stated in Sec.  671.21, this rule prohibits the use of individual 
rail transit vehicle detection as the only form of protection in the 
track zone. FTA confirms that as defined, a ``minor task'' is one that 
does not include the use of tools, which would include items such as a 
track gauge as suggested by the commenter. However, Sec.  671.35 allows 
for lone workers to perform minor tasks or routine inspections. Routine 
inspections do allow for the use of common inspection devices, such as 
tape measures or rail gauges, that do not impact a worker's ability to 
assess their surroundings at least every five seconds. Additionally, 
FTA agrees with the vendor's recommendation to revise the definition to 
specify that minor tasks should not prevent a transit worker from being 
able to assess their surroundings through what they hear. Therefore, in 
response to this comment, FTA has revised the definition of ``minor 
tasks'' to include ``hear and'' before ``visually assess'' to 
incorporate this aspect of awareness. FTA disagrees with the vendor's 
recommendation to define a minor task based on a safety risk assessment 
of the task. The range of tasks that may fall within this description 
are numerous. Performing a safety risk assessment on each potential 
situation would be, at times, onerous. Agencies are encouraged to 
conduct safety risk assessments whenever they deem them necessary, but 
FTA declines to require RTAs to adopt this approach across the board 
for determining what constitutes a minor task in order to reduce the 
burden of implementing these new requirements.
13. Near-Miss
    Comments: One SSOA, two RTAs, and one vendor submitted comments 
regarding the proposed definition of ``near-miss.'' A vendor suggested 
FTA adopt a definition more specific to this rule, such as that 
provided by APTA in its ``Roadway Worker Near-Miss Reporting 
Requirements'' standard. The SSOA commenter stated the definition is 
ambiguous and needs clarity and suggested that FTA consider using a 
definition more in line with the OSHA definition. The SSOA stated that 
additional clarity in the definition would help an RTA more effectively 
report near-misses and limit under- or over-reporting events due to 
doubt about the definition and how to apply it and also would help 
SSOAs administer and enforce the regulation, minimize disputes between 
SSOAs and RTAs, and facilitate consistent application across the 
States. One RTA noted that the proposed definition of ``near-miss'' is 
somewhat generic and provides too little detail. The commenter 
recommended that FTA adopt the National Safety Council (NSC) 
definition, ``an unplanned event that doesn't result in injury or death 
but could have.'' One RTA commented that the definition is highly 
subjective, and RTAs will apply it inconsistently because a transit 
worker's interpretation of a near-miss may not necessarily align with 
the agency's interpretation. The commenter asked FTA to consider 
providing guidance to help RTAs navigate potential discrepancies.
    FTA Response: FTA appreciates the comments recommending that FTA 
add more detail and specificity to the definition or adopt one of the 
alternative suggested definitions; however, FTA declines to make any 
changes in order to maintain consistency with the definition of ``near-
miss'' used in 49 CFR part 673. FTA believes this consistency is 
necessary as near-miss information will be relevant to an agency's SMS, 
as required under part 673 of this chapter. FTA recognizes that the 
definition of near-miss is not lengthy; this definition is intended to 
allow RTAs to use their own discretion and judgment to determine when 
an avoided safety event was narrowly missed and thus constitutes a 
near-miss. FTA also acknowledges that what constitutes a near-miss for 
one agency may be different for another, due to system configurations 
and other factors. FTA confirms the agency's intent to provide 
technical assistance and guidance on the final rule, including how to 
identify near-miss situations. FTA recognizes the inherent challenges 
in defining a term such as ``near-miss,'' which is intended to include 
events with outcomes that did not occur. Necessarily, such terms will 
rely on some level of subjectivity or interpretation, and FTA 
encourages RTAs to work closely with frontline staff to educate 
personnel on near-misses and the procedures associated with the RTA's 
transit worker safety reporting program required in 49 CFR part 673.
14. On-Track Safety
    Comments: FTA received comments from one SSOA, one RTA, and one 
vendor regarding the proposed definition of ``on-track safety.'' The 
SSOA commenter suggested that FTA revise the proposed definition by 
removing the words ``a state of'' before the word ``freedom'' to 
provide clarity. The RTA commenter recommended FTA adopt APTA's 
definition of ``on-track safety'' from the ``Roadway Worker Program 
Requirements'' standard. The vendor commented that limiting the 
definition solely to vehicle-based hazards may exclude other 
significant hazards, such as electrical or switch movement. The 
commenter requested that FTA clarify whether ``operating and safety 
rules that govern track occupancy'' are intended to cover these other 
types of hazards.
    FTA Response: FTA intends for ``on-track safety'' to encompass all 
hazards a

[[Page 87177]]

worker may encounter while working on the track roadway, including 
electrical and switch movement, as applicable to the RTA's operating 
environment. In response to the comments, FTA has updated the 
definition of on-track safety to include ``other on-track hazards'' for 
clarity. FTA declines to revise the definition further or adopt the 
APTA definition because FTA believes the definition in the final rule 
is sufficiently clear, and notes that it is consistent with FRA's 
definition of ``on-track safety.''
15. Place of Safety
    Comments: Three RTAs, one industry association, and one vendor 
submitted comments on the proposed definition of ``place of safety.'' 
An RTA recommended FTA adopt APTA's definition of ``place of safety'' 
from the ``Roadway Worker Program Requirements'' standard. Another RTA 
commenter suggested FTA define ``place of safety'' as a ``location 
within the roadway but outside the dynamic envelope of rail vehicles, 
to include at least four feet from the nearest running rail.'' The 
commenter added that the distance FTA defines in ``fouling a track'' 
should be used in the ``place of safety'' definition. One RTA commenter 
and an industry association commenter recommended that FTA revise the 
definition by removing ``outside the track zone.'' The commenters 
suggested that this change would better suit RTAs with median street-
running alignments that will find it impossible to identify a ``place 
of safety'' that is ``outside the track zone'' such as segments of rail 
alignment that are flanked by traffic lanes on both sides of the 
tracks. The vendor commenter agreed with the proposed definition of 
``place of safety;'' however, they pointed out that the proposed 
definition of ``track zone'' currently suggests that ``places of 
safety'' within six feet of the track may be within the track zone.
    FTA Response: FTA is finalizing the proposed definition without 
change. Due to the many varied configurations of rail transit systems, 
FTA believes that the definition balances the need to ensure safe 
egress for workers with the need to ensure that terminology can apply 
to a variety of different systems.
    FTA does wish to clarify that ``place of safety'' includes cut-outs 
because these are areas of refuge safe from train passage. As for the 
definition of ``place of safety'' referencing the condition of being 
safely ``outside of the track zone,'' several commenters suggested 
modifications to the term ``track zone'' for clarity. FTA considers a 
``place of safety'' as being outside of the track zone and therefore 
ensuring workers are safe from train vehicles and other rail hazards 
directly related to rail operations. With regard to other hazards, like 
nearby passing traffic, FTA expects RTAs to effectively protect workers 
from these external but real hazards near to and potentially impacting 
the track right-of-way and associated work when identifying places of 
safety. FTA has revised the definition of ``track zone'' (see Section 
II.D.26) by removing ``typically an area within six feet of the outside 
rail on both sides of any track,'' and adding proximity language to the 
definition of ``fouling a track'' to better align with FRA's 
definitional approach and to provide flexibility to RTAs (see Section 
II.D.7).
16. Rail Transit Vehicle
    Comments: One SSOA commenter noted apparent inconsistency 
throughout the proposed rule's definitions regarding FTA's use of the 
terms ``rail transit vehicle'' or ``equipment'' and noted that 
sometimes both terms are used in a definition and sometimes not. The 
commenter noted that FTA did not define ``rail transit equipment'' and 
asked if the equipment used by an RTA contractor is included in the 
meaning of the term ``equipment.''
    FTA Response: Definitions that reference rail transit vehicles in 
the context of ensuring workers have the necessary time and sight 
distance to be sufficiently clear of moving vehicles do not include the 
term ``equipment.'' These definitions are the following: ``ample 
time,'' ``foul time protection,'' ``maximum authorized speed,'' and 
``minor tasks.'' On-track equipment other than rolling stock, such as 
machinery or tools, may still pose safety risks and are referenced in 
other definitions throughout this section as relevant. As stated in the 
definition, ``rail transit vehicle'' includes ``any rolling stock used 
on a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.'' This includes 
all vehicles used by contractors as well as by the RTA employees.
17. Rail Transit Vehicle Approach Warning
    Comments: One RTA commented on the proposed definition of ``rail 
transit vehicle approach warning'' and suggested FTA use the term 
``train'' rather than ``rail transit vehicle.''
    FTA Response: FTA declines to adopt this change out of 
consideration for and to encompass the various terms and equipment used 
in the rail transit industry including light rail vehicles, streetcars, 
inclined plane cars, cable cars, and others.
18. Redundant Protection
    Comments: One RTA and one vendor submitted comments regarding the 
definition of ``redundant protection.'' The RTA commenter asked FTA to 
clarify what constitutes ``procedural'' protection. The commenter 
expressed that the proposed definition allows too much room for 
subjectivity, leading to inconsistent application and conflicts between 
RTAs and SSOAs. Further, the commenter noted that although the proposed 
requirement at Sec.  671.39(d) includes a list of types of redundant 
protections, most of which appear to be procedural, the term inherently 
encompasses much more than the list suggests. The vendor commenter 
recommended that FTA reword the definition of ``redundant protection'' 
if this type of protection must encompass all roadway workers. The 
commenter suggested FTA replace in the definition ``individual rail 
transit vehicle detection'' with ``the minimum levels of protection 
specified in this subpart.''
    FTA Response: FTA will provide more information on ``procedural'' 
protections in the future. The list of ``redundant protections'' in the 
rule at Sec.  671.39 is not meant to be exhaustive or limiting, but 
rather serve as a list of common examples. The rule allows flexibility 
for RTAs to design programs with effective redundant protections that 
work for their operations and environments, thus a degree of 
subjectivity is intended within this definition. FTA declines to amend 
the definition as the current definition makes clear that redundant 
protections are intended to ensure the safety of roadway workers. FTA 
also believes it is necessary to reference the limitations on 
individual rail transit vehicle detection within this definition to 
ensure RTAs, who commonly use this practice, understand the 
requirements for building out additional protections in relation to 
that practice.
19. Roadway
    Comments: FTA received comments from one SSOA regarding the 
proposed definition of ``roadway.'' The SSOA commenter asked if the 
term includes maintenance facilities as they are ``support 
infrastructure'' for the movement of rail transit vehicles.
    FTA Response: FTA does not intend for the term ``roadway'' in this 
rule to apply to maintenance structures, but it does apply to all track 
outside of those structures.

[[Page 87178]]

20. Roadway Maintenance Machine
    Comments: One SSOA and one RTA commented on the proposed definition 
of ``roadway maintenance machine.'' The SSOA commenter suggested FTA 
change the term from ``roadway maintenance machine'' to ``roadway 
machine'' if, per the definition, this equipment is used for other 
activities beyond maintenance. The RTA commenter recommended that FTA 
revise the definition of roadway maintenance machine by adding 
``powered by any means of energy rather than hand power'' after 
``device'' and changing ``rail transit track'' to ``railroad track.''
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees that the definition of ``roadway 
maintenance machine'' needs revision. ``Roadway maintenance machine'' 
encompasses vehicles that support maintenance broadly, to include 
repair, construction, or inspection, as listed in the definition. A 
roadway maintenance machine encompasses a broad spectrum of machinery, 
from a hi-rail inspection vehicle to track vacuum equipment, which may 
be owned by the RTA or by contractors authorized to work on the 
roadway. Further, FTA does not find it necessary to exclude machinery 
by power mode for this definition. The roadway maintenance machine is 
used in this rule in relation to the RWP training and qualification 
program and job safety briefings, and in both contexts the term could 
potentially apply to hand-powered machinery. FTA will also keep the 
term ``rail transit track'' in the definition for clarity between rail 
transit track and other track.
21. Roadway Worker
    Comments: Three RTAs submitted comments regarding the proposed 
definition of ``roadway worker.'' One RTA commenter asked FTA to define 
``construction'' and how work in construction areas interacts with 
these proposed rules in pre-revenue and revenue service areas, because 
a construction area can be a very different environment than revenue 
service. The commenter recommended FTA exclude construction areas from 
the rule, as OSHA and other Federal guidelines already govern 
construction safety and argued that including construction contractors 
as roadway workers would unnecessarily burden RTAs. In support of this 
argument, the RTA commenter recommended that FTA add ``in revenue 
service segments'' to the end of the roadway worker definition to 
exclude workers in a non-service area. The commenter also suggested 
that FTA adopt APTA's definition from its ``Roadway Worker Program 
Requirements'' standard. Another RTA commented that the definition of 
roadway worker should be limited to anyone doing work (inspection, 
maintenance, or construction) in the track zone or providing protection 
for roadway workers in the track zone. One RTA argued that FTA should 
not use ``transit workers'' in the definition as there are alternate 
means of protection in place for those who do not meet the definition 
of a roadway worker. The commenter suggested the following revised 
definition for roadway worker: ``An employee of a railroad or a 
contractor to a railroad whose duties include inspection, construction, 
maintenance, or repair of railroad track, bridges, roadway, signal and 
communication systems, electric traction systems, roadway facilities or 
maintenance machinery on or near track or with the potential of fouling 
a track, and watchperson/lookout.''
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove transit workers whose duties 
include construction from the definition of ``roadway worker.'' FTA's 
proposed definition aligns with the FRA definition of roadway worker 
and the comprehensive protection it provides. This means a ``roadway 
worker'' includes an individual working in roadway construction in pre-
revenue environments, and each RTA will need to ensure RWP during pre-
revenue and revenue phases. FTA believes this is necessary as pre-
revenue work may involve unique risks, including but not limited to, 
working alongside non-revenue service equipment or working adjacent to 
RTA infrastructure. For pre-revenue phases, RTAs should implement the 
RWP program and worker protections in a manner that is appropriate to 
address the specific risks of that working environment.
    FTA considered adopting APTA's definition of roadway worker from 
its ``Roadway Worker Program Requirements'' standard; however, FTA 
declined to do so because it is narrower. FTA's definition is 
intentionally broader than APTA's roadway worker definition, and all 
workers encompassed under APTA's definition will also fall under FTA's 
definition, including contractors. Likewise, FTA declines to further 
limit the definition of roadway worker to either eliminate the phrase 
``transit worker'' or adjust the enumerated duties of a roadway worker. 
The definition of roadway worker in this rule was designed to protect 
any worker who may be exposed to hazards on or near the tracks while in 
the performance of work. FTA designed this definition to encompass a 
wide range of potential job duties, and to ensure consistency across 
agencies. FTA has further clarified the relationship in this rule 
between the term transit worker and the term roadway worker in response 
to the comments on Sec.  671.1. FTA is finalizing the definition of 
roadway worker as proposed.
22. Roadway Worker in Charge
    Comments: FTA received comments regarding the proposed definition 
of ``roadway worker in charge'' from one SSOA, two RTAs, and one 
industry association. The SSOA commenter suggested that FTA add 
``protection and designated in this role by the RTA'' to the end of the 
definition. One RTA commenter recommended FTA add ``and may perform 
work that is part of the work crew's responsibilities'' to the end of 
the definition, arguing this revision would clarify that a roadway 
worker in charge may perform duties such as overseeing their work crew. 
Another RTA commenter suggested the following definition: ``A qualified 
employee who is responsible for establishing on-track safety for 
roadway work crews.'' An industry association commenter recommended 
adding ``and may perform work that is part of the work crew's 
responsibilities, including flagging for trains'' to the end of the 
definition as it would clarify that the roadway worker in charge can 
flag trains, making a dedicated flagger unnecessary, especially for 
RTAs that require a flagger and a dedicated watchperson.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to incorporate suggestions to amend the 
definition because Sec.  671.31 sufficiently addresses the RTA's role 
in designating the roadway worker in charge. Similarly, Sec.  
671.31(a)(4) requires a roadway worker in charge to serve in the role 
of maintaining on-track safety for all members of the roadway work 
group and perform no other unrelated job function while designated for 
duty; therefore, the recommendation to add ``and may perform work that 
is part of the work crew's responsibilities'' would be inconsistent 
with FTA's intent. The roadway worker in charge may only perform 
responsibilities related to maintaining on-track safety. This may 
include safety roles, such as flagging, though FTA declines to add 
``flagging for trains'' to the definition of roadway worker in charge, 
as this responsibility would be ancillary and determined on a case-by-
case basis. FTA also declines to add ``safety for roadway work crews'' 
to the end of this definition. FTA does not think it necessary to 
caveat that on-track safety be established for work crews only, as on-
track safety in some

[[Page 87179]]

instances has wider implications for people such as transit operators 
or pedestrians.
23. Roadway Worker Protection
    Comments: One RTA commenter argued that the proposed definition of 
``roadway worker protection'' should refer to the protection from 
hazards associated with moving rail vehicles and not be so broad by 
mentioning ``safety events.'' The commenter added that RWP should only 
pertain to roadway workers, not transit workers. Further, the commenter 
noted that the definition specifies that RWP protects workers on the 
roadway, which they argued is vague and could be interpreted to mean 
that RWP is always required whenever a transit worker is on the 
roadway.
    FTA Response: As recommended by the NTSB, FTA intends for RWP to 
address more safety events than just hazards associated with moving 
rail vehicles. FTA intends for the roadway worker protections 
established by this rule to protect all transit workers while they 
perform approved duties on the track roadway; therefore, FTA declines 
to amend the definition to only cover roadway workers. It is FTA's 
intent that safety protections established in this rule will provide 
comprehensive safety coverage for workers on the roadway, irrespective 
of job titles.
24. State Safety Oversight Agency
    Comments: One SSOA commented that the proposed definition of 
``State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA)'' does not include the statutory 
reference to 49 U.S.C. 5329(k) that was included in the definition of 
``State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA)'' that was proposed in the NPRM 
for 49 CFR part 673 (PTASP regulation).
    FTA Response: FTA has revised the definition of ``State Safety 
Oversight Agency'' in the final rule to include the statutory reference 
to 49 U.S.C. 5329(k).
25. Track Access Guide
    Comments: Two RTAs commented on the proposed definition of ``track 
access guide.'' One commenter recommended that FTA change the term from 
``track access'' to ``physical characteristics,'' as many RTAs use 
``track access'' in reference to their track allocation process. One 
commenter noted the definition is excessively broad, particularly the 
requirement to describe the physical characteristics of track areas 
with loud noise or potential environmental conditions.
    FTA Response: Because FTA allows RTAs the flexibility to use their 
existing terms as long as the definitions do not conflict with the 
definitions in this final rule, FTA declines to change the term ``track 
access guide'' as suggested. FTA believes a broad definition is 
necessary to account for a wide range of systems and ensure 
inclusivity. FTA also believes this broad definition is balanced by the 
minimum requirements of the track access guide, which are clearly 
enumerated in Sec.  671.13(d)(1-7). RTAs may design their track access 
guides to address the components in this definition, and the 
requirements of Sec.  671.13, to a degree of detail that is appropriate 
based on their respective systems.
26. Track Zone
    Comments: FTA received comments from multiple commenters, including 
the NTSB, five RTAs, and two vendors, regarding the proposed definition 
of ``track zone.'' The NTSB expressed concern that, within the 
definition, the track zone is identified by transit workers rather than 
the RTAs and encouraged FTA to update its definition of track zone to 
state that RTAs identify the track zone, not transit workers. NTSB 
noted in their comment that an NTSB investigation determined that the 
probable cause of a significant safety event was the failure of a 
transit worker to stay clear of the approaching train, either because 
the worker was not aware of its presence or because they lacked a 
physical reference by which to identify a safe area outside the train's 
dynamic envelope. The NTSB commented that RTAs should identify the 
track zone because transit workers may lack a physical reference to 
identify where a person or equipment could be struck by the widest 
equipment that could occupy the track. One RTA commenter recommended 
that FTA review the definition to better account for tight working 
conditions in subways and on elevated environments and suggested FTA 
remove the following from the track zone definition: ``typically is an 
area within six feet of the outside rail on both sides of any track.'' 
One RTA commenter questioned the practicality of the proposed 
definition and recommended FTA change the definition to follow the 
established APTA standard of track zone in ``Roadway Worker Program 
Requirements.'' The commenter also recommended FTA change the term from 
``track zone'' to ``foul zone'' for consistency, as it is more in 
keeping with ``fouling a track.'' One RTA commenter noted the 
definition for track zone is defined separately from fouling a track, 
but that they appear very similar. The commenter asked if there is a 
significant difference between these two definitions. Another RTA 
commenter indicated that the six feet referenced in the proposed track 
zone definition would not work for the RTA's system, especially in 
tunnels and on tight rights-of-way. In addition, since the track zone 
definition is synonymous with ``fouling the track,'' the commenter 
recommended FTA use the term ``foul zone'' or ``fouling zone'' instead 
of ``track zone.'' One RTA commenter proposed that FTA remove the term 
``track zone,'' because including the term could result in confusion 
about where protections are required. One vendor noted that many 
current places of safety, including niches, walkways, and bench walls, 
might be within the track zone as proposed to be defined by FTA and 
recommended that FTA remove the following from the track zone 
definition: ``typically is an area within six feet of the outside rail 
on both sides of any track.'' Another vendor commenter recommended FTA 
consider establishing a clear minimum threshold by making the track 
zone a minimum of six feet from the edge of the outside rail.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees with the NTSB's comment that the RTA 
should identify the track zone rather than the transit workers and has 
amended the definition in this final rule to replace ``transit worker'' 
with ``the RTA.'' Ensuring the RTA identifies the track zone will 
provide needed consistency and allow the RTA to better assess and 
manage risks in the track zone. FTA also agrees with commenters that 
the phrase ``typically is an area within six feet of the outside rail 
on both sides of any track'' should be removed. FTA notes that it has 
added proximity language to the definition of ``fouling a track'' (see 
section II.D.7) and reiterates that this rule is intended to consider 
the needs of various operating systems and track configurations. FTA 
disagrees with adopting the APTA standard and disagrees that the term 
should be changed to ``foul zone.'' FTA declines these changes as they 
would conflict with the changes just discussed. FTA notes that the 
track zone is the ``location'' of where the action of fouling a track 
occurs. FTA disagrees that including the term ``track zone'' on the 
list of definitions in the final rule might result in confusion about 
where protections are required because the final rule requires 
protections within track zones. FTA has defined this in Sec.  
671.39(c), which requires RTAs to identify redundant protections for 
roadway workers performing work on the roadway and ``within track 
zones.'' FTA also declines to establish a clear

[[Page 87180]]

threshold of ``six feet from the edge of the outside rail'' due to the 
need for flexibility, as mentioned above, to account for systems such 
as those operating on streets with mixed traffic.
27. Transit Worker
    Comments: One SSOA, one RTA, and one vendor submitted comments on 
the proposed definition of ``transit worker.'' The SSOA commenter asked 
if the definition includes an RTA's police force. The RTA commented 
that the definition of ``transit worker'' does not align with the 
definition in 49 CFR part 673.5. In addition, the RTA commenter 
recommended that FTA remove SSOA personnel from throughout the 
provisions of part 671 and have rail transit stakeholders refer to the 
appropriate sections of part 674 or an SSO program standard, as 
appropriate. Further, the RTA commented that in part 671, subpart D 
(Sec. Sec.  671.31 through 671.41), the term ``roadway worker'' takes 
precedence over ``transit worker'' or other terms that were previously 
defined. The commenter added that it is unclear to what extent transit 
workers must comply with these RWP program elements, even though the 
preceding sections seem to intentionally describe this larger 
population beyond those personnel working within the track zone. The 
vendor recommended FTA include language for third parties (such as 
emergency personnel) in the transit worker definition or a separate one 
to support Sec.  671.21(b)(3), which proposes to require each RTA to 
establish requirements for on-track safety, ``including protections for 
emergency personnel who must access the roadway or the track zone.''
    FTA Response: FTA confirms that an RTA's police force personnel are 
transit workers if they are ``employees'' or ``contractors'' working on 
behalf of the RTA as described in the definition. FTA confirms that it 
explicitly includes SSOA personnel and contractors in the definition of 
``transit worker'' in part 671 to ensure that transit worker-related 
provisions apply to SSOA personnel conducting inspections or performing 
other activities that require track access. FTA refers readers to 
section II.D.21 of this preamble for more discussion about the terms 
``transit worker'' and ``roadway worker'' as they pertain to the 
requirements established in this rule. FTA declines to include 
``emergency'' in the personnel in the definition of transit worker 
because emergency personnel would not meet the definition of ``transit 
worker'' if they are not an employees, contractors, or volunteers 
working on behalf of the RTA or SSOA.
28. Transit Worker Safety Reporting Program
    Comments: One SSOA commenter asked FTA for a definition of ``senior 
management'' in the context of the ``transit worker safety reporting 
program'' proposed definition.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to establish a formal definition for 
this term as RTAs may have varied levels of authority and leadership 
depending on size, and it is the responsibility of the individual 
agency to understand and determine which members of leadership should 
be involved.
29. Watchperson
    Comments: Two vendors commented on the proposed definition of 
``watchperson.'' One vendor requested that FTA clarify whether ``sole 
duty'' in the definition means the roadway worker in charge and 
watchperson are separate roles carried out by separate workers. The 
other vendor noted that sufficient ``reaction time'' or, as the 
definition describes it, ``plus time to clear,'' has often been debated 
among RWP training professionals and Federal inspectors. The commenter 
recommended that FTA reword the definition of watchperson for 
consistency with other definitions. This commenter also recommended 
that FTA add language such as, ``Watchpersons shall consider roadway 
worker reaction time to ensure full ample time is provided.'' The 
commenter noted this restructuring would refer agencies, trainers, and 
employees to the ``ample time'' definition, which includes the language 
they proposed striking from the definition of ``watchperson'' and would 
emphasize the importance of the reaction time component that the 
watchperson is responsible for assessing.
    FTA Response: This final rule provides that the roadway worker in 
charge must ``serve only the function of maintaining on-track safety 
for all members of the roadway work group and perform no other 
unrelated job function while designated for duty.'' The final rule 
allows a roadway worker in charge to serve in the role of watchperson 
because this role falls within the function of maintaining on-track 
safety.
    FTA does not believe that the definition requires further 
clarification on response time because ``plus time to clear'' is 
sufficient to ensure ample time is given to the transit workers in such 
a scenario.
30. Working Limits
    Comments: One RTA commented on the proposed definition of ``working 
limits.'' The commenter suggested that FTA add how working limits may 
be defined.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to make this revision as the definition 
is intended to encompass RTAs of varying sizes and complexities and 
adding more specific detail would reduce the flexibility and scope of 
applicability.
31. Work Zone
    Comments: One vendor commented on the proposed definition of ``work 
zone'' and recommended that FTA incorporate ``or adjacent to'' into the 
definition after ``within.'' The commenter noted there had been 
numerous occasions where work zones adjacent to the track did or did 
not have sufficient on-track safety afforded, and the work activity 
unintentionally fouled the track zone. The commenter asked if this 
situation would meet the intent of the ``work zone'' definition.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees that areas adjacent to the track zone have 
the potential to affect the track zone. FTA declines to amend the 
definition as suggested because the definition contemplates these areas 
already. The final rule uses the term ``work zone'' to refer to the 
immediate area of a track zone, which means it is the area where 
workers are performing work and therefore could be struck by a rail 
transit vehicle or equipment. FTA expects information on adjacent 
tracks and multiple roadway worker groups working in adjacent areas to 
be included in job safety briefings, including safety information about 
any adjacent track and identification of the roadway maintenance 
machines or on-track equipment that may foul adjacent tracks.
32. Recommended Additions
    Comments: FTA received comments from one SSOA and three RTAs 
recommending that FTA define additional terms in part 671. The SSOA 
commenter recommended FTA clearly define the terms ``resources,'' 
``qualified personnel,'' and ``complexity'' to fully eliminate 
subjectivity because SSOAs are evaluated by these regulations, and FTA 
should clearly define expectations. One RTA commenter recommended FTA 
include a definition for ``adjacent track'' in Sec.  671.5 because it 
is defined in Sec.  671.33(b)(7). One RTA recommended FTA add a 
definition for ``contractor'' and adopt the definition from APTA's 
``Roadway Worker Program Requirements'' standard. Another RTA commenter 
suggested that FTA define ``unsafe acts'' and ``unsafe conditions'' to 
support employee education on the

[[Page 87181]]

requirements for safety reporting in Sec. Sec.  671.21(a)(6) and 
671.23(e).
    FTA Response: FTA declines to establish formal definitions of the 
terms ``resources,'' ``qualified personnel,'' and ``complexity'' 
because these terms are not used in this final rule. However, 
``qualified'' is defined in Sec.  671.5 in relation to a roadway worker 
or transit worker's training, proficiency, and authorization status. 
FTA appreciates the RTA commenter that recommended defining ``adjacent 
track'' in Sec.  671.5 but does not believe it is necessary to add this 
to the definition section of the rule as it is only referred to in one 
section of the rule (Sec.  671.33(b)(7)) and is sufficiently clear in 
that context. FTA does not believe it is necessary to define commonly 
understood terms such as ``contractor.'' Similarly, FTA declines to 
formally define the terms ``unsafe acts'' and ``unsafe conditions'' as 
they are also commonly understood and intended to be flexible in this 
rule. By not defining these terms, FTA allows for adaptability in 
different scenarios and environments and ensures workers do not feel 
constrained in their ability to report potential hazards.

E. Section 671.11--RWP Program

    Comments: FTA received comments related to the requirements for an 
RWP program in Sec.  671.11. One SSOA commenter urged FTA to require 
relevant RTAs to include electrical safety plans within their RWP 
program to protect workers from electrocution.
    An RTA commenter asked for specificity on the types of ``subsequent 
updates'' of the RWP manual that must be submitted to the SSOA for 
review and approval as required by Sec.  671.11(c).
    A vendor recommended that all RWP program elements and procedures 
align with an RTA's operating procedures, and that RTA operating 
procedures must facilitate on-track safety implementation.
    FTA Response: FTA appreciates the reminder of the electrical risk 
and safety concerns around many transit systems and has kept the rule 
language broad to account for varying types of systems and hazards. FTA 
recommends that RTAs incorporate electrical safety practices within 
their RWP programs as applicable.
    With regard to the inquiry on approval of ``subsequent updates'' to 
the RWP manual, FTA considers those revisions or updates that result in 
any RWP policy changes as necessitating SSOA review and approval. 
Minor, non-substantive updates are not required by the rule to be 
approved by the SSOA. FTA expects SSOAs and RTAs to identify any 
necessary thresholds and practices to execute RWP manual revisions and 
approvals.
    FTA acknowledges the need for RWP programs to align with RTA 
operating procedures and encourages agencies to tailor RWP programs to 
synchronize with existing operating procedures accounting for agency 
size, operating environments, infrastructure, service delivery, and 
more.

F. Section 671.13--RWP Manual

1. Requirements
    Comments: FTA received comments from multiple RTAs, two industry 
associations, and one vendor related to the requirement at Sec.  671.13 
to establish a single manual documenting the RWP Program elements, 
including responsibilities, processes and procedures, and the required 
training, qualification, and supervision for transit workers.
    One industry association commenter expressed concern about RTAs 
having to create an RWP manual instead of using their existing rulebook 
and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for employees working on or 
near the track. The commenter urged FTA to provide flexibility for 
agencies to incorporate the requirements from the RWP manual into their 
rulebooks, SOPs, or other agency documents as long as they cover all 
the Sec.  671.13 requirements. One RTA asserted that FTA should not 
require the RWP manual to be a stand-alone document but instead be 
integrated into existing rulebooks and recommended FTA remove the 
requirement of a separate document. The commenter suggested that a 
separate manual would increase the burden on employees who must 
maintain the operating rulebook, RWP manual, and a track access guide 
while performing duties. The commenter added that a separate manual 
could create version control issues where RWP manuals might be updated 
in conflict with operating rules and noted that version control is 
easier with a single operating rulebook. The commenter claimed this 
integration would streamline documentation, reduce redundancy, and 
better ensure compliance. One RTA commenter noted its system has both 
third rail-powered (heavy rail) lines and catenary-powered streetcar 
(light rail) lines and it intends to create separate RWP manuals, each 
satisfying the RWP program requirements, for each of its rail transit 
modes.
    One industry association commenter suggested that the RWP manual 
should address distractions related to personal communication devices, 
which are a major factor contributing to roadway worker safety events. 
The commenter recommended that Sec. Sec.  671.13 and 671.23 could 
specifically identify ``compliance with State, local, and agency rules 
and guidelines regarding worker distractions and prohibited devices/
items.''
    One RTA commenter recommended that FTA clarify the meaning of ``by 
labor category or type of work performed'' in terms of defining the 
training, qualification, and supervision required for accessing the 
track zone that must be documented in the RWP manual.
    One RTA requested that FTA clarify how the ``processes and 
procedures, including any use of roadway workers to provide adequate 
on-track safety, for all transit workers who may access the track zone 
in the performance of their work'' affect transit workers such as an 
operator entering the roadway to troubleshoot a train, or a customer 
service representative accessing the right-of-way to retrieve a 
personal item. Another RTA requested flexibility to maintain RWP 
processes and procedures outside the RWP manual, similar to the 
flexibility proposed for the track access guide. The commenter noted 
that if those processes and procedures are included in the RWP manual, 
employees' printed manuals may become outdated and no longer be 
reliable sources soon after issuance. Further, the commenter noted it 
is impossible to include the details of all track access and safety 
processes and procedures in the RWP manual while maintaining a 
reasonably sized document that employees can carry with them and easily 
navigate. The commenter argued that maintaining procedures separately 
would allow the manual to be more ``evergreen'' because its information 
will hold true even if the RTA makes minor procedure changes.
    One vendor commenter asked FTA for guidance on processes and 
procedures to provide on-track safety for ``safety and oversight 
personnel,'' especially in emergencies, that could be included in the 
RWP manual. One RTA commenter noted that the requirement to include in 
the RWP manual ``procedures for SSOA personnel to access the roadway'' 
seem out of place. The commenter recommended that if procedures for an 
SSOA to enter RTA property need to be referenced in the manual, the 
SSOA and the RTA should work together to develop a process by which the 
SSOA will engage the RTA to ensure proper protection when entering the 
RTA's track zone. One RTA commented that information on protecting 
safety and oversight personnel from moving rail vehicles should be in a 
separate section

[[Page 87182]]

and not included in the RWP manual section specific to ``roadway 
workers.''
    FTA Response: While FTA understands that RTAs may have existing 
rulebooks and SOPs in place that address RWP, FTA believes it is 
critical that RTAs establish and maintain a single, authoritative 
document so that it is clear to all parties where all the RWP 
information is housed and can be found. FTA believes that a singular 
document is also more conducive to annual reviews, and better 
facilitates SSOA and FTA oversight. FTA declines to remove the 
requirement for a separate manual but confirms that employees are not 
required under this rule to carry the RWP manual on their person. The 
rule only requires the RTA to distribute the RWP manual to all transit 
workers who access the roadway. FTA agrees with the commenter that 
suggested a single operating rulebook is preferable for version control 
and to reduce redundancy, which is why FTA is finalizing the 
requirement for a separate, dedicated manual. To reduce redundancy, FTA 
encourages RTAs to reference the RWP manual in existing rulebooks or 
operating procedures where appropriate or incorporate these existing 
documents into its RWP manual. In response to the comment that an RTA 
intends to create separate manuals for its heavy and light rail lines, 
FTA reiterates the requirement that RTAs establish one RWP manual as 
the single authoritative source of RWP program information for all rail 
modes operated by the RTA. However, the RTA could clearly differentiate 
in the manual the sections that are relevant to workers, based on the 
mode of operation.
    While FTA agrees that electronic personal communication devices can 
cause distractions, FTA believes that electronic devices do have a 
purpose in the field at times. Therefore, FTA declines to revise the 
rule to specifically address distractions related to personal 
communication devices but notes that RTAs may establish additional 
rules that are consistent with this regulation.
    FTA confirms that the intent of including the training, 
qualification, and supervision required for transit workers by labor 
category or type of work performed is to encourage RTAs to consider the 
different job roles, tasks, or functions for different classifications 
of workers or groupings of workers when addressing this requirement. 
Each labor category or worker classification may have distinct 
requirements based on the nature of the work they perform, which might 
require distinct training or supervision. As such, defining the 
necessary training, qualification, and supervision by labor category or 
type of work performed ensures that each group is appropriately trained 
and certified to access the roadway and supervised as necessary.
    The final rule requires that the RWP manual document processes and 
procedures for all transit workers who must access the track to perform 
their duties, which would include an operator entering the roadway to 
troubleshoot a train, or a customer service representative accessing 
the right-of-way to retrieve a personal item. For these instances of 
momentary track fouling, the final rule states that a transit worker 
may only foul the track once they have received appropriate permissions 
and redundant protections have been established as specified in the RWP 
manual. In response to the commenter that requested flexibility to 
maintain RWP processes and procedures outside the RWP manual, FTA 
reiterates the requirement that RTAs must establish one RWP manual as a 
single authoritative source of RWP program information. FTA believes 
maintaining one document ensures consistency and accountability for the 
workforce and strengthens the dependability of training and oversight 
measures. FTA also believes this requirement will encourage more 
efficient manual review and update processes pursuant to Sec.  
671.13(e). FTA has drawn the distinction for the track access guide to 
be incorporated by reference as track access guides for some agencies 
may be especially lengthy and/or may require more frequent updates than 
the updates to RTA policies and procedures. Because Sec.  671.13 
requires RTAs to update their RWP manuals as necessary and as soon as 
practicable upon any change to the system that conflicts with any 
element of the document, FTA is not concerned that including the 
processes in the RWP manual will result in outdated manuals. FTA notes 
that the final rule does not establish a requirement that RTAs must 
distribute a physical copy of the manual to all transit workers who 
access the roadway, thus eliminating the concern that the manuals may 
be too large to carry. The final rule offers RTAs flexibility to select 
the format for manual distribution, which could include electronically, 
as long as transit workers have easy access to an up-to-date version.
    FTA will consider the request for FTA guidance on processes and 
procedures to provide on-track safety for safety and oversight 
personnel, especially in emergencies, for future guidance and technical 
assistance. FTA disagrees with the commenter that procedures for SSOA 
personnel to access the roadway are out of place in the RWP manual 
because the final rule establishes requirements to ensure protections 
apply to all transit workers that access the roadway to perform work, 
including SSOA personnel conducting inspections or performing other 
oversight activities. FTA encourages the RTA and SSOA to work together, 
when appropriate, to establish procedures for SSOA personnel to access 
the roadway. The SSOA and RTA will also have the opportunity to 
formally agree on RWP procedures via the SSOA's approval of the RWP 
manual under Sec.  671.25. FTA disagrees that information on protecting 
safety and oversight personnel from moving rail vehicles should not be 
included in the RWP manual. The RWP manual is intended to document 
processes and procedures for all transit workers who may access the 
track zone in the performance of work, including SSOA personnel.
2. Track Access Guide
    Comments: One SSOA, seven RTAs, two industry associations, and two 
vendors submitted comments regarding the proposed requirement at Sec.  
671.13(d) that the RWP manual must include or incorporate by reference 
a track access guide to support on-track safety. An RTA commenter 
agreed that having this information easily accessible and maintained in 
one document would assist with its safety-promotion efforts.
    The SSOA commenter recommended that FTA consider requiring the 
track access guide be part of the RWP manual and not be incorporated by 
reference, given the guide's integral nature with the RWP manual. One 
industry association commenter noted that while the association 
supports written RWP procedure requirements, FTA's requirement for both 
an RWP manual and a track access guide is very prescriptive and the 
requirement for a track access guide for numerous employees on 
thousands of miles of track would be extremely burdensome. Further, the 
commenter added that it would be nearly impossible for employees to 
carry the guide daily. One RTA commenter noted that RTA right-of-way 
training and familiarization gives roadway employees all the tools they 
need to understand right-of-way limitations and exceptions and 
suggested additional guides may become confusing and detrimental to 
track access and could hinder the roadway worker. One RTA commenter 
asked if all updates to the track access guide would also be subject to 
SSOA review and approval. One RTA commenter asked if the RTA could use

[[Page 87183]]

its current track access guide to meet the requirement at Sec.  
671.13(d).
    Several RTAs and two industry associations commented on the 
locations that FTA proposed must be included in the track access guide. 
One RTA recommended FTA strike the requirements from the track access 
guide regarding identifying locations with specific conditions since 
many of the locations and conditions are variable.
    One RTA commenter provided their assessment that the focus of the 
locations only applies to work conducted under train approach warning, 
as other forms of RWP restrict rail vehicle movement. Two commenters 
asked FTA to clarify whether the track access guide requires a physical 
map or whether a detailed written description of system locations could 
meet the requirement. One industry association commenter noted the 
requirements at Sec.  671.13(d)(1) could be problematic for some 
agencies because their systems may not have many ``clearance'' zones 
along the track, especially in enclosed and elevated portions of subway 
systems while other systems such as streetcar will have clearance zones 
all along the track. One RTA commenter recommended that FTA include 
``changes in track grade'' as locations required to be included in the 
track access guide.
    Multiple RTAs, one SSOA, and two vendors commented on the 
requirement to include noise and environmental conditions in the track 
access guide. One RTA noted that these conditions constantly change 
within the RTA's system and cannot be pre-determined. The commenter 
added that these site-by-site locational conditions should be addressed 
through a site-specific job safety briefing during each shift. Another 
commenter suggested FTA remove ``environmental conditions'' from the 
track access guide because listing all potential environmental 
conditions that would require additional consideration will be very 
difficult.
    An SSOA and an RTA similarly asserted that the requirement to 
identify locations of reduced visibility due to weather conditions is 
unfeasible. The commenters added that identifying specific areas where 
weather may be a concern would be difficult, as weather conditions 
affecting visibility can change frequently and occur at any outdoor 
location on RTA property. The RTA commenter recommended that FTA modify 
this requirement to instead ``identify additional procedures or 
precautions that RTAs must take when weather conditions reduce 
visibility'' rather than identify locations subject to reduced 
visibility due to weather conditions. One vendor requested that FTA 
clarify whether ``reduced rail transit vehicle operator visibility due 
to precipitation or other weather conditions'' is intended to cover any 
outdoor track generally or to call out specific areas of higher risk.
    One RTA commenter noted that the requirement to identify 
``locations subject to increased rail vehicle or on-track equipment 
braking requirements'' (Sec.  671.13(d)(2)) is only relevant to rail 
vehicle operators and not to roadway workers. The commenter recommended 
that RTAs incorporate this location information into a timetable or 
other documentation for rail vehicle operators. This RTA also suggested 
FTA remove the requirements from the track access guide regarding 
identifying locations with limited visibility, noise, and other 
environmental conditions for RTAs that may have this information 
integrated into their timetable. One vendor commented on the 
requirement to identify ``locations with limited or no visibility due 
to obstructions or topography.'' The commenter suggested that track 
access guides should identify locations with ``permanent obstructions'' 
and include general notes regarding temporary obstructions in the RWP 
manual. The commenter noted temporary obstructions are potentially 
caused by train movement on adjacent tracks.
    One RTA commenter asked FTA to define ``portals with a restricted 
view.'' One vendor recommended FTA incorporate other locations that 
require hazard analysis to support safe access and adequate on-track 
safety. Two RTAs recommended that rather than including the 
environmental or weather conditions in the track access guide, the 
roadway worker in charge should respond to environmental conditions 
with appropriate additional safety procedures and discuss these 
conditions during job safety briefings.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees with requiring the track access guide 
to be part of the RWP manual because FTA believes that offering 
flexibility for RTAs to choose to maintain this track access guide 
separately from their RWP manual will allow frequent updates as the 
condition of the track system changes, which may be more frequent than 
changes to the RWP policies and procedures. FTA defers to RTAs on the 
design of the track access guide and expects that the level of detail 
for track access guides will correlate with the complexity of the 
transit system. The final rule does not require RTAs to distribute a 
physical copy of the track access guide to all transit workers who 
access the roadway, nor does it require transit workers to carry it on 
their person. The final rule offers RTAs flexibility to select the 
format of the track access guide, which may include an electronic 
format, to distribute the track access guide as long as transit workers 
have easy access to an up-to-date version. FTA believes that right-of-
way training and familiarization can be bolstered with the development 
of a track access guide. FTA does not believe that the addition of a 
track access guide will promote confusion, as the track access guide is 
based on a physical survey of the track geometry and condition of the 
transit system and is intended to provide workers a tangible reference 
point of the RTA's track system. RTAs are encouraged to provide 
additional information to help workers identify which sections of the 
track access guide are relevant to their roles and how the guide 
applies to their specific job duties.
    The final rule requires that the RWP manual include or incorporate 
by reference a track access guide and the SSOA must review and approve 
the RWP manual and any subsequent updates. As such, the SSOA must also 
review and approve updates to the track access guide.
    FTA confirms that creating a new track access guide is unnecessary 
as long as the existing guide meets all the requirements of Sec.  
671.13.
    FTA acknowledges that the requirement for the content of the track 
access guide is prescriptive but affirms that a track access guide is 
an important component of the RWP program to ensure awareness, 
coordination, and compliance among workers. FTA reviewed the comments 
regarding the specific locations that must be included in the track 
access guide and is finalizing the requirement as proposed. FTA 
believes that it is necessary to include all the areas listed in the 
rule because of the known safety risk posed by the enumerated locations 
and conditions. The track access guide is meant to inform workers of 
these areas of heightened risk and better allow for RTAs and workers to 
control for potential hazards. RTAs may opt to include additional 
environmental hazards in their track access guides, as needed. FTA 
disagrees that the focus of identified locations is only applicable to 
work that is being conducted under train approach warning and believes 
that identifying locations that may need additional consideration for 
establishing on-track safety is important and useful when accessing the 
roadway in the performance of all types of work.

[[Page 87184]]

However, FTA agrees that the information is particularly useful under 
train approach warning.
    FTA is deferring to RTAs to determine the best way to structure the 
guide, and the final rule does not require a physical map. FTA 
emphasizes that the location of close clearance points is an important 
detail, particularly in enclosed systems.
    FTA reiterates that the final rule establishes minimum standards as 
a baseline for rail transit RWP and expects that RTAs will establish 
their track access guides based on the unique environments and 
characteristics of their systems. FTA disagrees with the commenter that 
recommended FTA include ``changes in track grades'' as one of the 
locations required to be included in the track access guide, as it is 
unnecessary because this condition would fall under the umbrella of the 
requirement at Sec.  671.13(d)(2) to include ``locations subject to 
increased rail vehicle or on-track equipment braking requirements.''
    FTA agrees that noise and environmental conditions may routinely 
change within an RTA's system and cannot be pre-determined, and FTA 
agrees with the commenter that job safety briefings should include 
site-specific hazards and conditions related to the work to be 
performed and the protections to eliminate or protect against those 
hazards. RTAs are not required to list ``all'' environmental 
conditions, but rather those significant enough to require due 
consideration in establishing on-track safety. This may require the 
RTAs to conduct additional assessment, but will allow for better 
planning, preparedness, and risk mitigation in the long term. For that 
reason, FTA also declines to adopt the suggestion that FTA remove the 
requirements from the track access guide regarding identifying 
locations with limited visibility, noise, and other environmental 
conditions for RTAs that may have this information integrated into 
their timetable. FTA agrees that weather conditions are variable, and 
the final rule requires the track access guide to document locations of 
high risk that certain weather conditions may cause. For example, an 
RTA may be aware of track switches that frequently become covered by 
snow, which would affect the ability of a transit worker to see the 
switches, or of areas that are regularly covered by fog. Therefore, FTA 
declines to modify the requirement because FTA feels this information 
is useful and important to include.
    FTA confirms that the requirement for RTAs to identify ``locations 
with limited or no visibility due to obstructions or topography'' 
(Sec.  671.13(d)(1)) within the track access guide encompasses 
permanent obstructions. RTAs may opt to address temporary obstructions 
through various approaches, and FTA notes that job safety briefings 
provide an opportunity for RTAs to provide information on day-to-day 
conditions on the roadway or track zone.
    FTA declines to define ``portals with restricted views'' because 
the term in the final rule is intended as a general phrase to direct 
RTAs to identify specific locations on the railway where views may be 
partially obstructed upon entering or exiting the location.
    FTA declines to add other locations that require hazard analysis to 
support safe access and adequate on-track safety to the minimum 
required locations in a track access guide, as FTA believes the current 
list covers the locations that pose the greatest risk for most RTAs. 
However, FTA notes that the rule offers RTAs flexibility in identifying 
locations of high risk that require additional consideration for 
establishing on-track safety, and RTAs should include additional 
locations as appropriate to their systems.
    FTA disagrees that the roadway worker in charge should respond to 
environmental and weather conditions with appropriate additional safety 
procedures and discuss these conditions during the job safety briefing 
rather than require the RTA to include the conditions in the track 
access guide. As mentioned previously, the rule does not require RTAs 
to use current weather reports but instead requires RTAs to document in 
the guide locations of high risk that certain weather and environmental 
conditions may cause. However, FTA agrees that the roadway worker in 
charge should address current weather and environmental conditions in 
the job safety briefing.
3. Review and Update
    Comments: FTA received comments from six RTAs, two industry 
associations, and one vendor regarding the proposed RWP manual review 
and update requirements at Sec. Sec.  671.13(e) and (f). One RTA 
commenter suggested the proposed timeframe of reviewing and updating 
the manual every two years is tight, particularly for small systems, 
and could lead to hasty review practices. The commenter recommended 
that FTA consider changing the timeframe to three years to align with 
the SSO Triennial Audit process. One RTA commenter asked FTA to clarify 
whether a continuous review cycle meets the review requirement.
    One RTA and two industry associations recommended that FTA clarify 
the review and update requirement by revising it as follows: ``The RTA 
must review its RWP manual and, if necessary, update it.'' The RTA 
commenter and one industry association commenter added that 
incorporating the phrase ``if necessary'' will guide RTAs in 
determining that, in some instances, significant changes may not be 
necessary. All three commenters suggested that FTA establish guidance 
similar to 49 CFR part 673, whereby an RTA certifies that no updates 
were required following a review.
    One RTA recommended that each update to the RWP manual also address 
lessons learned from safety events, hazards, etc. The commenter asked 
whether addendums to the manual and track access guide count as forms 
of acceptable updates or if a manual reprint is required to satisfy the 
requirement to update as soon as practicable. One RTA commenter 
requested FTA permit bulletin notices as a temporary update to the 
manual rather than a complete reissue every time a change is identified 
within the two-year review period. Additionally, the vendor commented 
that changes to operating procedures could be incorporated by reference 
into the RWP manual, and RTAs could issue bulletins announcing 
operating rule changes. This would reduce the need to reprint RWP 
manuals and to conduct retraining on the manual. Another RTA commenter 
noted the requirement to update the RWP manual to reflect ``information 
provided by the SSOA and FTA'' and requested clarification from FTA 
regarding what constitutes ``information.'' In addition, the commenter 
asked FTA to clarify the grounds on which the SSOA or FTA can require 
an RTA to include this ``information'' in its RWP manual.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees that the requirement to review and 
update the RWP manual every two years could lead to hasty review 
practices. FTA asserts that the two-year timeframe ensures that the RWP 
manual reflects current RTA conditions, policies and procedures, and 
lessons learned. Requiring the review no less than every two years 
allows RTAs sufficient time to review and update the manual, but also 
provides flexibility for RTAs who find it prudent to update the manual 
more regularly. FTA thinks two years is an appropriate period of time 
to review and consider new information and, therefore, will not result 
in hasty review practices. In response to the commenter that requested 
FTA clarify whether a continuous review cycle meets the review 
requirement, FTA notes that the rule establishes a minimum requirement 
for RTA review and update at least

[[Page 87185]]

every two years. Continuous reviews could meet this requirement so long 
as they are comprehensive and the entire manual is verifiably reviewed 
at least every two years. Updates to the RWP manual must be submitted 
by the RTA to its SSOA for review and approval, as described in section 
Sec.  671.25.
    FTA declines to add a qualifier to the regulation that the RWP 
manual must only be updated if necessary, as was suggested by 
commenters. FTA believes that as drafted, RTAs are only required to 
update the manual if a review determines it is necessary. FTA 
recommends that RTAs document their review process and findings, which 
may conclude that no changes are needed. This documentation ensures RTA 
compliance with the requirement and provides a record that the review 
was carried out as mandated and notes that review findings indicated no 
changes were required.
    FTA is not revising the regulation to specify that updates to the 
RWP manual include lessons learned from safety events and hazards, 
because FTA feels the existing regulatory text encompasses this 
expectation. FTA expects lessons learned in implementing the RWP 
program would include lessons learned from safety events, the results 
of RWP compliance monitoring, actions the RTA has taken to address 
reports of unsafe acts and conditions and near-misses, and the results 
of the agency's monitoring of redundant protection effectiveness. FTA 
is not requiring a specific format for the RWP manual update and 
intends for the final rule to provide flexibility for RTAs to determine 
the format of RWP manual updates as well as the format for distribution 
to workers.
    In response to the commenter that requested FTA permit bulletin 
notices as a temporary update to the manual rather than a complete 
reissue every time a change is identified within the two-year review 
period, FTA notes that the final rule requires the RTA must update its 
RWP manual and track access guide as necessary and as soon as 
practicable upon any change to the system which conflicts with any 
element of either document. The manual document itself must be updated 
and redistributed to all transit workers who access the roadway, but 
the updated document can be provided in manner that is practical for 
the RTA (electronically, in paper, etc.)
    The requirement to review and update the RWP manual to reflect 
``information provided by the SSOA and FTA'' is consistent with the SRM 
requirements of the PTASP regulation for RTAs to include data and 
information provided by an oversight authority as a source of hazard 
identification and to include guidance provided by an oversight 
authority as a source for safety risk mitigation. In this context, 
``information provided by the SSOA and FTA'' may include, but is not 
limited to suggestions for improvement, industry best practices, 
relevant State and Federal regulatory updates, and information related 
to investigations or audit findings. SSOAs are required to approve the 
RWP manual and subsequent updates and are authorized to deny approval 
if information is omitted that the SSOA determines is necessary, 
consistent with the SSOA's general oversight authority.
4. Distribution
    Comments: Five RTAs, one industry association, and two vendors 
submitted comments regarding the proposed RWP manual distribution and 
redistribution requirement at Sec.  671.13(g). Multiple commenters 
asked FTA to specify the required format for distributing the RWP 
manual and track access guide and asked if electronic/digital 
distributions are permissible or if hard copies must be distributed. A 
commenter asked if ``distribute'' means allowing easy access to the 
manual or if it requires a physical copy. Two commenters suggested 
that, similarly to FRA, the roadway worker in charge should carry a 
manual or have easy access to a manual and serve as the responsible 
party for responding to challenges or concerns that arise.
    One RTA commenter alternatively suggested that it is more effective 
for departments to distribute procedures, rather than the entire 
manual, because the workers get only the RWP information related to 
their jobs. The commenter noted that this arrangement is less confusing 
for workers, particularly for contractor employees whose tenure at an 
RTA is brief and limited to a single location or a few locations. The 
RTA commenter agreed, however, that a single document would simplify 
SSOA review and approval.
    One RTA commenter requested that FTA clarify whether RTAs also must 
redistribute the track access guide as part of any RWP manual update. 
One vendor recommended that FTA require RTAs to destroy or 
``confiscate'' old copies when issuing new RWP manual versions because 
of the importance of version control. In addition, the commenter 
recommended that RTAs retrain or brief transit workers on substantial 
updates that fundamentally change an element of the RWP program before 
transit or roadway workers enter the track zone after a change. One RTA 
recommended that FTA change the wording of the requirement that the 
manual be distributed ``to all transit workers who access the roadway'' 
to ``all transit workers who must enter a track zone to perform work.'' 
The commenter argued this rewording would better align with the phrases 
used elsewhere in the rule. One industry association and an RTA noted 
concern about the practicality of requiring the manual to be 
distributed to ``all transit workers who access the roadway'' as this 
could be a large group and that distributing hard copies to all transit 
workers, including employees, contractors, and SSOA personnel, would 
come at a high cost and be an excessive administrative burden.
    FTA Response: The final rule does not require RTAs to distribute 
physical copies of the manual and track access guide to all transit 
workers who access the roadway in the performance of their work. The 
final rule offers RTAs flexibility to select the distribution format, 
which could include electronic dissemination, as long as transit 
workers have access to up-to-date versions. This flexibility also is 
intended to ease the potential administrative and cost burden one 
commenter raised as a concern.
    FTA agrees that access to the RWP manual at a worksite is useful 
for the roadway worker in charge as a reference to address good faith 
safety challenges. However, FTA is not adopting the suggestion to 
require the roadway worker in charge carry the manual. FTA acknowledges 
that RWP manuals will vary in size and content detail, and requiring 
the roadway worker in charge to keep the manual on their person may be 
impractical in certain circumstances. FTA defers to RTAs to decide if 
and when it is appropriate to require the roadway worker in charge or 
transit workers to keep a full or partial copy of the manual on hand. 
FTA reiterates that the rule requires RTAs to establish and maintain a 
separate, dedicated manual documenting its RWP program and to 
distribute the manual to all transit workers who access the roadway in 
the performance of their work. However, RTAs can highlight for workers 
which portions of the manual are relevant to their duties.
    FTA confirms that an RTA would only be required to redistribute the 
track access guide if it is revised. FTA declines to establish a 
requirement for RTAs to destroy old manuals and is deferring to RTAs on 
their document control practices, so long as they are consistent with 
the recordkeeping requirements of this part. FTA is not incorporating 
into the final rule the suggestion that RTAs retrain or brief

[[Page 87186]]

transit workers on substantial updates that fundamentally change an 
element of the RWP program before transit or roadway workers enter the 
track zone after a change. FTA believes that the requirement for RTAs 
to redistribute the RWP manual after each revision and the requirements 
for refresher training in this rule are sufficient to ensure transit 
workers are aware of the changes but reiterates that RTAs may establish 
additional procedures that are consistent with this regulation.
    FTA intends for the RWP manual to be broadly distributed to all 
transit workers who access the roadway in the performance of their 
work. Broad distribution of the RWP manual promotes a safety culture at 
RTAs wherein all transit workers are aware of the hazards of their job 
duties and work environment, are aware of the processes and procedures 
to mitigate those hazards and are accountable for compliance with those 
processes and procedures.

G. Section 671.21--Rail Transit Agency

    FTA received comments on the various proposed responsibilities of 
RTAs.
1. Procedures To Provide Ample Time
    Comments: One SSOA commented on the requirement for RTAs to 
establish procedures to provide ample time and determine the 
appropriate sight distance based on maximum authorized track speeds and 
suggested that a better way to establish the appropriate sight distance 
for determining ample time would be to require the track access maps to 
have the maximum allowable speeds printed on maps for entire system.
    FTA Response: This rule requires RTAs to create and maintain track 
access guides to support on-track safety. FTA encourages agencies, as 
appropriate, to include allowable speeds within the track access guide 
or on related visual materials. However, due to significant variances 
in RTAs subject to this rule, FTA declines to require RTAs to include 
authorized speeds within the track access guide or other printed maps.
2. Procedures Regarding Individual Rail Transit Vehicle Detection
    Comments: FTA received comments on the requirement that RTAs 
establish procedures to ensure that individual rail transit vehicle 
detection is never used as the only form of protection in the track 
zone at Sec.  671.21(a)(2) from one SSOA, multiple RTAs, and one 
vendor. The SSOA commenter asked FTA to clarify whether it intends to 
allow individual rail transit vehicle detection, asserting that FTA's 
definition of ``minor task'' muddies the issue.
    A vendor asked if FTA intends to make individual rail transit 
vehicle detection the minimum form of on-track safety. If so, the 
commenter indicated that the definition of ``individual rail transit 
vehicle detection'' implies that only lone workers may use this form of 
on-track safety. The vendor also recommended that FTA reword Sec.  
671.21(a)(2) to read: ``Ensure that individual rail transit vehicle 
detection is always accompanied by a form of redundant protection in 
the track zone.''
    One RTA commenter asked FTA to identify additional forms of 
protection that would satisfy the redundant protection requirement. 
Another RTA requested that FTA clarify what it envisions as additional 
forms of protection beyond individual rail transit vehicle detection 
for two-person work crews and lone workers. One vendor recommended that 
FTA specify in the rule the required forms of on-track safety beyond 
individual rail transit vehicle detection.
    One RTA commenter agreed that most situations of fouling the 
roadway call for a higher form of protection than individual rail 
transit vehicle detection alone, but argued that in limited specific 
cases, such as a worker traveling a short distance (e.g., 100 feet) 
from one place of safety to another, employing a secondary form of 
protection in addition to individual train detection is impractical and 
unnecessary. The commenter suggested that FTA refrain from universally 
applying the requirement for supplemental protection while using 
individual train detection and instead reserve the right for an RTA to 
require supplemental protection as it deems necessary based on the 
environment, specific conditions, and cases of use. Another RTA 
commenter suggested that prohibiting the use of rail transit vehicle 
detection as the only form of protection may require agencies to modify 
their procedures for accessing the track for short periods of one 
minute or less, such as an operator getting out of the rail vehicle to 
remove debris from the track. The commenter asked that FTA consider the 
implications of this requirement on existing procedures governing short 
periods of track access and recommended that FTA leave the decision to 
determine secondary protections up to the RTAs, as called for in APTA's 
standard.
    One RTA commented that prohibiting the use of individual rail 
transit vehicle detection as the only form of protection is more 
applicable to systems that do not operate as line of sight, low speed, 
and in mixed traffic where pedestrians are common. This commenter noted 
that some RTA tasks, such as litter pick up, leaf blowing, and cutting 
grass, are typically performed without a flagger or other means of 
redundant protection but with other measures, including calling the 
operations control center and requiring operators to pass at walking 
speed.
    One RTA noted that prohibiting the use of individual rail transit 
vehicle detection as the only form of protection will now require a 
two-man crew to perform work currently done by a lone worker. The 
commenter added that FTA did not address this issue in the regulation. 
Another RTA commenter stated that this requirement contradicts FTA's 
definition and requirements for lone workers.
    FTA Response: This final rule prohibits the use of individual rail 
transit vehicle detection as a sole form of protection for all workers 
on the roadway, including those performing minor tasks. FTA confirms 
that RTAs can use individual rail transit vehicle detection as long as 
there is another form of protection in place. The rule sets 
requirements for RTAs to conduct a safety risk assessment to identify 
and establish redundant protections for each category of work that 
workers perform on the roadway or track, even those workers conducting 
minor tasks. FTA confirms that this rule does not identify a minimum 
form of on-track safety, but rather establishes a requirement for 
redundant protection that ensures no transit worker is allowed to use 
individual rail transit vehicle protection as their sole protection on 
the roadway. FTA declines to adopt the recommendation to reword Sec.  
671.21(a)(2) to emphasize that individual rail transit vehicle 
detection is always accompanied by a form of redundant protection 
because FTA believes the existing phrasing clearly expresses the 
requirement that RTAs cannot use individual rail transit vehicle 
detection as the only method of on-track safety. FTA is not prescribing 
the kinds of redundant protections that an RTA must have in place. 
Instead, RTAs must conduct a safety risk assessment to identify and 
establish redundant protections based on their unique operating 
characteristics and capabilities and SSOAs may also identify redundant 
protections for RTAs. A non-exhaustive list of potential redundant 
protections is also enumerated in Sec.  671.39(d).
    FTA disagrees that employing a secondary form of protection in 
addition to individual train detection is

[[Page 87187]]

impractical and unnecessary in limited specific cases. FTA risk 
assessments and NTSB investigations reveal that fatalities and injuries 
have occurred in recent years when work groups and individuals relied 
on rail transit vehicle detection for on-track safety. This prohibition 
is responsive to the NTSB recommendations to require redundant 
protections for roadway workers and to eliminate the use of individual 
rail vehicle detection. FTA appreciates that prohibiting the use of 
rail transit vehicle detection as the only form of protection may 
require agencies to modify their procedures for accessing the track for 
short periods, and FTA recognizes the burden this may place on 
agencies. Due to the high-risk nature of roadway work, and the 
demonstrable inadequacies of individual rail transit vehicle detection 
as a sole source of on-track safety, FTA believes it is necessary to 
require redundant protections for transit workers who foul a track even 
for short periods of time.
    FTA acknowledges that line-of-sight, low-speed rail transit systems 
experience different risks than other RTAs. Prohibiting the use of 
individual rail transit vehicle detection as a sole form of protection 
is still necessary to address these differing risks. For example, in 
mixed traffic environments transit workers must account for noise or 
sight obstructions, pedestrian activity, or other vehicles--all of 
which may serve as a critical distraction to an individual worker. 
However, FTA understands RTAs have varying operating and environmental 
characteristics that may require different redundant protections which 
is why the final rule requires RTAs to use their safety risk assessment 
process to identify and establish the redundant protections that best 
suit their operating environments and the work performed by transit 
workers on the roadway.
    FTA acknowledges that some tasks, such as litter pick up, leaf 
blowing, and cutting grass, are typically performed without a flagger 
or other means of redundant protection. However, reliance on rail 
transit vehicle detection, with no redundant protection, does not 
sufficiently account for unforeseen circumstances or predictable human 
error. FTA disagrees with the commenter that prohibiting the use of 
individual rail transit vehicle detection as the only form of 
protection will now require a two-man crew to perform work currently 
done by a lone worker. FTA notes that redundant protections that RTAs 
may identify may include procedures, such as foul time and advance 
warning systems, or physical protections to stop trains in advance of 
workers, such as derailers and shunts, which do not require a second 
person. FTA disagrees that the requirement to ensure individual rail 
transit vehicle detection is never used as the only form of protection 
in the track zone contradicts FTA's definition and requirements for 
lone workers. The provisions regarding lone workers at Sec.  671.35 
emphasize that a lone worker may not use individual rail transit 
vehicle detection as the only form of on-track safety. Further, the 
rule requires RTAs to establish redundant protections for each category 
of worker, including lone workers. FTA's intent is to ensure that lone 
workers can perform appropriate tasks while maintaining a high level of 
safety through redundant protections.
3. Procedures Related to Job Safety Briefings
    Comments: One vendor and one RTA commented on the requirement that 
RTAs establish procedures related to job safety briefings at Sec.  
671.21(a)(3) and (4). The vendor recommended that FTA revise the 
requirement for when job safety briefings must be provided. 
Specifically, the commenter recommended that job safety briefings be 
required for all transit workers who must or have the potential to 
enter the track zone, which the commenter argued would be consistent 
with FTA's proposed definition of roadway worker. The RTA suggested 
using the term ``safety stand down'' to refer to job safety briefings 
that are required after a rule violation is observed. This RTA also 
asked if this job safety briefing would occur after specific violations 
or all rule violations.
    FTA Response: The final rule requires that RTAs establish 
procedures to provide a job safety briefing to transit workers whose 
job entails entering a track zone. FTA declines to revise Sec.  
671.21(a)(3) because FTA believes the language is sufficiently clear 
and identifies the individuals subject to the job briefing requirement. 
FTA expects the RTA to ensure that, as soon as it becomes clear that a 
transit worker who may potentially enter the track zone must enter 
track zone, the worker is provided with a job safety briefing.
    FTA notes that RTAs may use their own term for job safety briefings 
as long as the briefings meet the requirements of this rule. FTA 
confirms that Sec.  671.21(a)(4) intends that RTAs must conduct a job 
safety briefing after any observed rule violation, not just specific 
ones.
4. Procedures for Good Faith Safety Challenge
    Comments: Labor organizations and one RTA commented on Sec.  
671.21(a)(5) and the requirement for RTAs to establish procedures to 
provide transit workers with the right to challenge and refuse in good 
faith any assignment. One labor organization welcomed and supported the 
NPRM provisions that would require an RTA to provide transit workers 
with a mechanism to exercise the right to refuse a work assignment 
presenting ``on-track safety concerns.'' However, one labor 
organization noted that while FTA requires the RTA to have procedures 
to resolve these challenges ``promptly and equitably,'' FTA did not 
define ``equity'' in this context. The labor organization commented 
that without a definition of ``equity,'' management will be disinclined 
to use a process that gives equal weight to the worker's views--which 
is what the commenter urges ``equity'' must mean in the context of the 
proposed rule. Multiple labor organizations recommended that FTA define 
the process for resolving good faith safety challenges, suggesting the 
process could include negotiations with pre-determined representatives 
or with mediation or arbitration. The commenters argued that FTA should 
not give management space to plead vagueness regarding ``equity'' or to 
skirt FTA's intended meaning of the term, and that FTA must be clear in 
the final rule about what ``equity'' requires in the context of good-
faith work refusals.
    One RTA expressed concern about the requirement for procedures that 
allow workers to ``refuse'' work, which they alleged would go against 
good safety policy and potentially against collective bargaining unit 
agreements. The RTA recommended keeping the good-faith challenge 
language but removing the ``refuse'' language, noting that the RTA 
already has a good-faith challenge process that works when used 
properly.
    FTA Response: FTA's provision for good faith safety challenge is 
consistent with APTA standard for RWP, and reflective of best practices 
within the transit industry. FTA declines to further prescribe a 
process for resolving good faith safety challenges, as FTA notes that 
an RTA's size, staffing, and system type may impact how they approach 
the good faith safety challenge process. FTA declines to define 
``equitably,'' as FTA uses ``equitably'' in this context in its 
commonly understood meaning.
    FTA also notes the rule's provisions, per Sec.  671.25(c)(2)(i)(C), 
requiring the SSOA to conduct annual audits to assess the effectiveness 
of the RTA's

[[Page 87188]]

implementation of its RWP program, including review of ``all 
documentation of instances where a transit worker(s) challenged and 
refused in good faith any assignment based on on-track safety concerns 
and documentation of the resolution for any such instance during the 
period covered by the audit.'' If during this audit the SSOA determines 
that good faith safety challenges are not resolved equitably, the SSOA 
must issue findings and require corrective action.
    FTA acknowledges the concern regarding the requirement for 
procedures that allow workers to ``refuse'' work. However, FTA believes 
the right to refusal is integral to the good faith safety challenge to 
prioritize worker safety, promptly resolve hazards, and emphasize the 
preeminence of safety in a rail transit environment. FTA is not 
requiring that RTAs revise their existing process, as long as the 
process meets the minimum requirements specified in this rule.
5. Procedures To Require Reporting of Unsafe Events
    Comments: One RTA and one labor organization submitted comments 
regarding the requirement for RTAs to establish procedures to require 
the reporting of unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, and near-misses on the 
roadway in Sec.  671.21(a)(6). The RTA commented that the new mandatory 
reporting requirements for transit workers in Sec.  671.21(a)(6) and 
Sec.  671.23(e) are a significant expansion of the employee safety 
reporting program and would require significantly more resources to 
manage on an ongoing basis given the broad nature of the new reporting 
categories. The commenter also noted concern about overburdening the 
Safety Committee established under the PTASP regulation with what would 
be a large increase in the volume of information reported through this 
program.
    The labor organization suggested that confidentiality be emphasized 
for reporting near-misses, noting that participation would be more 
widespread and the accounts more accurate. The organization stated that 
near-miss data collection is most useful when plentiful and 
unvarnished, thus ensuring and emphasizing confidentiality in this 
reporting process will benefit all involved parties.
    FTA Response: FTA notes that while the requirement in this rule for 
procedures for transit workers to report unsafe acts and conditions 
seems to represent an expansion of the employee reporting program, an 
RTA's Transit Worker Safety Reporting Program, established under part 
673, applies to all workers and should already capture transit worker 
safety reports related to work performed on the roadway. This final 
rule emphasizes the importance of an RTA's safety reporting program in 
capturing safety-critical information related to RWP, but it is FTA's 
expectation that much of this information is being captured by RTAs via 
existing practice. FTA acknowledges that, where this is not the case, 
managing additional reporting will pose a burden for agencies. FTA 
believes these extra requirements are critical to ensuring safety and 
empowering workers to voice concerns, particularly because unsafe 
conditions and practices persist throughout the transit industry. FTA 
has accounted for the added cost of these reporting changes in the 
final rule economic analysis under ``Near-Miss Reporting Program and 
Records'' estimates.
    FTA agrees that confidential reporting has many benefits that 
promote safety culture and encourage employee reporting and FTA 
encourages the practice of confidential reporting whenever appropriate 
and feasible. However, FTA is preserving the flexibility for RTAs to 
establish the transit worker safety reporting processes that are most 
effective for their operating realities. For some agencies, competing 
considerations such as expediency of reporting, staff size, and the 
need for additional information may require identified reporters. FTA 
confirms that acceptable methods of reporting near-miss information 
include both confidential and nonconfidential reporting. Further, FTA 
encourages RTAs to consider providing ways for transit workers to 
anonymously report safety concerns and to consider participating in 
third-party confidential close-call reporting programs.
6. Procedures To Ensure Transit Workers Understand RWP Program
    Comments: One RTA submitted a comment addressing the requirement 
that RTAs establish procedures to ensure all transit workers who must 
enter a track zone to perform work understand, are qualified in, and 
comply with the RWP program at Sec.  671.21(a)(7). This RTA asserted 
that all transit workers should not be required to comply with the RWP 
program, as this program is designed for roadway workers. The commenter 
added that alternate methods of protection should be in place to 
protect workers of other crafts, i.e., blue signal/flag protection for 
mechanical employees.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees that the RWP program is designed only 
for roadway workers and that not all transit workers should be required 
to comply with the program, though FTA acknowledges that transit and 
roadway workers may have other requirements in place to ensure their 
safety, such as blue/signal flag protection for vehicle mechanics and 
technicians. FTA intends for the provisions in this rule to provide 
protection for all transit workers as they access the track in the 
performance of their work. FTA recognizes that work may take place on 
the track, in vehicle maintenance shops, in rail yards, or elsewhere 
that requires additional protections beyond those addressed by this 
final rule.
7. Requirements for On-Track Safety
    Comments: Multiple RTAs, one industry association, one individual, 
and one vendor commented on the provision that RTAs establish 
requirements for on-track equipment at Sec.  671.21(b)(1). One RTA 
noted that the term ``labor category'' is used throughout the rule but 
is not defined anywhere and requested that FTA clarify the term since 
labor classifications and organizational structures vary by agency. 
Another RTA requested clarification on the requirement for credentials 
``by labor category.'' The individual commented on behalf of railroad 
and transit workers that wear religiously mandated articles of faith 
such as Amish wide brimmed hats, Sikh dastaar or turban, and Jewish 
kippahs. The individual requested that FTA and FRA develop a policy or 
guidelines for rail workers who wear articles of faith that may be 
incompatible with personal protective equipment, such as hard hats. The 
vendor suggested that FTA not list examples of personal protective 
equipment at Sec.  671.21(b)(1) as the intent is not to specify minimum 
personal protective equipment requirements.
    Multiple RTAs and one industry association submitted comments on 
the credentials requirement at Sec.  671.21(b)(2). One RTA asked FTA to 
explain the purpose of requiring RTAs to establish requirements for 
visibly displaying credentials, stating that if the roadway worker has 
their credentials somewhere on their person, then that should be 
sufficient. Two RTAs inquired if the FTA was proposing that these 
credentials must displayed in a certain way, or whether the intention 
of this section is to require credentials always be visible.
    One RTA suggested that the requirement for RTA employees to display 
RWP qualification credentials is likely to result in confusion, noting 
that the rule appears to propose that different credentials would be 
required

[[Page 87189]]

for each RWP position (worker, flag person, watchperson, roadway worker 
in charge). As an example, the commenter noted that an employee 
displaying a roadway worker in charge qualification might be performing 
watchperson duties. The RTA recommended that RTAs be free to select any 
effective method of identifying employees' qualifications.
    One RTA and one industry association suggested revising Sec.  
671.21(b)(2) to remove reference to how the credentials of an RWP 
program are displayed. The commenters argued that credentialing 
requirements should be left at the discretion of the RTAs and the 
approving SSOA.
    One RTA asked if an electronic solution, such as the roadway worker 
in charge electronically scanning ID badges during the job safety 
briefing, would meet the requirement to display credentials at Sec.  
671.21(b)(2). The RTA also expressed concern that, if credentials must 
be displayed at all times while on the roadway, it could create a 
safety hazard for RTAs that use lanyard type badges.
    An RTA stated that the ``roadway'' definition, as it relates to 
required displayed credentials in Sec.  671.21(b)(2), is problematic 
for RTAs with tracks that share city right-of-way with automobiles and 
intersection crosswalks with pedestrians and suggested considering 
specifying ``work and work zones'' rather than ``roadway.''
    Two RTAs commented on the requirement for on-track safety 
protections for emergency response personnel at Sec.  671.21(b)(3). One 
RTA explained that their agency stops service and movement of trains to 
ensure emergency personnel have a safe environment to do their job. The 
commenter noted that training of emergency personnel will be 
unnecessary because the danger of train movement will be halted during 
their response within the right-of-way. The other RTA commented that 
the RWP program is not the appropriate place for this requirement and 
that access to the roadway outside of the protection of a roadway 
worker in charge should be provided for in the RTA's emergency response 
plan.
    One RTA commenter and one industry association commenter requested 
that FTA consider adding provisions that persons who are not trained on 
or qualified in the RWP program can be escorted in a track zone by RWP-
qualified personnel, a practice currently existing in California. The 
commenters added that the need for this may occur due to unique track 
configurations, systems design, or shared access areas with other non-
RTA entities.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to define the term ``labor category'' 
because labor categories and types of work performed can be defined in 
several ways and will vary by agency due to the diverse operating 
characteristics of RTAs. FTA defers to RTAs to identify the labor 
categories and different job functions that are relevant for their 
unique systems. FTA expects RTAs to establish minimum requirements, 
based on the type of work performed, for the equipment, training, 
qualification, supervision, and credentials required for transit 
workers to access the roadway and address those requirements 
accordingly. Regarding the requirement for credentials ``by labor 
category,'' FTA intends that workers will display a physical indication 
of their qualification to access the roadway or the track zone. FTA 
defers to RTAs to determine the specific labor categories to be 
displayed.
    FTA expects that RTA policies regarding personal protective 
equipment will consider religious articles that may be worn by transit 
workers. FTA encourages RTAs to develop personal protective equipment 
policies that adequately protect transit workers while being 
appropriately flexible.
    FTA declines to remove the list of examples of personal protective 
equipment from the regulations because examples in this case help 
illustrate or show the characteristics of personal protective 
equipment. FTA notes these examples are non-exhaustive and only 
intended to clarify personal protective equipment.
    FTA disagrees with the suggestion to revise Sec.  671.21(b)(2) to 
remove any reference to displaying RWP program credentials. A physical 
indication of an individual's qualification to access the roadway or 
the track zone helps ensure that roadway workers have the proper 
training and are aware of the safety risks and the protections to 
reduce those risks. Displaying credentials also clarifies workers 
roles, and ensures workers are following the appropriate protocols for 
those roles. This requirement is reflective of industry best practices. 
FTA confirms that the final rule requires credentials be visible at all 
times, not just during the job safety briefing; however, this 
requirement does not specify that they be displayed in a certain way. 
Examples include credentials displayed in see-through card holders on 
safety vests, rubber identification bracelets, badges, and bands. FTA 
defers to RTAs to determine the form of credentialing, as long as it 
can be visible. FTA clarifies the rule does not specify the content or 
the form of the credentials and defers to RTAs to establish the 
appropriate credentials for their systems. As mentioned previously, 
this requirement is reflective of industry best practices and a 
physical indication of an individual's qualification to access the 
roadway or the track zone helps ensure that only roadway workers who 
have the proper training and are aware of the safety risk and the 
protections to reduce that risk access the roadway. In response to the 
commenter's concern that lanyard-type badges could create a safety 
hazard, FTA is not prescribing the forms of credentialing and defers to 
RTAs to identify the form while keeping safety at the forefront. 
Similarly, because FTA is not requiring specific credentials, FTA has 
not accounted for additional expenses in the Benefits and Costs 
section.
    Under Sec.  671.21(b)(2), RTAs must establish requirements for 
credentials for transit workers who enter the roadway or track zone. 
FTA maintains that the language ``roadway or track zone'' within this 
provision allows for flexibility for systems with shared rights-of-way 
in determining when credentials must be displayed. FTA also does not 
believe ``work zone'' would be sufficient in this context, as roadway 
workers in the track zone but outside of the work zone still should be 
verifiably credentialed for reasons including ensuring proper 
authorization, communication, and emergency response protocols.
    FTA notes that the rule does not require RTAs to provide RWP 
training to emergency personnel; rather, RTAs must establish procedures 
to protect emergency personnel who must access the roadway or the track 
zone to perform their job. FTA believes it is necessary to address 
emergency personnel in this part to make clear that RTAs are required 
to provide protections for emergency response personnel who must access 
the roadway or track zone, and that workers are aware of this 
requirement. FTA also notes that Sec.  671.21(b)(3) requires an RTA to 
establish requirements for protections for emergency response personnel 
who must access the roadway or the track but does not prohibit an RTA 
from documenting these protections and procedures in the RTA's 
emergency response plan. In response to the RTA and industry 
association commenters who requested the addition of provisions to 
allow persons who are not trained on or qualified in the RWP program to 
be escorted in a track zone by RWP-qualified personnel, FTA is amending 
the regulation to address escorting non-transit workers when

[[Page 87190]]

necessary, to support individuals that are not RWP certified and do not 
fall into the categories of roadway worker, transit worker, or 
emergency personnel.

H. Section 671.23--Transit Worker

    Comments: Five RTAs, one SSOA, and one vendor commented on the role 
of transit workers in the RWP program detailed in Sec.  671.23. One RTA 
asked what the impact would be if a transit worker did not follow the 
requirements of the RTA's RWP program. The RTA asked FTA to clarify the 
intersection between this requirement and existing labor contracts and 
discipline processes and what FTA's intent is in including this 
requirement. Further, they recommended allowing the discipline 
processes outlined per standard RTA processes and/or labor agreements 
to stand and suggested that FTA add a line to the regulation that 
clearly states, ``Do not get involved in discussions regarding 
discipline. That is a labor-management issue.''
    One RTA expressed concern with the practicality of the requirement 
in Sec.  671.23(b) that a transit worker may only foul the track once 
they have received appropriate permissions, and redundant protections 
have been established as specified in the RWP manual. The commenter 
noted that in streetcar systems, transit workers foul the track every 
day whether on or off duty, simply by being pedestrians or motorists. 
Another RTA noted that the scope of this requirement is too broad by 
including all transit workers in a rulemaking focused on roadway 
workers. The commenter added that the requirement to obtain RWP for 
common activities, such as fouling a track to immediately cross from 
one place of safety to another when views are not obstructed creates an 
undue burden on control center personnel. One SSOA suggested using 
``fouling a track'' rather than ``fouling the track'' in this 
subsection to mirror the definition in Sec.  671.5.
    Commenting on Sec.  671.23(c), ``Acknowledgement of protections 
providing on-track safety,'' one RTA asked if having the transit worker 
sign the bottom of the job safety briefing would be an acceptable form 
of written acknowledgement. Another RTA asked if this acknowledgement 
would be a secondary document beyond what is provided in a train order 
or special instruction during RWP work. One SSOA asked if the 
acknowledgement of on-track procedures in writing was intended to be 
part of the job safety briefing requirement and if it must be a formal 
signature. A vendor recommended requiring that it be the transit 
worker's responsibility to obtain a safety briefing prior to accessing 
the track zone. The vendor emphasized the importance that transit 
workers understand that it is their responsibility to receive the 
safety briefing from the roadway worker in charge and not sign off on 
the briefing until they fully comprehend the on-track safety being 
afforded.
    For the authority to refuse to foul the track identified in Sec.  
671.23(d), one RTA commented that the determination that an assignment 
is unsafe is a subjective view that requires no basis in fact and so 
should be removed as a reason for a transit worker to refuse to foul a 
track.
    FTA Response: If transit workers do not comply with the 
requirements of the RTA's RWP program, the RTA must determine the 
reason for this failure. Because policies and regulations regarding 
labor practices will vary among RTAs and from State to State, FTA 
declines to stipulate what discipline processes an agency should or 
should not include as part of its RWP program. Similarly, FTA declines 
to add the FRA language recommended by the commenter to the regulation 
and notes that RTAs should ensure that they comply with both the RWP 
program and their existing labor contracts.
    Regarding the concern with the practicality of the requirement that 
a transit worker may only foul the track once they have received 
appropriate permissions and redundant protections have been 
established, FTA's intent is to restrict workers from unauthorized 
track access and/or fouling the track unnecessarily. FTA understands 
that in streetcar systems, people, including pedestrians, motorists, or 
off-duty transit workers, may regularly foul the track. However, FTA 
reiterates that the regulation applies to transit workers who access 
any rail fixed guideway public transportation systems in the 
performance of work and does not set provisions for crossing the track 
as a pedestrian or motorist, but rather focuses on fouling the track in 
the performance of work under the protection of the RWP program.
    FTA understands the concern that obtaining RWP for common 
activities, such as fouling a track to immediately cross from one place 
of safety to another, may be burdensome. However, FTA has determined 
that hazards exist for many categories of transit employees who work on 
or in close proximity to the right-of-way, regardless of the 
circumstances. For roadway workers, this rule includes provisions at 
Sec.  671.39(d)(3) for equivalent protections approved by the SSOA for 
lone workers, providing flexibility for these situations. For transit 
workers who are not roadway workers and who must momentarily access the 
roadway, agencies have flexibility to establish appropriate permissions 
and redundant protections in accordance with Sec.  671.23(b).
    FTA declines to revise ``fouling the track'' to ``fouling a track'' 
to mirror the definition language (Sec.  671.5) as it does not affect 
the meaning of the requirement as used in this section.
    FTA confirms that signing the bottom of the job safety briefing 
would be an acceptable form of written acknowledgement and notes that 
the language of Sec.  671.23(c) is intended to provide RTAs flexibility 
in the method of written acknowledgement they can provide. Written 
acknowledgement may be in the form of a formal signature or other 
method of written affirmation. FTA reiterates that transit workers must 
provide acknowledgement in writing but may do so in the method that 
best suits their purposes, including having the written acknowledgement 
be a secondary document. It is important to note that whatever method 
of written acknowledgement the RTA chooses to use must comply with the 
provisions established in the recordkeeping section of the rule (Sec.  
671.51).
    FTA confirms that the acknowledgement of on-track procedures does 
not need to be part of the job safety briefing but reiterates that 
transit workers are required to provide written acknowledgement of 
their understanding of the on-track safety protections. While FTA 
agrees on the importance of the transit workers having a thorough 
understanding of the safety briefing, FTA declines to amend the 
regulation to make it the transit worker's responsibility to obtain a 
safety briefing prior to accessing the track zone. FTA requires that 
each roadway worker acknowledge that they have received the job safety 
briefing. FTA does not believe additional requirements are necessary to 
ensure the transit worker's awareness and acknowledgement.
    FTA appreciates the concern that it is too subjective for a roadway 
worker to determine what is ``unsafe.'' However, FTA disagrees with the 
recommendation for removing this from the rule. The intent of Sec.  
671.23(d) is to permit the transit worker to use their own judgement 
and discretion when determining if an assignment related to this rule 
is unsafe. FTA believes frontline workers are often in the best 
position to recognize and understand the potential risks of an 
assignment and, therefore, must have the authority to raise those 
concerns without restrictions.

[[Page 87191]]

I. Section 671.25--State Safety Oversight Agency

1. RWP Program Oversight (Sec.  671.25(b))
    Comments: FTA received multiple comments with respect to SSOA 
oversight for the RWP program. One individual stressed the importance 
of SSOA employees being knowledgeable of and qualified in the RTA's RWP 
program in order to effectively review and audit the RTA's RWP program.
    One SSOA questioned what is meant by the provision, ``The SSOA must 
update its program standard to explain the role of the SSOA in 
overseeing an RTA's execution of its RWP program.'' The commenter noted 
that it is not clear what updates would be required, and that these 
requirements should also be included in 49 CFR part 674.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees that SSOA employees should be 
knowledgeable of the RWP program in order to effectively oversee its 
implementation. The recently published 49 CFR part 672, as part of the 
technical training plan, requires SSOAs to receive ongoing technical 
training in RWP program requirements specific to each RTA for which 
safety audits and examinations are conducted. The final rule also 
contains provisions that apply to SSOAs to ensure their engagement in 
the RWP program. For example, the term ``transit worker'' defined in 
Sec.  671.5 includes any employee, contractor, or volunteer working on 
behalf of the RTA or SSOA. Per Sec.  671.23, all transit workers, 
including SSOA employees, contractors, and volunteers, must follow the 
relevant requirements of the RTA's RWP program by position and labor 
category. Also, Sec.  671.41(a)(1) requires that an RTA's RWP training 
program must address SSOA employees, contractors, and volunteers who 
have job duties that require them to foul the track.
    FTA requires SSOAs to incorporate RWP program oversight 
requirements and responsibilities in the SSOA's SSO program standard. 
Because the SSO program standard documents the SSOA processes and 
procedures that the SSOA uses to provide oversight through the SSO 
program, the SSO program standard updates include the SSOA processes 
used to comply with the oversight requirements of this final rule and 
fulfill SSOA responsibilities at Sec.  671.25. Additional practices and 
procedures may be adopted to supplement the program oversight 
requirements and responsibilities in the SSO program standard, but the 
SSO program standard must explain the role of the SSOA in overseeing 
the RTA's execution of its RWP program per Sec.  671.25(b). While 49 
CFR part 674 contains the majority of the requirements related to 
SSOAs, FTA believes it is clearer to contain all RWP requirements in 
this one regulation.
2. RWP Manual Review and Approval (Sec.  671.25(a))
    Comments: Multiple RTAs, multiple SSOAs, one industry association, 
and one vendor commented on the requirements for SSOA review and 
approval of the RWP program elements and manual. One RTA noted that it 
is appropriate for SSOAs to review and provide feedback on RWP programs 
but commented that SSOA approval of the RWP program is inappropriate 
because the SSOA is not the subject matter expert on RWP and does not 
continuously interact with frontline workers. The commenter also stated 
that the RTA, not the SSOA, is in the best position to develop, manage, 
and oversee their RWP program. The SSOA has existing oversight 
authority of the RTA's rail system, and requiring SSOA approval of the 
RWP program would serve to only impose extra burdens on an RTA without 
providing any meaningful benefits.
    One RTA asserted their opinion that SSOAs' review and approval of 
the RWP manual is redundant with the ASP approval because their RWP 
program currently exists within the ASP. With respect to updates in 
particular, one RTA requested clarification on what type of manual 
updates are expected to be reviewed by the SSOA, for example, minor 
formatting changes or content updates only. Similarly, an RTA raised 
concerns about whether any change made to an underlying SOP would need 
to go to the SSOA for approval prior to being signed, and if so, who 
would manage the process. The RTA stated that the requirement for SSOAs 
to approve the RWP manual is burdensome for RTAs as it's an additional 
compliance requirement. The RTA recommended that FTA consider providing 
additional resources to RTAs to meet these requirements.
    Multiple SSOAs expressed concerns with the timeframes for initial 
RWP program approval and submission to FTA as established in Sec.  
671.25(a), noting specifically that it may not allow for enough time 
for the revisions required by the SSOAs. One SSOA commented that 
requiring SSOA approval within 90 days emphasizes timeliness over a 
full and detailed review of the program elements. One SSOA recommended 
that FTA require SSOAs to include in their program standard a process 
to review and approve the RWP program. Another SSOA proposed that FTA 
revise the rule text to state that initial approval of the RWP program 
must be completed within ``90 calendar days from receipt, or 60 
calendar days from resubmission after SSOA comment.'' One SSOA 
recommended that FTA follow a similar format for SSOA review as in the 
PTASP rule--setting a deadline for the commencement of each RTA's RWP 
program, after which the SSOA would perform oversight at their 
discretion and within the context of their programs.
    With respect to Sec.  671.25(a)(2) and the requirement to submit 
all approved RWP program elements for each RTA in its jurisdiction, and 
any subsequent updates, to FTA within 30 calendar days of approving 
them, two SSOAs and one industry association recommended submission of 
the RWP program through the State Safety Oversight Reporting tool 
(SSOR). The two SSOAs suggested that the RWP program submission be 
added to the annual reporting process or follow a similar process and 
timeframe for other reports that are submitted to FTA by SSOAs, such as 
PTASP approval and triennial audit reports. One SSOA questioned FTA's 
role in validating the RWP program if it had already been approved by 
the SSOA. A vendor inquired about FTA's intention regarding making the 
SSOA responsible for the submission following SSOA approval rather than 
requiring the RTA to submit the approved program to FTA.
    One SSOA questioned if the submissions are for individual RWP 
program elements or collectively for all RWP program elements in the 
State. An RTA asked if the SSOA must submit to FTA only newly 
established RWP programs or whether they must submit RWP program 
elements for existing programs.
    It was also suggested by an industry association that FTA remove 
the 90- and 30-day timeframes altogether because these timeframes may 
cause confusion and conflict with existing submission practices between 
the SSOA and their RTAs.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees with the RTA comment stating that the 
SSOA's approval of the RWP program is inappropriate. As described in 
Sec.  674.5, ``a State that has a rail fixed guideway public 
transportation system within the State has primary responsibility for 
overseeing the safety of that rail fixed guideway public transportation 
system.'' Therefore, this final rule is consistent with the SSOA's 
existing responsibility to oversee RTAs. As part of this oversight, FTA 
believes it is necessary for SSOAs to review and approve the RWP 
program and manual regularly, and from the outset. This ensures 
sufficient procedures are in place before concerns arise and allows

[[Page 87192]]

SSOAs to confirm that the RWP program and manual are compliant with the 
requirements of this rule. Requiring full review and approval promotes 
accountability and thoroughness for SSOAs and creates a framework for 
consistency. SSOA staff and contractors should achieve the training and 
qualifications necessary, per 49 CFR part 672, to perform this 
responsibility.
    To avoid redundancy, SSOAs may review and approve an RTA's ASP, and 
conduct the annual RWP program audit simultaneously. If the SSOA elects 
to conduct their annual RWP program audit alongside their annual review 
of the ASP or integrate the review of the RWP program into its 
triennial review of the ASP, the review must meet the RWP program audit 
requirements specified at Sec.  671.25(c).
    FTA considers those revisions or updates that result in any RWP 
policy changes as necessitating SSOA review and approval. Changes that 
do not impact content or procedures, for instance, formatting changes 
or grammatical corrections, do not require review by the SSOA. FTA 
expects SSOAs and RTAs to determine the appropriate thresholds and 
practices for SSOA review of manual updates. Because the SSOA-RTA 
oversight framework has been in place for many years, FTA believes that 
SSOAs and RTAs will already have practices in place to share, review, 
and approve safety procedures. As such, the SSOA's review and approval 
of the RWP manual should comport with the existing collaborative 
processes among the agencies. Regarding potential changes to an 
underlying SOP, FTA confirms that any revisions or updates that result 
in RWP policy changes and changes to the RWP manual must be reviewed by 
the SSOA. FTA believes that requiring SSOA approval in these 
circumstances is necessary to ensure safety concerns are brought to the 
forefront and addressed properly, with the appropriate level of 
coordination and feedback. While this may present some additional 
burden, FTA anticipates policy changes will be made only as necessary 
to promote consistency and ensure updates are meaningful and well 
considered. FTA will consider developing and sharing technical 
assistance resources to support this practice to help minimize the 
burden of this requirement for either agency.
    Due to the safety-critical nature of the RWP program, FTA expects 
SSOAs to complete a comprehensive and detailed review of all RWP 
program elements. However, in response to comments FTA has removed the 
90-day timeframe for SSOA approval so as to not unnecessarily limit an 
SSOA's review. FTA considered the commenter's suggestion to add an 
additional 60-day window after the proposed 90-day timeframe to provide 
additional time for SSOAs to re-evaluate RWP programs in an instance 
where they do not approve an RTA's first submission. FTA believes that 
removing the time period for an SSOA's initial review of the RTA's RWP 
program provides flexibility to both the RTA and the SSOA to establish 
a review process that works best in their situation, rather than 
prescribing the review time period. FTA expects that SSOAs and RTAs 
will coordinate throughout the development of the RTA's RWP program to 
ensure (1) an effective RWP program to support roadway worker safety, 
and (2) the SSOA and RTA can meet required deadlines. FTA also believes 
that the one-year deadline in Sec.  671.1(d) to establish an RWP 
program allows time for the RTA to develop its RWP program and for 
comprehensive review, feedback, and coordination between the SSOA and 
RTA. FTA notes that the RTA's RWP program development, as well as the 
SSOA's review and approval of the RWP program, must be a priority for 
both agencies and the one-year timeframe for establishment of the RWP 
program ensures the SSOA initial review of the RWP program is completed 
in a timely manner. As noted above, due to the existing relationships, 
FTA expects that the SSOA and RTA will coordinate on program elements 
throughout the RWP program development process. FTA believes that 
establishing a cadence for SSOA review and approval of RTA RWP programs 
is not dissimilar from the existing PTASP review structure which 
requires SSOA review of ASPs following an update.
    FTA plans to review these RWP programs as a critical element of 
monitoring activities to assess that safety standards are met across 
the industry and both the RTA and SSOA are enforcing RWP programs in 
accordance with Federal requirements. FTA declines to accept the 
commenters' suggestion to remove this submission requirement and 
instead require SSOAs to include the RWP program in their subsequent 
SSO annual report via the existing SSOR, because this could delay FTA's 
receipt and review of these important materials. FTA confirms that it 
is the responsibility of the SSOA, not FTA, to approve the RWP program, 
but submission of the SSOA-approved RTA RWP program provides FTA with 
an opportunity to confirm requirements have been followed and offer 
feedback or technical assistance where necessary.
    With respect to SSOAs that oversee multiple RTAs, FTA expects the 
SSOAs to submit the RTA RWP programs individually as they are approved, 
as opposed to waiting for the development and approval of all RWP 
programs within the State and then submitting them all together. 
Submitting the programs as they are approved will allow for a more 
measured and manageable accounting of RWP program status by FTA as it 
monitors industry-wide rule application. FTA confirms that submission 
requirements apply to all RWP programs, both newly established and 
existing. FTA expects a submission for each RTA's RWP program once 
approved by the SSOA. FTA disagrees that the 30-day deadline for SSOAs 
to submit approved programs to FTA is confusing and declines to change 
this requirement. These requirements are enumerated in the rule text at 
Sec.  671.25(a)(1) and (2), within the section that is expressly 
directed to SSOAs.
3. Annual RWP Program Audit (Sec.  671.25(c))
    FTA received comments from multiple RTAs, SSOAs, and industry 
associations and one vendor regarding the proposed rule's requirement 
for an annual audit of the RWP program to be conducted by the SSOA, as 
specified in Sec.  671.25(c).
a. General
    Comments: One RTA stated that the SSOA annual audit of the RTA's 
compliance with its RWP program is unnecessary because the RWP program 
is reviewed during the annual SSOA review of updates to the ASP. 
Further, this commenter expressed their concern that the annual SSO RWP 
program audit may delay the RTA from moving forward with the RWP manual 
and the required training that is crucial for day-to-day maintenance 
work and contractor work at the RTA.
    Several commenters requested clarification on terms. An SSOA asked 
about the definition of ``audit.'' A vendor asked for guidance on what 
constitutes a ``representative sample'' where FTA requires the annual 
audit of the RWP program to include a review of ``a representative 
sample of written job safety briefing confirmations . . .''
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees with the commenter that suggested the 
annual RWP program audit is unnecessary because the PTASP rule already 
requires an annual ASP review. FTA believes that a separate RWP program 
audit is necessary because the RWP program is a specific piece of the 
RTA's ASP, and FTA expects that the

[[Page 87193]]

RWP audit will consist of a more in-depth and specialized review of the 
RTA's RWP program compared with the review of the RTA's ASP. SSOAs may 
audit the RWP program and review or audit the ASP simultaneously where 
prudent, so long as the audit requirements at Sec.  671.25(c) and Sec.  
673.13(a) are met.
    FTA believes that suggestions that the RWP program audit will delay 
RWP manual updates and required training are unconvincing. The annual 
audit is intended to assess the RTA's compliance with its RWP program, 
which includes ensuring that trainings and guidance are being offered 
and updated as needed and should not result in a delay of either.
    In general, an audit focused on safety is an independent 
examination to evaluate and/or verify conformity with the effectiveness 
of established safety practices and procedures. The term 
``representative sample'' as used in this rule describes a subset 
grouping determined to accurately represent a larger grouping. Each 
SSOA is to determine what serves as a ``representative sample'' when 
conducting oversight and auditing activities on the RTAs within their 
respective jurisdictions.
b. Annual Audit Requirement
    Comments: One SSOA asked how FTA determined that audits are needed 
annually and if FTA had performed a safety risk assessment to determine 
the frequency for RWP annual audits.
    Several commenters noted that an annual audit of the RWP program is 
burdensome for RTAs already audited by their SSOAs. The commenters 
cited challenges with meeting this requirement as it is in addition to 
the other annual safety audits and reviews required by part 674, and 
the resulting need for more resources at both the RTAs and SSOAs and 
could dilute the substance of the audit. Of these commenters, one 
suggested that the audits be biennial instead of annual, while another 
suggested using sample-based audit techniques in place of auditing all 
program elements. Two industry associations suggested eliminating the 
annual audit requirement from the rule altogether.
    FTA received several comments regarding how the RWP program audit 
would interface with the SSOA triennial audit schedule. These 
commenters asserted that the addition of an annual RWP program audit is 
duplicative of, and should be incorporated into, the SSOA triennial 
audit requirement established at Sec.  674.31. One of these commenters 
suggested that, if FTA is seeking to confirm the RWP program 
implementation through the audit process, the regulation could require 
the SSOA to audit the RWP program after the first year of 
implementation then incorporate subsequent audits into the SSOA 
triennial audit process with ongoing monitoring conducted by the RTA's 
Safety Assurance monitoring activities.
    FTA Response: FTA appreciates the inquiry into the decision-making 
process for annual SSOA audits of the RTA's RWP program implementation. 
While FTA did not conduct a formal safety risk assessment specifically 
to determine this frequency, FTA's decision is based on the critical 
nature of RWP programs and the need for regular evaluation to ensure 
their effectiveness. FTA's RWP rule allows procedural protections that 
rely on compliance with rules and do not always require the placement 
of physical barriers between workers and rail transit vehicles. FTA 
recognizes that ensuring the effectiveness of procedural protections is 
critical to their success in protecting workers. Annual SSOA audits 
provide a consistent and independent mechanism to verify that 
procedural protections are being properly implemented and are achieving 
their intended safety outcomes.
    Additionally, the annual audit frequency will ensure that the SSOA 
is involved and actively informed regarding the RTA's RWP program 
performance, and that the RTA is responsive to addressing deficiencies 
to elevate roadway worker safety through corrective action plans or 
other recommendations from the SSOA's audit. This final rule's 
requirement for annual RWP audits serves to confirm that RWP programs 
are working as intended and protections are functioning to keep roadway 
workers and rail transit vehicle operations safe.
    FTA agrees that the addition of an annual RWP program audit at each 
RTA an SSOA oversees will require more time and attention from both the 
SSOA and the RTAs. The agencies will need to set priorities effectively 
to ensure part 671 requirements are met, including the annual audit 
requirements. FTA appreciates the suggestion to move annual audits to 
biennial audits, or once every two years. However, given the allowance 
for the use of procedural protections under this final rule, which 
require an increased level of vigilance to ensure they function 
compared with physical protections, FTA is finalizing the requirement 
for an annual audit to address the need for strong procedural 
oversight. FTA also believes that the pattern of safety incidents and 
concerns reported at RTAs in recent years necessitates early detection 
of issues and timely implementation of corrective actions, which an 
annual audit may provide. FTA notes that sample-based auditing is a 
pragmatic approach to examining large amounts of information, records, 
activities, and more. This final rule does not prohibit SSOAs from 
using responsible, sample-based auditing practices to address the 
requirements of Sec.  671.25. Each SSOA will determine which of its 
personnel, and potentially contractor staff, will perform the RWP 
audit.
    FTA declines to remove the audit requirement completely given the 
importance of the RWP audit outlined above.
    FTA also appreciates the comments received related to the 
relationship between the annual RWP audit and the SSOA triennial audit 
schedule. Due to the safety risk inherent with roadway work, FTA 
maintains the need for an annual RWP program audit and does not believe 
a triennial audit schedule would provide sufficient oversight. The 
means by which the SSOA schedules and administers the RWP program audit 
in concert with triennial audit responsibilities will be left to the 
SSOA to determine. Regarding the suggestion that FTA require annual 
SSOA RWP audits at the outset and then move to a triennial audit system 
later, FTA reiterates that the risks involved with roadway work, and 
the ever-changing nature of roadway hazards, warrant more frequent 
auditing. FTA disagrees that this audit is duplicative of the triennial 
audit because RWP program requirements and elements will be new for 
many RTAs. SSOAs that have been auditing RWP programs at their RTAs 
will need to ensure the audit encompasses all the requirements outlined 
in Sec.  671.25(c). However, the SSOA may integrate the review of the 
RWP program into its triennial review of the RTA, as long as the 
triennial review covers the elements as described in the RWP rule.
c. Audit Report
    Comments: FTA received comments from multiple SSOAs, RTAs, and 
industry associations about the proposed rule's requirement for a 
report documenting the results of the annual audit of the RWP program, 
as specified in Sec.  671.25(c)(2). One SSOA and one industry 
association stated that having the SSOA determine the effectiveness of 
an RWP program, as required in Sec.  671.25(c)(2)(i), is beyond an 
SSOA's scope. These commenters asserted that SSOAs currently only 
oversee

[[Page 87194]]

compliance with requirements, and the requirement to analyze the 
effectiveness of an RTA's RWP program would lead to a change in role 
for the SSOA and require more SSOA resources, training, and regulatory 
change to establish this authority. FTA received comments on the RWP 
program elements that must be reviewed by the SSOA as part of the RWP 
program audit and included in the audit report. One SSOA and one RTA 
requested that FTA define ``RWP-related event'' to avoid 
inconsistencies, and the RTA recommended requiring an audit of ``all 
RWP manual violations'' instead.
    One RTA noted an inconsistency between Sec.  671.25(c)(2)(i)(E) and 
(F). Further, one SSOA asserted that reviewing ``all training and 
qualifications records for transit workers who must enter the track 
zone to perform work,'' outlined in Sec.  671.25(c)(2)(i)(E), is overly 
burdensome and inefficient. The SSOA recommended that the language be 
updated to ``require the RTA to certify to the SSOA that the training 
and qualification records are current for all transit workers who must 
enter a track zone to perform work,'' then the SSOA can perform 
oversight through certification audits and inspections.
    Related to the audit report findings and recommendations, one SSOA 
recommended that the audit report should issue findings of 
noncompliance rather than corrective action plans as mentioned in Sec.  
671.25(c)(2)(iii). One RTA requested clarification on ``recommendations 
for improvements'' language related to the SSOA's RWP program audit 
report, including whether an SSOA would be expected to issue 
recommendations if the RTA is otherwise compliant with requirements, 
whether SSOA program standards need to account for these 
recommendations, and whether RTAs would be compelled to implement them. 
Two SSOAs noted that the SSOA's ability to provide recommendations 
raises liability concerns as this presents the SSOA with a decision-
making type of role instead of an oversight role. One SSOA discouraged 
the inclusion of recommendations in the audit reports stating that the 
``SSOA shouldn't be making recommendations but rather be providing data 
and information for hazard identification.'' This SSOA argued that RTAs 
would view recommendations from the SSOA as a mandate, which goes 
against the SMS framework and is inconsistent with Sec.  673.25(b)(2).
    Two comments, one from an RTA and one from an industry association, 
recommended that FTA include a requirement for the SSOA to issue the 
RWP audit report within 90 calendar days following the audit completion 
in order to ensure SSOA administrative backlogs do not delay audit 
reports.
    Lastly, an RTA and an industry association both suggested revising 
the language in Sec.  671.25(c)(3) to include the requirement that a 
formalized process be established to record any comments provided by 
the RTA on the RWP audit report and have the comments be available for 
FTA review. Commenters argued that this revised language would ensure 
that the RTAs can comment on any findings and recommendations during 
the SSOA audits and enshrine the comments in the record.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees that effectiveness determinations are 
beyond the scope of SSOA oversight. FTA notes that this is consistent 
with other FTA regulatory requirements for SSOAs established in both 
part 673 and 674 (for example, see Sec.  674.31).
    In response to the comments related to RWP audit elements, FTA does 
not see the need to define the term ``RWP-related event'' nor replace 
this term with ``all RWP manual violations.'' FTA believes that, in 
some circumstances, safety events may occur that are not resulting from 
manual violations, or which the existing RWP manual failed to account 
for, which need to be reviewed. FTA clarifies that ``RWP-related 
event'' is intended as a broad term to provide SSOAs with flexibility 
to review a range of events that may occur in the RWP program as part 
of the annual audit, including safety events and near-misses; specific 
incidents or groups of incidents involving deficiencies in RWP program 
implementation or compliance, as may be related to Sec.  
671.25(c)(2)(i)(G); as well as any other unusual occurrences or 
conditions related to RWP program implementation.
    FTA acknowledges the comment on inconsistent audit methodologies 
between Sec.  671.25(c)(2)(i)(E) and (F) where the former requires the 
review of ``all training and qualifications records'' and the latter 
requires a ``representative sample of written job safety briefings.'' 
FTA agrees that reviewing ``all training and qualifications records'' 
may not be attainable, especially for larger RTAs. Therefore, in the 
final rule FTA is striking the word ``all'' from Sec.  
671.25(c)(2)(i)(E), which will allow the SSOA the flexibility to either 
review all or a sampling of training and qualifications records while 
performing their audit activities.
    FTA disagrees, however, with a more specific comment that argued 
that an SSOA's audit of RTA training and qualification records would be 
duplicative of existing RTA work and recommended rewording the language 
to ``require the RTA to certify to the SSOA that training and 
qualifications records are current for all transit workers who must 
enter the track zone to perform work.'' FTA declines to eliminate the 
requirement at Sec.  671.25(c)(2)(i)(E) for SSOAs to review training 
and qualification records for transit workers who must enter a track 
zone to perform work and replace it with an RTA self-certification 
process, as FTA believes SSOAs should exercise oversight to ensure 
compliance with the training and qualification requirements.
    In response to comments regarding the SSOA's RWP audit findings and 
their documentation in an audit report issued by the SSOA, FTA 
reiterates that this practice is consistent with the triennial audit 
requirements of Sec.  674.31, which requires that the SSOA ``shall 
issue a report with findings and recommendations'' arising from the 
triennial audit. FTA confirms that this practice is established in 
current SSOA authorities, does not counter an RTA's SMS practices, and 
does not conflict with decision-making for the RTA. FTA believes that 
the issuance of recommendations is often a requisite part of the audit 
process but confirms that SSOAs may opt to provide data and hazard 
identification documentation if that information would provide the RTA 
with sufficient direction for improvement. Regarding the 
``recommendations for improvement,'' FTA defers to an SSOA on when to 
issue recommendations for improvement if an RTA is otherwise compliant 
with requirements. The SSOA's program standard must identify processes 
and procedures that govern the activities of the SSOA, and the 
processes and procedures an RTA must have in place to comply with the 
standard, but it does not need to detail all recommendations provided 
by the SSOA to the RTA. When providing recommendations, the SSOA must 
be clear about whether the proposed changes are necessary to ensure 
compliance with this part and ensure SSOA approval, or whether the 
proposed changes are suggested best practices for program improvement, 
which the RTA can exercise discretion in implementing. FTA also notes 
that it is within existing SSOA authority to issue or require 
corrective action plans to RTAs where necessary.
    FTA appreciates the comment suggesting FTA establish a 90-day 
timeframe for the issuance of the SSOA's RWP audit report following the 
audit's completion. However, this final rule maintains the flexibility 
afforded

[[Page 87195]]

SSOAs to determine a timeframe most suitable for them and the RTAs they 
are auditing. As always, FTA encourages SSOAs to complete reports 
within a reasonable timeframe to avoid administrative backlogs. 
Likewise, FTA believes a less prescriptive requirement on the process 
for RTAs to provide comments on the SSOA's RWP audit report is best to 
allow SSOAs and associated RTAs to establish a process and timeframe 
that works for both agencies. FTA encourages SSOAs and RTAs to maintain 
a record of these comments to ensure that the perspectives of both 
agencies are properly captured and can be referenced in the future as 
necessary, but FTA does not require submission for review.
d. Separate Audit Requirement
    Comments: FTA received comments responsive to the preamble language 
which stated that FTA expects SSOAs to conduct these RWP program audits 
independently from any analogous RTA audit. One RTA sought clarity on 
what additional information an audit is intended to provide, and who 
the inspector conducting the audit would be. Another RTA commenter 
suggested that if FTA determines the need for a separate RWP program 
audit, it should allow the SSOA and RTA to determine their own audit 
requirements.
    FTA Response: Due to the safety risk inherent with roadway work, 
FTA maintains the need for an SSOA to conduct an independent annual RWP 
program audit rather than relying on the RTA's own audit findings. 
However, how the SSOA schedules and administers the RWP program audit 
in concert with other audit responsibilities will be left to the SSOA 
to determine. The audit is expected to cover the RTA's compliance with 
its SSOA-approved RWP program by analyzing program effectiveness 
through typical audit activities such as record reviews, examination of 
RWP event trends, application of practices such as job safety briefings 
and good faith safety challenges, observation of training and review of 
training records, and more. Section 671.25(c) defines FTA's 
expectations for SSOA annual RWP program audits, which include elements 
that are critical for review. Additional decisions regarding the 
processes and procedures related to the audit that are not outlined in 
this rule are left to the determination of the SSOA and RTA.

J. Section 671.31--Roadway Worker in Charge Requirements

1. On-Track Safety and Supervision
    Comments: FTA received comments from RTAs, industry associations, 
and vendors regarding the proposed provisions in Sec.  671.31(a). One 
industry association stated that the proposal that the roadway worker 
in charge perform only one function is unreasonable, citing industry-
wide workforce shortages and noting that prohibiting a roadway worker 
in charge from performing ancillary duties while also serving as the 
roadway worker in charge is too prescriptive. An RTA requested that FTA 
clarify what activities fall under the function of ``maintaining on-
track safety,'' noting that if the roadway worker in charge is 
prohibited from performing other duties, it would be burdensome. An 
industry association commenter recommended revising the language in 
Sec.  671.31(a)(4) to allow the roadway worker in charge to perform 
work that is part of the scope of the work crew.
    One RTA remarked that the language of Sec.  671.31(a) does not 
clarify whether the RTA has the option of designating a roadway worker 
in charge from the contracted group or whether the roadway worker in 
charge must be an RTA employee. One vendor recommended that FTA revise 
Sec.  671.31(a) to require an RTA to designate a roadway worker in 
charge for each roadway work group whose duties require ``the potential 
to foul a track,'' which the commenter noted is consistent with the 
definition of ``roadway worker.''
    Another vendor remarked that, in certain circumstances, it seems 
infeasible for the sole roadway worker in charge to oversee a large 
group of employees across a wide work zone and suggested that the 
roadway worker in charge be allowed to designate equally qualified 
individuals to oversee work crews within a larger work zone. An RTA 
suggested that FTA clarify that when a roadway worker in charge may be 
responsible for working limits that include multiple work groups, each 
individual work group should have an employee in charge who coordinates 
that work group's tasks and movements with the roadway worker in 
charge. The commenter noted that revised language would serve to ensure 
that a single, ultimate authority is in control of the work limit, 
eliminating any confusion or miscommunication between multiple roadway 
workers in charge in a single working limit. An RTA and an industry 
association also recommended that RTAs could, at their discretion, 
designate ``secondary'' roadway workers in charge, or similar a 
designation, for each crew working within a shared working limit, as 
long as the RTA identifies a single roadway worker in charge for the 
entire working limit and defines the secondary position relevant to the 
control hierarchy over the work limit. The commenters provided revised 
language that they asserted would serve to ensure that a single, 
ultimate authority is in control of the work limit, eliminating any 
confusion or miscommunication between multiple roadway workers in 
charge in a single working limit.
    One RTA stated that the proposed rule does not align with FTA's 
definition of and requirements for a ``lone worker'' and recommended 
that FTA consider including a reference to Sec.  671.35 within Sec.  
671.31 to reinforce that the individual transit worker is also serving 
as the roadway worker in charge.
    One vendor recommended emphasizing that the roadway worker in 
charge is responsible for ``establishing'' the on-track safety for all 
members of the roadway group.
    FTA Response: FTA confirms that the final rule intentionally limits 
roadway worker in charge activities because the focus of this position 
must be on the responsibility of maintaining on-track safety for all 
members of the roadway work group. In response to the request that FTA 
clarify which activities fall under the function of ``maintaining on-
track safety,'' FTA has identified that activities such as flagging, 
work zone setup, and administrative tasks fall under that umbrella. FTA 
declines to revise the rule to allow the roadway worker in charge to 
perform work that is part of the scope of the work crew that goes 
beyond maintaining on-track safety. FTA believes this limit is 
necessary to ensure the undivided attention and singularity of purpose 
of the roadway worker in charge.
    The final rule does not prescribe the employment status of the 
roadway worker in charge, and the roadway worker in charge can be a 
contractor or an employee of the RTA as long as the worker is qualified 
under the RTA's training and qualification program. In response to the 
commenter that recommended FTA revise Sec.  671.31(a) to address the 
roadway work group's ``potential to foul a track'' to maintain 
consistency with the definition of roadway worker, FTA believes it is 
unnecessary to change the rule as recommended, because RTAs assign 
duties to roadway workers, which determines which workers will foul a 
track or have the potential of fouling a

[[Page 87196]]

track. FTA agrees with the commenters that argued that for multiple 
roadway work groups within common working limits, the roadway worker in 
charge be allowed to designate equally qualified individuals to help 
oversee work crews. This final rule adds language at Sec.  671.31(a)(5) 
that clarifies when a single roadway worker in charge is designated 
over multiple work groups within a working limit, each work group 
should be accompanied by an employee qualified to the level of a 
roadway worker in charge who shall be responsible for direct 
communication with the roadway worker in charge.
    FTA disagrees with the suggestion to include a reference to Sec.  
671.35 within Sec.  671.31 to reinforce that a lone worker is also 
serving as the roadway worker in charge. In this section, a lone worker 
is not acting as a roadway worker in charge because there is no roadway 
work group to oversee. Rather, the lone worker is required to be 
qualified as a roadway worker in charge, in reference to training and 
qualification standards, under Sec.  671.41. This qualification is 
necessary to ensure a lone worker has the requisite expertise and 
safety knowledge to foul the track alone.
    FTA appreciates the commenter that recommended FTA emphasize that 
the roadway worker in charge is responsible for ``establishing'' the 
on-track safety for all members of the roadway group but believes this 
intention is sufficiently captured in Sec.  671.31(a)(3), which broadly 
states the roadway worker in charge is ``responsible for the on-track 
safety for all members of the roadway work group.''
2. Communication
    Comments: FTA received comments from two RTAs, one vendor, and two 
industry associations regarding the proposed provisions in Sec.  
671.31(b) that the RTA must ensure that the roadway worker in charge 
provides a job safety briefing to all roadway workers before any member 
of a roadway work group fouls a track. One RTA commenter noted that 
they support the proposed requirements for the roadway worker in charge 
to provide a job safety briefing before accessing the roadway; however, 
they asserted that the proposed requirement for the roadway worker in 
charge to deliver a new briefing whenever a violation of on-track 
safety procedures is observed is overly broad and, as written, could 
disrupt work productivity without adding value or increasing work crew 
safety. The RTA also noted that there are instances in which a minor 
and isolated infraction involving a single worker is simply resolved 
and does not put the work crew at risk and, therefore, should not 
necessitate a full crew stand-down and rebriefing. The RTA suggested 
narrowing the scope of this requirement to specify only violations that 
may compromise the work crew's on-track safety and/or focusing the 
rebriefing on addressing the violation versus reiterating the full job 
briefing already provided. An RTA and an industry association suggested 
adding ``or reported'' in front of ``violation'' to better capture 
reports of violations of on-track safety procedures from a broad range 
of sources, including the public.
    One RTA and one industry association suggested revising the 
language in Sec.  671.31(b)(2) to clarify the meaning of ``in advance'' 
as it relates to notification of changes to on-track safety, as well as 
to more clearly indicate the party responsible for making immediate 
warning to leave the roadway in the event of an emergency.
    One vendor suggested that FTA add clarification on how a sole 
roadway worker in charge can oversee a large outage when face-to-face 
interaction is not possible and went on to recommend that FTA allow the 
roadway worker in charge to designate an equally qualified individual 
to give the required job safety briefing prior to the roadway workers 
fouling the track.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees that the requirement for the roadway 
worker in charge to deliver a new briefing whenever a violation of on-
track safety procedures is observed is overly broad and could be 
disruptive to work productivity. FTA believes this is necessary to 
address even minor or isolated infractions, to ensure workers are 
committed to following established safety procedures, and to ensure 
infractions are not repeated. Further, this job safety briefing 
requirement largely reflects industry practices that identify as a best 
practice updated job safety briefings to immediately respond to 
observed violations of on-track safety procedures. FTA confirms this 
rebriefing need not be a full recitation of the original safety 
briefing but should address the violation and ensure all are aware of 
the correct procedures. FTA declines to add ``or reported'' in front of 
``violation'' to capture reports of violations of on-track safety 
procedures from a broad range of sources, including the public. FTA 
believes the language as currently drafted is sufficient to ensure that 
any violations of on-track safety that are observed by others in the 
work crew are addressed. FTA agrees that anyone in the work group or 
any other source, such as the public, who observes violations should 
report them. Further, FTA reiterates that RTAs may establish additional 
rules that are consistent with this regulation.
    In response to the commenters that suggested revising the language 
in Sec.  671.31(b)(2) for clarity, FTA has updated the section to read: 
``In the event of an emergency, the roadway worker in charge must warn 
each roadway worker to immediately leave the roadway and not return 
until on-track safety is re-established, and a job safety briefing is 
completed.'' FTA notes that these changes do not alter the intent of 
the requirement but provide clarification regarding emergency 
notification and the roadway worker in charge's corresponding 
responsibilities.
    In some circumstances, it may be necessary to provide a safety 
briefing remotely. It is within the discretion of the RTA to determine 
when remote options can take the place of face-to-face interaction. FTA 
declines to make the recommended change to allow the roadway worker in 
charge to designate an equally qualified individual to provide the job 
safety briefing. FTA maintains that it is important for the roadway 
worker in charge to perform this duty to promote accountability, 
reinforce their authority, and ensure consistency.

K. Section 671.33--Job Safety Briefing Policies

1. General
    Comments: FTA received multiple general comments on Sec.  671.33 
language. One RTA asked for clarification on FTA's expectation, as 
described in the preamble, that a job safety briefing would include a 
discussion of the nature and characteristics of the work, including any 
relevant information for multiple roadway worker groups working in 
adjacent areas. Specifically, the RTA requested clarification on 
whether FTA meant for adjacent areas to refer to work areas within each 
other's working limits or rather any work areas next to each other on 
the roadway.
    Two RTAs commented on the requirement to brief individuals ``every 
time the roadway worker fouls the track.'' The commenters asserted this 
requirement is unsustainable in situations such as street-running 
environments and in situations when a worker wants to take a short 
break that requires them to leave the track. A vendor suggested that 
any roadway worker within close proximity to the track zone with the 
potential to foul the track also be provided with a job safety 
briefing, noting this is the practice used by their organization when a 
worker is within 10 feet of the track. Another vendor also commented on 
the virtual

[[Page 87197]]

job safety briefing provision, asking FTA to elaborate on it for remote 
workers. The vendor noted that in-person job safety briefings conducted 
at the job site are more effective for identifying hazards and 
understanding the protections afforded and noted that equipment used by 
a remote worker can potentially cause hazards or necessitate a 
different form of protection for individuals within the track zone. The 
vendor also noted that safety briefings should be conducted in a 
language the workers receiving the briefing are fluent in. In the event 
of a language barrier between the roadway worker in charge and the 
workers, a translator should be established.
    FTA Response: In the phrase ``multiple roadway worker groups 
working in adjacent areas'' the term ``adjacent areas'' means groups 
working in areas next to each other on the track roadway. The job 
safety briefing should include procedures and processes for interaction 
for work groups that are operating in shared space or in proximity 
where work tasks may impact the safety of other nearby persons. With 
respect to the language that requires a job safety briefing for roadway 
workers ``prior to fouling the track, every time the roadway worker 
fouls the track,'' RTAs are expected to adopt safety measures deemed 
appropriate for their operating services and environments. While the 
rule defines ``fouling a track'' and ``track zone,'' the rule and these 
definitions are intentionally flexible to account for varying track 
environments and safety protocols. For street-running systems, FTA 
notes that job safety briefings can address the fact that transit 
workers may be fouling the track continually throughout the course of a 
working shift, and the job safety briefings may be provided 
accordingly. Regarding the suggestion that FTA require any workers 
within close proximity to the track zone to receive a job safety 
briefing, FTA encourages this practice where feasible but declines to 
adopt this as a requirement across the board due to the significant 
differences in track and systems design among RTAs.
    FTA agrees that in-person job safety briefings are the most 
effective way to ensure clear communications are exchanged about key 
information to keep workers safe. FTA also appreciates that there may 
be circumstances where lone workers or work groups are working remotely 
on a job site or responding to an emergency situation, and a virtual 
briefing may be appropriate. FTA considered NTSB recommendations, FRA 
standards, and OSHA guidance when determining whether to allow virtual 
job safety briefings. The rule is purposely flexible in this regard, 
and RTAs may establish practices for remote job safety briefings that 
suit their track environment and roadway work practices so long as they 
are compliant with this requirement.
    FTA also agrees with the commenter who noted that job safety 
briefings should be conducted in a language that is fully understood by 
each worker receiving the briefing. The final rule is clear that it is 
the responsibility of the RTA to ensure that clear and constructive job 
safety briefings are provided to all employees accessing the track zone 
to perform work. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the roadway 
worker in charge to confirm that each worker understands the job safety 
briefing and the responsibility of the worker receiving the briefing to 
confirm in writing that they received and understood the briefing in 
its entirety.
2. Elements
    Comments: One RTA, one individual, and two vendors provided 
comments on the job safety briefing elements identified in Sec.  
671.33(b). A vendor recommended adding additional required elements to 
the job safety briefings requirement, such as information regarding the 
electrification of the track and emergency contact details. A different 
vendor advocated for resequencing the elements in Sec.  671.33(b) by 
placing (10) and (11) directly after (5) to guide the flow of the job 
safety briefing and develop standard forms. Further, the vendor 
suggested FTA require that the job safety briefing include a review of 
the applicable track segment in the track access guide. An RTA 
commented on the reference to FRA's guidance on hazard identification 
as part of the job safety briefing. The RTA argued that RTAs should not 
be held to FRA standards and instead FTA should consider developing and 
implementing its own guidance relative to hazard identification for 
rail transit environments.
    An individual commenter recommended that the job safety briefing 
also address adjacent hazards to the track.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees that the reference to FRA guidance on 
hazard identification is misleading and has updated Sec.  671.33(b)(3) 
to read, ``The hazards involved in performing the work. For RTAs with 
electrified systems, this discussion must include the status of power 
and hazards explicitly related to the electrified system.'' FTA intends 
to provide additional technical assistance in relation to this rule to 
guide RTAs on hazard identification in rail transit environments. With 
consideration to comments, the sequencing of the elements will remain 
the same as in the proposed rule, as FTA believes the current 
sequencing is clear. However, job safety briefings and forms may 
address these topics in any order that is logical and appropriate. FTA 
also declines to require the job safety briefings to include a review 
of the relevant portion of the track access guide, as this may not be 
necessary for all scenarios where workers will foul a track. FTA does 
encourage the use of the track access guide in job safety briefings 
whenever applicable to support on-track safety and notes that all 
workers must have access to the track access guide.
    FTA considers track electrification as a ``hazard involved in 
performing the work'' (Sec.  671.33(b)(3)). However, in response to 
comments, FTA has updated the final rule text for elements of the job 
safety briefing to expressly include: the status of any electrified 
system and mitigations in place to prevent electrocution (Sec.  
671.33(b)(3)); emergency contact information for the roadway worker in 
charge (Sec.  671.33(b)(8)); and general emergency response information 
(Sec.  671.33(b)(4)).
    Regarding adjacent tracks, FTA expects job safety briefings to 
review hazards adjacent to the tracks, as well as within the track 
segment, performed through Sec.  671.33(b)(4) and (5) requirements.
3. Confirmation and Written Acknowledgement
    Comments: FTA received multiple comments on the requirement for 
confirmation and written acknowledgement of the job safety briefing at 
Sec.  671.33(c). Two RTAs and an industry association suggested 
revising Sec.  671.33(c)(1), the requirement for the roadway worker in 
charge to confirm that each roadway worker understands the on-track 
safety procedures and instructions, to ensure that roadway workers 
attest for their individual understanding of the briefing rather than 
roadway workers in charge on their behalf.
    There were three suggested revisions for the requirement in Sec.  
671.33(c)(2) that each roadway worker acknowledges the job safety 
briefing and the requirement to use the required personal protective 
equipment in writing. A vendor suggested FTA amend the text to put a 
little more emphasis on the roadway worker to positively convey they 
understood the briefing. An RTA and an industry association both 
recommended a revision to Sec.  671.33(c)(2), which they suggested 
would certify the transit

[[Page 87198]]

workers' compliance with all briefing requirements, rather than only 
directly stating personal protective equipment. One vendor commented 
that FTA should emphasize that transit workers are also responsible for 
confirming, in writing, that they not only have received a briefing but 
that they understand the briefing.
    An individual commenter recommended that it should be clearly 
stated that job safety briefing acknowledgements are recognized through 
written signature. In contrast, an industry association commented that 
requiring written confirmation by each roadway worker in 
acknowledgement of the job safety briefing is unduly burdensome. The 
commenter recommended FTA require job safety briefings before all 
shifts but remove the requirement for signed acknowledgements. An RTA 
also noted that, especially for roving work crews, obtaining 
confirmation and written acknowledgement of the job safety briefing 
after any change in the scope of work is overly prescriptive and 
difficult or impossible for some RTAs to implement. One RTA asked if 
job briefings outlined in Sec.  671.21 must be documented and commented 
that, if so, this would be highly restrictive since documenting spoken 
job briefings that outline processes already in place would be 
cumbersome for most agencies.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees with commenters who raised concerns with a 
roadway worker in charge attesting to the roadway workers' 
understanding of the job safety briefing. In response to these 
comments, FTA is revising the final rule in Sec.  671.33(c) to state, 
``The roadway worker in charge confirms in writing that they have 
received written acknowledgement of the job safety briefing from each 
roadway worker.''
    FTA agrees that the suggested revisions to the rule language in 
Sec.  671.33(c)(2) will help clarify requirements for roadway workers 
to individually acknowledge the job safety briefings. Both Sec.  
671.33(c)(2) and Sec.  671.33(c)(3) state that roadway workers are to 
acknowledge, in writing, receipt and understanding of the job safety 
briefing, and this will be retained in the rule. However, for further 
clarity, FTA will update the language in Sec.  671.33(c)(2) from ``Each 
roadway worker acknowledges the briefing and the requirement to use the 
required personal protective equipment in writing'' to ``Each roadway 
worker acknowledges in writing the briefing and the requirement to use 
the required personal protective equipment.''
    FTA understands the challenges faced with ensuring roving work 
crews are briefed after any change in the scope of work and the 
requirement for written confirmation following these briefings. FTA 
believes this nature of work for roving work crews makes it even more 
vital that workers are verifiably briefed when the scope of work 
changes. The intent of this provision is to ensure that all workers 
receive safety briefings when necessary, and these briefings can be 
confirmed. FTA also believes that while this may pose an additional 
burden, agencies are free to conduct these briefings in a way that is 
most conducive to their working environments. FTA also notes that 
written acknowledgements of safety briefings is already a common 
industry practice, which RTAs have managed to implement without notable 
complication.
    It is not expected that the job safety briefing be transcribed to 
written records. However, documentation that these briefings occurred 
must be kept on record, as required by the final rule. This type of 
documentation is often recorded using a form that captures the high-
level information of the roadway work and safety measures by covering 
topics such as (examples only) job tasking, date, time, track location, 
on-track and adjacent hazards, weather conditions, track access period, 
work zone, protections in place, roadway worker in charge responsible, 
roadway workers on-site, track equipment involved, and more.
4. Follow-Up Briefings
    Comments: One RTA and one vendor commented on the requirement for 
follow-up briefings as established in Sec.  671.33(d). The RTA stressed 
that the requirement for a follow-up briefing if a ``violation of on-
track safety is observed'' is unclear since the term is not defined. 
The RTA argued that this term may be inconsistently interpreted among 
personnel and agencies. The vendor suggested follow-up briefings be 
conducted in consideration with changing weather conditions, as weather 
conditions may change the type and severity of risks.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees with including a specific definition 
for ``violation of on-track safety'' in this rule. Violations will be 
directly related to the various RWP programs and procedures developed 
by each agency and are to be communicated during the job safety 
briefing. It will be up to the RTAs to determine, clearly communicate, 
and respond to violations of on-track safety. Violations may not be 
``consistent'' from agency to agency depending on the specifics of 
agency policies, but in general, RTAs should consider any deviations 
from the procedures set forth in the RWP manual or the job safety 
briefings to be violations of on-track safety.
    FTA agrees that changes to weather conditions may present new 
hazards and, therefore, require a follow-up briefing. In response to 
this comment and to address the potential for changing conditions, such 
as weather, FTA has revised the language in Sec.  671.33(d) to require 
a follow-up briefing in the event on-track safety conditions change and 
made a corresponding change to Sec.  671.31(b)(1).

L. Section 671.35--Lone Worker

1. General
    Comments: FTA received comments from RTAs related to FTA's general 
approach for the protection of lone workers in the proposed rule. One 
RTA agreed that FTA's proposal that lone workers may not use individual 
rail transit vehicle detection as the only form of on-track safety is 
responsive to NTSB recommendations but noted that FTA's approach to 
protection for lone workers deviates from FRA's procedures, as 
specified in 49 CFR 214.337, On-Track Safety Procedures for Lone 
Workers, which allows the use of individual train detection to 
establish on-track safety as specified in the on-track safety program 
of the railroad.
    The RTA also stated that an employee working under ``foul time'' is 
not considered a ``lone worker,'' and added that the term and usage of 
``lone worker'' in this rule is confusing ``as FTA is utilizing FRA 
terminology but changing the requirements around the procedures.'' 
Another RTA commenter suggested FTA reference APTA's ``Roadway Worker 
Program Requirements'' standard which distinguishes performing ``work'' 
from ``momentarily fouling a track.''
    FTA Response: FTA's analysis of safety events shows that individual 
rail transit vehicle detection has consistently failed to protect 
transit workers from collisions with rail transit vehicles dating back 
to 2008 when it was the only form of on-track safety. Safety 
recommendations from the NTSB, resulting from in-depth investigations 
into major RTA safety events, also emphasize the ineffectiveness of 
this as the only form of protection for transit workers. Therefore, FTA 
is finalizing, as proposed, the prohibition that no single transit 
worker, whatever their position or labor category, including lone 
workers, may be allowed on the

[[Page 87199]]

roadway with individual rail transit vehicle detection as their sole 
protection. FTA finds that the rail transit environment, with its 
frequent train movements in multiple directions on multiple tracks, and 
its numerous electrical and fall hazards, creates an enhanced safety 
risk for all categories of transit workers that necessitates additional 
protections in rail transit RWP programs that may not be necessary for 
other railroad operations. FTA does not agree with the commenter that 
using the term ``lone worker'' in this rule is confusing. FTA's use of 
the term ``lone worker'' in this section means an individual roadway 
worker on the roadway alone who is not part of a roadway work group but 
who, at a minimum, is on the roadway with foul time or an SSOA-approved 
equivalent protection. FTA acknowledges this definition differs from 
FRA's definition of ``lone worker,'' but believes that the distinction 
is necessary given the differences between rail transit systems and 
other rail systems.
    FTA appreciates the commenter that suggested FTA reference APTA's 
``Roadway Worker Program Requirements'' standard, which distinguishes 
between individual transit workers momentarily fouling the track and 
lone workers performing work on the roadway, such as inspections or 
minor tasks. This important distinction is also included in FTA's 
requirements. Provisions in Sec.  671.35 apply to lone workers as a 
sub-classification of roadway workers, whose duties involve inspection, 
construction, maintenance, repairs, or providing on-track safety such 
as flag persons and watchpersons on or near the roadway or right-of-way 
or with the potential of fouling track. Transit workers, who are not 
roadway workers, and who must momentarily access the roadway, are also 
protected under the RWP program under Sec.  671.23(b). Individual 
transit workers may only foul the track once they have received 
appropriate permissions and redundant protections, such as foul time, 
have been established as specified in the RWP manual. However, 
individual transit workers fouling the track momentarily are not 
considered roadway workers or lone workers and, therefore, are not 
subject to Sec.  671.35 provisions.
2. On-Track Safety and Supervision
    FTA received multiple comments related to FTA's proposed 
requirements for the on-track safety and supervision of lone workers in 
Sec.  671.35(a).
a. Lone Worker Must Be Qualified as a Roadway Worker in Charge
    Comments: One RTA commented that a requirement for all lone workers 
to be qualified as a roadway worker in charge may be excessive for 
tasks such as debris removal. Another RTA commenter also expressed 
confusion about the requirement that the lone worker be qualified as a 
roadway worker in charge. This RTA also expressed concern regarding an 
apparent contradiction between Sec.  671.31(a)(4) provisions--which 
specify that a roadway worker in charge can only perform the function 
of maintaining on-track safety and perform no unrelated job function--
and the provisions in Sec.  671.35(a)(2), which allow a lone worker, 
qualified as a roadway worker in charge, to perform routine inspection 
and minor tasks, unrelated to on-track safety.
    Another RTA asked if the requirement for a lone worker to be 
qualified as a roadway worker in charge requires RTAs to establish a 
training program certification specifically for lone workers.
    FTA Response: As mentioned previously, transit workers who are not 
roadway workers and who must momentarily access the roadway to clear 
debris are protected under Sec.  671.23(b) as transit workers, not 
Sec.  671.35, as lone workers. FTA appreciates that there may be 
confusion about the interface between the requirements that the lone 
worker be qualified as a roadway worker in charge, that a roadway 
worker in charge can only perform the function of maintaining on-track 
safety and perform no unrelated job function, and that a lone worker, 
qualified as a roadway worker in charge, can perform routine inspection 
and minor tasks unrelated to on-track safety. The roadway worker in 
charge qualification for lone workers is primarily a training and 
certification requirement. FTA believes that it is crucial for a lone 
worker who routinely performs tasks alone on the roadway to maintain 
the roadway worker in charge qualification for safety reasons. The 
intent is to ensure that lone workers possess a comprehensive 
understanding of on-track safety procedures and responsibilities, 
equivalent to that of a roadway worker in charge. This level of 
knowledge is critical for their safety when working independently. FTA 
disagrees that there is a contradiction between Sec.  671.31(a)(4) and 
Sec.  671.35(a)(2), because these provisions apply to different 
scenarios. The restrictions in Sec.  671.31(a)(4) apply to an active 
roadway worker in charge overseeing a work group, while Sec.  
671.35(a)(2) applies to lone workers who, while trained and qualified 
as roadway workers in charge, are not actively performing that role.
    The regulation requires RTAs to establish a specific training 
program for lone workers. Lone workers should undergo the same roadway 
worker in charge training and certification process as those who will 
actively perform roadway worker in charge duties. This ensures a 
consistent, high level of safety knowledge across all workers who may 
find themselves working independently on or near tracks. However, RTAs 
may choose to develop dedicated training for lone workers beyond the 
minimum requirements specified by FTA.
b. Lone Workers May Perform Limited Duties (Sec.  671.35(a)(2))
    Comments: One RTA asked FTA to explain the difference between a 
lone worker conducting inspections or performing work versus a 
situation where a lone worker needs to momentarily access the track for 
less than one minute. As an example, the RTA noted that removal of 
debris is a common lone worker task in most RTAs with street-running 
portions of their alignment and asked if a train operator authorized to 
leave their train to remove a piece a debris from the tracks would be 
considered a lone worker for the purposes of FTA's proposed rule. 
Another RTA asked FTA to reconsider Sec.  671.35(a)(2) provisions that 
specify that a lone worker ``may not use power tools.'' This RTA 
explained that gas blowers, lawn mowers, and compressors are commonly 
used by roadway workers performing as lone workers at their agency. 
This RTA commenter further commented that the use of power tools by an 
otherwise qualified and approved lone worker should be left up to the 
RTA to evaluate in its risk assessment(s) of roadway conditions and/or 
of risk-based redundant protections pursuant to Sec.  671.39 and should 
not be dictated by FTA. This commenter further noted that this section 
does not appear to consider the unique operating characteristics of a 
street-running streetcar or light rail system, which is wholly or 
partially responsible for routine grounds maintenance with gas-powered 
lawn maintenance tools.
    An industry association commented a concern about the restriction 
on the types of duties a lone worker may perform while on duty because 
many of its members currently have programs in place that allow workers 
to conduct common tasks alone. The same industry association commented 
that very large and smaller RTAs have expressed that FTA's proposals 
will disrupt operations

[[Page 87200]]

as these RTAs do not have the resources, manpower, or time to send out 
multiple workers for tasks that can be performed safely by one worker 
at a time. The commenter argued that this requirement would further 
strain already limited resources to the brink of materially impacting 
an RTA's ability to provide daily transit services. This industry 
association also noted that its ``Roadway Worker Program Requirements'' 
standard provides the flexibility to allow lone workers to conduct 
common tasks, abiding by agency standards.
    One vendor recommended that lone worker duties include visual 
inspection, patrol, examination, or minor tasks and further requested 
clarity as to whether lone workers may use any tools, as they are 
disallowed under the definition of minor task.
    One RTA commented that the proposed section Sec.  671.35(a)(2), 
which allows a lone worker to only access locations defined in the 
track access guide as ``appropriate,'' does not consider the dynamic 
nature of an RTA's system. This RTA argued that a location that may not 
be typically noisy or have reduced visibility could change on a day-to-
day basis due to construction, environmental conditions, or other 
factors and, therefore, the RTA suggested removing this provision.
    FTA Response: A train operator who momentarily must leave their 
vehicle to remove debris is a transit worker, not a roadway worker or a 
lone worker, because their duties do not involve inspection, 
construction, maintenance, repairs, or providing on-track safety. Under 
this final rule, other transit workers, such as train operators, may 
momentarily access the track to perform tasks such as debris removal or 
to throw a switch, so long as they comply with the provisions in Sec.  
671.23(b). Given that these transit workers, who are not roadway 
workers or lone workers, may rarely access the track, FTA expects RTA 
safety risk assessments and SSOA approvals to mitigate additional 
safety risk as appropriate.
    FTA appreciates the challenges faced by transit systems that to 
date may not have developed and implemented robust RWP requirements for 
lone workers. Similarly, FTA understands that the new requirements may 
impact street-running systems differently than others with a dedicated 
right-of-way. The final rule prohibits lone workers from using power 
tools as they may impact noise levels and the worker's ability to 
maintain situational awareness, hear, and visually assess their 
surroundings at least every five seconds for approaching rail transit 
vehicles. FTA appreciates the industry association commenter's concerns 
with restricting lone worker duties and the potential strain on RTA 
resources, particularly regarding the performance of routine 
maintenance or common tasks, as allowed in the APTA ``Roadway Worker 
Program Requirements'' standard. FTA declines to expand the types of 
tasks that lone workers may perform because FTA agrees with the NTSB 
that the rail transit industry's safety performance indicates that lone 
workers cannot safely perform a broader range of tasks than currently 
defined in FTA's requirements.
    Lone workers may perform minor tasks and may also perform routine 
inspections and move from one location to another. Specific tasks to be 
performed by a lone worker, that qualify as minor tasks, will depend on 
the situation and the RTA's RWP program but may include activities such 
as inspections, measurements, taking pictures, observing train 
movements, establishing on-track safety, and emergency response.
    FTA understands that additional information beyond the track access 
guide may be needed to determine if a location is safe for lone 
workers. FTA acknowledges that work conditions can change due to 
various factors and that these changes may not be reflected in either 
the track access guide or the initial job safety briefing. As part of 
the RWP program, therefore, FTA expects RTAs to encourage all workers, 
including lone workers, to assess their work environment before and 
during their tasks. If conditions change significantly, all transit 
workers, including lone workers, are empowered to initiate a good faith 
safety challenge when they deem it necessary.
c. Lone Workers Require Redundant Protections
    Comments: One RTA commented on Sec.  671.35(a)(2) and Sec.  
671.35(a)(3), stating that these two provisions appear to be 
contradictory, and requested clarity. One RTA commented that redundant 
protections are unnecessary for lone workers in some instances because 
RTA provisions identified for these workers usually limit their time in 
the active right-of-way, and workers complete the work within that 
time.
    One RTA recommended removing ``lone workers'' from ``Required RWP 
Program Elements'' as this denotes the ability to use individual rail 
transit vehicle detection, which is inconsistent with FRA requirements 
for lone workers. The RTA asked FTA for additional clarification to 
explain the reasoning behind allowing lone workers when lone workers 
may not use individual train detection as the only form of on-track 
safety.
    Finally, one RTA commenter recommended revising the text in Sec.  
671.35(a)(3) to use affirmative language for simplicity and to mirror 
other parts of the rule.
    FTA Response: FTA notes that the provisions in Sec.  671.35(a)(2) 
and Sec.  671.35(a)(3) are not contradictory but complementary. While 
Sec.  671.35(a)(2) outlines the types of tasks a lone worker may 
perform, Sec.  671.35(a)(3) specifies the safety measures required to 
perform the tasks, notably the prohibition of the use of individual 
rail transit vehicle detection as the sole protection. FTA's intent is 
to ensure that lone workers can perform appropriate tasks while 
maintaining a high level of safety through redundant protections. FTA 
believes that redundant protections are crucial regardless of the 
duration of exposure and that even brief periods on or near tracks can 
pose significant risks. Redundant protections provide an additional 
layer of safety that is essential in dynamic and potentially hazardous 
environments such as the track zone. FTA disagrees with the 
recommendation to remove ``lone workers'' from ``Required RWP Program 
Elements'' and declines to remove the term from the rule. While FTA 
understands the comparison to FRA requirements, FTA's approach aims to 
ensure redundant protections for individual roadway workers who are not 
afforded on-track safety by another roadway worker and who FTA 
considers to be ``lone workers.'' FTA does not agree that the use of 
individual rail transit vehicle detection should be the sole defining 
characteristic of the term ``lone worker.'' On the use of alternate 
forms of RWP for lone workers in existing RTA systems, FTA commends 
RTAs that already utilize redundant forms of protection for lone 
workers, such as foul time, and agrees that these protections can be 
effectively integrated into rail transit operations.
    FTA disagrees with the vendor's suggestion to revise Sec.  
671.35(a)(3) to use affirmative language because FTA believes the 
existing phrasing clearly expresses the prohibition on the use of 
individual rail transit vehicle detection as the only form of on-track 
safety.
3. Communication
    Comments: FTA received comments from one vendor and multiple RTAs 
regarding proposed requirements for lone workers to communicate with 
supervisors and receive and document

[[Page 87201]]

job safety briefings prior to fouling the track in Sec.  671.35(b).
    One vendor expressed their expectation that the lone worker 
protocol would include a welfare check-in procedure reflective of the 
task duration (e.g., a one-hour activity would have a 20- to 30-minute 
check-in window), as well as a procedure to confirm the lone worker is 
clear of the tracks and a missed check-in would trigger an escalation 
or appropriate response.
    An RTA provided comments related to how RTAs and lone workers may 
manage the job safety briefing requirements. First, the RTA asked FTA 
to consider if it is feasible to require lone workers to acknowledge 
job safety briefings in writing. To resolve potential issues, this 
commenter recommended allowing the controller in the Control Center to 
provide the briefing for the lone worker via an all-call over the 
radio, rather than a written job safety briefing. This RTA asked FTA to 
clarify what difference, if any, exists in the job safety briefing 
requirement for lone workers momentarily fouling the track and those 
conducting longer lasting work. This RTA noted that this approach is 
allowed in APTA's RWP standard and sought clarification if this 
approach would, in fact, meet the intention of FTA's proposed 
requirement. They also commented that it may be more appropriate to 
request foul time on some systems rather than require a lone worker job 
safety briefing for momentary track access.
    Another RTA expressed their concern that this requirement would 
become a ``check the box exercise'' and provide no value in 
establishing on-track safety for the employee. This commenter 
recommended that FTA clarify how it intends for lone workers to 
``acknowledge and document the job safety briefing in writing,'' as 
described in Sec.  671.35(b). This commenter also questioned the 
objective of a roadway worker acknowledging their own briefing to 
themself.
    FTA Response: FTA appreciates the vendor commenter who suggested 
using welfare check-in procedures reflective of task duration to 
protect lone workers. While FTA does not include this practice as a 
minimum requirement in its RWP rule, FTA encourages RTAs to implement 
robust safety protocols for lone workers, which could include regular 
check-ins.
    FTA is finalizing as proposed the requirement for lone workers to 
acknowledge and document the job safety briefing in writing. Because 
FTA understands that in some cases this may be logistically 
challenging, FTA is allowing RTAs the flexibility to determine how they 
will document the written acknowledgement. For example, RTAs may use 
forms, notebooks, logs, or other tools for lone workers to document 
their acknowledgment. Further, regarding the difference in briefing 
requirements for momentary track fouling versus longer work, FTA 
intends for the job safety briefing to be proportional to the task's 
complexity and duration. Finally, FTA agrees that, like APTA's RWP 
program requirements, job safety briefings for lone workers may be 
provided from the Control Center over the radio. However, these 
briefings must be communicated directly to the lone worker and must 
meet the requirements of Sec.  671.33(b), including a discussion of 
their planned work activities and the procedures that they intend to 
use to establish on-track safety and must be acknowledged in writing by 
the lone worker.
    In response to the commenter concerned that the requirement for a 
lone worker to receive and acknowledge a job safety briefing may become 
a ``check the box exercise'' with no value, FTA disagrees. The intent 
of this requirement is to ensure that lone workers have current, 
relevant safety information before entering the track. The purpose of 
the job safety briefing acknowledgment is to ensure that the worker has 
thoroughly considered all safety aspects of their task before accessing 
the track. The goal is meaningful communication that enhances safety.

M. Section 671.37--Good Faith Safety Challenge

    Comments: FTA received comments from multiple labor organizations, 
multiple RTAs, and a vendor regarding Sec.  671.27. The labor 
organizations expressed support for the regulation without advocating 
for specific changes. One noted that a basic principle of occupational 
health and safety law is for a worker to have the right to withdraw 
their labor if they have a reasonable belief of imminent danger to life 
or health. One of these commenters provided an example of the existing 
processes used by a local union and the RTA to resolve safety 
challenges efficiently.
    One RTA recommended that the entire work party remain clear of the 
track until a concern is resolved, stating that the way the rule is 
currently written makes it appear that only the roadway worker who 
voiced the concern should remain clear of the tracks. One vendor 
commented that the existing provision seems to allow a challenge only 
prior to work commencing and recommended including provisions for a 
safety work stoppage if work is already underway.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees that the entire roadway work group must 
remain clear of the track zone--not just the worker that made the good 
faith safety challenge. FTA has revised the rule to clarify that the 
roadway work group must remain clear of the roadway or track zone until 
the challenge and refusal is resolved.
    In response to the comment that recommends including provisions for 
a safety work stoppage if work is already underway, FTA notes that the 
final rule requires the RTA to document its procedures for the good 
faith safety challenge element of the RWP program. FTA expects RTAs to 
address safely stopping work within these procedures.

N. Section 671.39--Risk-Based Redundant Protections

1. General
    Comments: Multiple RTAs, one industry association, one labor 
organization, and multiple vendors supplied general comments for the 
requirements presented in Sec.  671.39 for redundant protections. Of 
the three RTA commenters, two asked for clarification on types of 
acceptable RWP-redundant protection measures with one of those 
suggesting that FTA provide guidance for the rail transit industry to 
ensure consistent implementation and compliance with FTA expectations. 
The third RTA asked if FTA intends to define ``redundant protection.'' 
The industry association recommended the revision of language in Sec.  
671.39(a) to affirmatively state the RTA's responsibility for 
establishing redundant protections. A vendor recommended that FTA set 
forth minimum levels of protection similar to those in 49 CFR 214 
subpart C, such as exclusive track occupancy, foul time, train 
coordination, inaccessible track, train approach warning, or definite 
train location.
    Multiple vendors recommended that FTA and RTAs explore the ability 
of technology to protect workers and promoted the use of their 
technologies as redundant RWP protections for roadway workers.
    The labor organization noted that redundancies should be leveraged 
to ensure roadway worker safety, including ongoing communication with 
dispatchers, shunts, blue flags, signage, and locked derails to 
indicate occupied tracks. The labor organization emphasized that labor 
representatives must have input in identifying necessary redundancies 
and protocols. The commenter praised proposed RTA

[[Page 87202]]

requirements on safety risk assessments but urged FTA to use this 
rulemaking as a ``starting point'' to establish more prescriptive 
standards in the future.
    FTA Response: Section 671.39(d) includes a non-exhaustive list of 
redundant protections that RTAs and SSOAs may use. Through safety risk 
assessments, RTAs may identify other redundant protections suitable to 
their specific circumstances. FTA has defined redundant protection in 
the definition section of the rule at Sec.  671.5, which states that 
redundant protections may be procedural, physical, or both. FTA will 
consider this topic for future guidance and technical assistance.
    FTA agrees with the industry association commenter that recommended 
a revision to Sec.  671.39(a)(2) to be consistent with Sec.  
671.39(a)(1) to state affirmatively the RTA's responsibility for 
establishing redundant protections. FTA is revising the regulatory text 
to clarify FTA's intent that it is the RTA's responsibility to 
establish redundant protections to ensure on-track safety for multiple 
roadway work groups within a common work area.
    FTA appreciates the commenter that recommended FTA set forth 
minimum levels of protection similar to FRA to ensure redundant 
protections encompass all roadway workers. While FTA has identified the 
need for protection beyond individual vehicle detection, FTA declines 
to prescribe the specific redundant protections required and instead 
has opted to offer RTAs flexibility to determine the protections that 
best fit their needs by assessing safety risk and establishing 
mitigations in the form of redundant protections for each category of 
work performed by roadway workers on the rail transit system.
    FTA agrees with the labor organization's statement that 
redundancies should be leveraged to ensure roadway worker safety and 
that labor representatives must have input in identifying necessary 
redundancies and protocols to keep roadway workers safe. FTA encourages 
the joint labor-management Safety Committee, as part of its statutory 
responsibilities, to identify RWP-related safety deficiencies and 
identify and recommend risk-based mitigations or strategies to address 
RWP hazards identified in the agency's safety risk assessment.
2. Safety Risk Assessment
    Comments: Multiple RTAs and one vendor commented on the requirement 
for RTAs to conduct a safety risk assessment to determine redundant 
protections in Sec.  671.39(b). One RTA acknowledged that the rule 
allows for flexibility in identifying redundant protections suitable 
for specific circumstances but commented that the variety of roadway 
worker activities would make it ``difficult to establish a one-size-
fits-all approach'' to redundant protections. Another RTA asked if this 
requirement necessitates a stand-alone safety risk assessment document 
and if this requirement applied to an RTA with an existing RWP program 
in place.
    One RTA comment focused on the frequency of safety risk assessments 
established in Sec.  671.39(b)(3), stating that conducting these 
activities at least every two years would be challenging for small and 
mid-size RTAs to implement due to the complexity and technical nature 
of such an assessment. The RTA recommended that the frequency of this 
assessment should be driven by the RTA's SRM and management of change 
processes in Sec.  673.27(c).
    FTA received comments on the ability of the SSOA to identify and 
require alternate redundant RWP protections for an RTA in Sec.  
671.39(b)(4). A vendor recommended striking the word ``require'' from 
this section, suggesting that the SSOA should only require redundant 
protections if established by regulation or a corrective action plan, 
highlighting their awareness of past tensions when SSOAs have required 
program elements that are not achievable when evaluated by the RTA, 
while an RTA noted that SSOA program standards require roadway workers 
to comply with RTA procedures. Similarly, one RTA alleged that Sec.  
671.39(b)(4) is a stark departure from the existing RTA/SSOA 
relationship under part 674 and that decisions on RWP protections 
should be left with the RTA, not the SSOA.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees that the variety of roadway worker 
activities would make it ``difficult to establish a one-size-fits-all 
approach'' to redundant protections which is why this final rule offers 
RTAs flexibility, not a one-size-fits-all approach, to determine the 
protections that best fit their needs by assessing safety risk and 
establishing mitigations in the form of redundant protections for each 
category of work performed by roadway workers on the rail transit 
system.
    An RTA's existing safety risk assessment process is specified in 
the ASP required by the PTASP regulation at Sec.  673.25(c). RTAs will 
use this process to assess safety risk and identify mitigations 
including redundant protections. This final rule does not require a 
separate document so long as the risk assessment identifies the 
specific safety risk mitigations or strategies necessary to address RWP 
risks and otherwise complies with the requirements of this rule. RTAs 
may use existing RWP programs and safety risk assessments as long as 
they meet all the requirements of this final rule, including the 
requirement to employ safety risk assessment processes to determine 
redundant protections.
    FTA intends for RTAs to use the review and update requirement to 
ensure that the safety risk assessment reflects current conditions, 
lessons learned from safety events, actions the RTA has taken to 
address reports of unsafe acts and conditions and near-misses, and the 
results of the agency's monitoring of redundant protection 
effectiveness. As the commenter noted, RTAs are expected to have 
processes for regular safety risk assessments, as well as management of 
change and continuous improvement activities through their ASPs, 
pursuant to part 673. FTA believes requiring the safety risk assessment 
to be reviewed and updated every two years is reasonable and necessary 
to account for new information, including reports of unsafe acts and 
conditions and near-misses. Safety information can change greatly in a 
two-year span and should be reassessed to ensure agencies are not 
relying on outdated information. FTA notes that review findings may 
indicate no changes are required.
    FTA declines to amend the regulation to remove the authority of the 
SSOA to require alternative redundant protections. FTA notes that this 
requirement is reflective of the SSOA's primary safety oversight 
responsibility for RTAs and is intended to allow for varying solutions 
based on the RTA's unique operating characteristics and capabilities in 
case the redundant protections identified by an RTA's safety risk 
assessment prove ineffective or inappropriate. Whenever possible, FTA 
encourages SSOAs and RTAs to work together to identify suitable 
redundant protections. Regarding current SSOA program standards, FTA 
reminds the commenter that this final rule requires the SSOA to update 
its program standard to explain the role of the SSOA in overseeing the 
RTA's execution of its RWP program. FTA disagrees that Sec.  
671.39(b)(4) is a stark departure from the current role of the SSOA, as 
identifying and requiring alternate redundant protections where needed 
falls within the oversight purview of the SSOA to ensure the RTA's 
safety program. However, FTA reiterates that RTAs have the 
responsibility to identify and provide redundant protections in the 
first instance.

[[Page 87203]]

3. Types of Redundant Protections
    Comments: Multiple RTAs, multiple vendors, and the NTSB provided 
comments on the types of redundant protections presented in Sec.  
671.39(d). One RTA asked if there was a minimum number of protections 
that needed to be established to comply with the rule, while another 
RTA asked whether having a dedicated flagger served as a type of 
redundant protection. One vendor suggested FTA clarify that the use of 
walkways in tunnels and on elevated structures referenced in Sec.  
671.39(d)(2)(xi) as types of redundant protections do not include 
walkways deemed part of a track zone.
    Another vendor commented that FTA does not appear to enumerate 
``core'' or primary protections, only risked-based redundant 
protections. The commenter stated many of the protections listed in 
Sec.  671.39(d)(2) are types of primary protections, though some may be 
considered redundant protections, and referenced 49 CFR 214 subpart C 
for a list of primary on-track safety protections. This commenter noted 
that, in their experience, shunts, physical barriers, warning devices, 
blocks in the dispatch system, and speed restrictions are types of 
redundant protections.
    The NTSB urged FTA to prohibit rail transit vehicle approach 
warning without the use of a physical redundant protection, such as 
positive train control, secondary warning devices, or shunting.
    FTA Response: The final rule establishes that there must always be 
at least two protections and, beyond that, the number of protections 
will depend on the work environment and the results of the RTA's safety 
risk assessment. FTA affirms that a dedicated flagger is considered a 
form of redundant protection. FTA disagrees with the commenter that 
suggested FTA clarify that walkways in tunnels and on elevated 
structures referenced as redundant protections in Sec.  
671.39(d)(2)(xi) are not deemed part of a track zone. FTA notes the 
final rule defines track zone in Sec.  671.5 and believes additional 
restatement is unnecessary.
    Section 671.39(d) identifies a non-exhaustive list of redundant 
protections. For clarity, FTA is revising Sec.  671.39(d) to clarify 
that redundant protections may include but are not limited to the 
listed protections. FTA declines to identify any of these protections 
as ``core'' protections, due to the varying operating environments of 
transit systems. It is FTA's belief that RTAs should have options to 
determine which protections are most appropriate for their system and 
circumstance, on a case-by-case basis, based on their safety risk 
assessment. This final rule allows RTAs flexibility regarding 
protections as long as individual rail transit vehicle detection is not 
the sole form of protection for workers on the roadway.
    In response to the NTSB urging FTA to prohibit rail transit vehicle 
approach warning without the use of a physical redundant protection, 
such as positive train control, secondary warning devices, or shunting, 
FTA maintains that, in some circumstances, it may be necessary for RTAs 
to use procedural redundant protections rather than physical. FTA 
encourages the use of the strongest available forms of protection and 
multiple forms of protection when feasible.

O. Section 671.41--RWP Training and Qualification Program

1. General
    Comments: FTA received comments from the NTSB, five RTAs, two 
industry associations, two vendors, one SSOA, and one individual 
regarding the requirement for RTAs to adopt an RWP training program in 
Sec.  671.41(a). The NTSB and one individual recommended that FTA 
require annual refresher training instead of biennial to be consistent 
with FRA requirements. One industry association supported the idea of 
more agency-specific refresher training to address the nuances of the 
varied operations of transit properties.
    One RTA and one industry association suggested that FTA revise the 
requirement to review and update the RWP training program at least 
every two years to allow RTAs to attest that no changes are needed. 
Conversely, one RTA commenter suggested FTA require an annual review of 
training programs. The RTA also suggested FTA mirror FRA requirements 
in 49 CFR part 243 related to training programs and training program 
components. Another RTA commenter asked whether SSOAs will be required 
to review RWP training program updates.
    One RTA commenter asked if all RTA employees and contractors are 
required to complete the same level of training or if it is only 
intended for employees who must be RWP qualified. The commenter also 
recommended that FTA follow APTA standards to set different levels of 
training based on a position's level of responsibility. Another RTA 
questioned FTA's inclusion of operations control center personnel as a 
work category that must be addressed by the RWP training program. The 
commenter suggested that operations control center personnel, rail 
transit vehicle operators, and other transit workers should not be 
required to undergo full RWP training and instead should receive 
targeted training on their specific RWP responsibilities. The commenter 
added that this focused training will ensure all personnel are 
adequately prepared without necessitating comprehensive RWP training 
for roles that do not directly involve roadway work. In addition, the 
commenter noted that the training requirement for these workers is 
overly burdensome on the RTA and the workers and provides little 
benefit to workers who are not actively engaged daily in roadway work. 
The RTA commenter further noted that industry best practice calls for 
ensuring that personnel have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to 
perform their tasks, not the knowledge, skills, and abilities of those 
with whom they interact. However, a different RTA stated that existing 
SSOA program standards require all roadway workers to comply with the 
RTA's RWP policies and procedures in relation to RWP training and 
qualifications.
    One industry association commenter suggested that RTAs could 
benefit from the time and cost savings of a practice whereby contractor 
workers apply a previously completed generic but compliant RWP training 
with abbreviated on-track safety training to understand that particular 
railroad's specific safety rules and procedures.
    One vendor commenter recommended that FTA require RWP training to 
be conducted in the languages that trainees use most fluently. The 
commenter added that language barriers present a significant risk to 
transit or roadway workers in understanding the safety briefing and the 
on-track safety being afforded.
    One RTA commenter stated that it does not appear that the rule 
aligns with current training programs, which allow shadowing as a form 
of on-the-job training and exposure under the oversight of a qualified 
transit worker.
    One SSOA commenter asked if there is an official means of roadway 
worker designation and whether a flag person must receive any required 
training or certification. One vendor commenter suggested that FTA 
consider including mentorship along with the training, qualifications, 
and supervision required for transit workers to access the track zone. 
The commenter noted that mentorship will ensure that new employees have 
adequate on-track experience as assessed by a senior employee mentor.
    FTA Response: While FTA seeks as much consistency as possible with 
FRA requirements, and recognizes the

[[Page 87204]]

benefits of more frequent refresher training, FTA also must consider 
the potential burdens on the rail transit industry regarding additional 
refresher training. FTA finds that biennial refresher training strikes 
an appropriate balance between safety and operational flexibility. In 
addition, given the other provisions in the rule to monitor 
implementation of the RWP program, ensure its effectiveness, and take 
corrective action to address deficiencies, FTA is confident that there 
are sufficient opportunities for an RTA to identify if it must move 
beyond the rule's minimum requirements to adopt more frequent refresher 
training to ensure effective implementation of its RWP program. FTA 
also notes that a biennial refresher provides time for the RWP training 
program to identify and address lessons learned through the results of 
compliance testing, near-miss reports, reports of unsafe acts or 
conditions, and feedback received on the training program, per Sec.  
671.41(a)(3). FTA agrees that agency-specific training is valuable. The 
current rule allows RTAs to tailor their training programs to address 
the nuances of their specific operations while meeting the minimum 
requirements set forth in the regulation.
    FTA agrees with the RTA and industry association that there may be 
instances where, after a two-year period, no changes are required to 
the RTA's RWP training program. However, FTA believes that a regular 
review of the RWP training program is essential to ensure its continued 
effectiveness. The rule's biennial review requirement allows RTAs to 
make necessary updates or confirm that the existing program remains 
appropriate.
    FTA confirms that SSOAs have oversight responsibility for the 
review and approval of RWP training programs and subsequent updates. 
Per Sec.  671.25, the RTA's RWP training program is included as part of 
its RWP manual and program elements, and the final rule requires that 
SSOAs review and approve the RWP manual and program elements, and any 
subsequent updates, for each RTA within its jurisdiction.
    In terms of which positions must be trained, FTA clarifies that the 
rule requires RTAs to develop appropriate training for all transit 
workers responsible for on-track safety, by position, including roadway 
workers, operations control center personnel, rail transit vehicle 
operators, operators of on-track equipment and roadway maintenance 
machines, and any others with a role in providing on-track safety or 
fouling a track for the performance of work, including contractors. 
Further, in response to this commenter's question about use of APTA 
standards, while FTA's rule does not explicitly follow APTA standards, 
FTA encourages RTAs to use industry best practices to inform their 
training program development as appropriate.
    FTA clarifies that the regulation requires that all transit 
workers, which by definition includes contractors working on behalf of 
the RTA or SSOA, with a responsibility for roadway worker safety, 
receive appropriate RWP training, by position, The level and content of 
training can be tailored to specific roles and responsibilities within 
the RTA's program. Training may be focused exclusively on the RWP 
responsibilities of a given position, and it may also include 
additional RWP training regarding the responsibilities of other roles 
or how other RWP program elements may work. FTA agrees with the 
commenter that noted SSOA program standards may have additional 
requirements related to RWP training and qualification.
    In response to the industry association suggesting time- and cost-
saving options for contractor training, FTA notes that RTAs have the 
flexibility to recognize prior training and provide abbreviated 
supplemental training on agency-specific rules and procedures, as long 
as all required elements of the RWP training program are covered. In 
terms of training in workers' most fluent languages, FTA agrees that 
effective communication is crucial for safety. RTAs should ensure that 
their training programs and on-track safety briefings are conducted in 
a manner that all workers can understand, which may include addressing 
language barriers.
    FTA's rule does not preclude the use of on-the-job training or 
shadowing as part of a comprehensive RWP training program, provided it 
meets the requirements outlined in the regulation. FTA recognizes the 
benefits of such practices and encourages them when the RTA determines 
them necessary and effective.
    In response to the SSOA commenter asking about roadway worker 
designation and flag person training, FTA clarifies that RTAs are 
responsible for designating roadway workers and ensuring all personnel, 
including flag persons, receive appropriate training and qualification 
for their roles as part of the RWP program. FTA agrees with the 
commenter who indicated that mentorship can be a valuable component of 
a comprehensive RWP training program. While not explicitly required, 
RTAs are encouraged to incorporate mentorship into their training and 
qualification processes.
2. Required Elements and Minimum Contents
    Comments: There were comments from one SSOA, five RTAs, and two 
vendors related to required RWP training program elements and content 
as outlined in Sec.  671.41(b) and (c). Out of concern for logistical 
challenges for track access and operations, one RTA requested 
clarification on what a ``representative field setting'' involves. They 
explained that an urban setting may be difficult to mirror in a safe 
training environment and suggested the regulation follow APTA standards 
regarding training levels and position responsibilities. One RTA stated 
that the training requirements in the rule as presented, which require 
practice exercises and demonstrations, are unattainable for some RTAs 
based on agency structure or characteristics, such as a street-running 
operating system and environment.
    Two RTAs asked about computer-based refresher training, pointing 
out that the rule requires refresher training to include 
``demonstrations and assessments.'' One asked if an online format would 
still be permitted for RWP refresher training and if the test following 
the online class would satisfy this ``demonstrations and assessments'' 
requirement. One RTA communicated that they are developing a computer-
based refresher training course, compliant with SSOA standards, which 
roadway workers will be required to complete every three years. The RTA 
sought clarification as to whether this type of training is acceptable 
or if in-person training is required.
    Several commenters suggested additions to required RWP training 
elements and minimum contents. One vendor recommended adding pre- and 
post-training assessments to determine comprehension as an RWP training 
element. Recommendations for additional RWP minimum training elements 
included primary protections as well as scenario-based training with 
relevant examples, for example, review of near-misses, violations, and 
safety critical communication protocols.
    An SSOA advocated that the current RWP manual be supplied to all 
workers governed by the RWP program as a training element. An RTA 
suggested this rule language mirror language in 49 CFR 243.101(d) and 
243.103(a)(3) to support the inclusion of interactive and field 
demonstration training for the initial and refresher RWP trainings. 
Finally, an RTA asked if the contents proposed in Sec.  671.41(c) are 
still required as part of the RWP training and program if these

[[Page 87205]]

minimum contents are not applicable to the RTA.
    FTA Response: FTA acknowledges the challenges in replicating urban 
settings for training. The intent of FTA's requirement that initial 
training include experience in a ``representative field setting'' is to 
provide practical experience in environments similar to actual work 
conditions. FTA believes this is attainable for RTAs, as the rule 
provides flexibility for how to conduct this training. For example, 
agencies may use simulations or controlled environments that reasonably 
approximate field conditions to satisfy the requirement. FTA emphasizes 
that training is critical to ensure workers have tangible experience to 
conduct potentially high-risk work. FTA has declined to adopt APTA's 
training standards or FRA's training requirements because FTA believes 
the standards outlined in the final rule are necessary to ensure 
sufficient RWP training. However, FTA did consider APTA standards, 
along with common industry practice, NTSB recommendations, and FRA 
standards in the development of the minimum training program elements. 
FTA's minimum contents for RWP training include aspects of these 
standards, as well as other necessary training components, including 
how to interpret and use the RTA's RWP manual, and how to apply the 
rules and procedures for redundant protections identified under Sec.  
671.37 of this rule, and the requirement that both initial and 
refresher training include demonstrations and assessments.
    FTA recognizes the range and diversity of RTA operations, and 
agencies should adapt training to their specific operating environments 
while meeting the requirements of FTA's regulation. FTA encourages 
agencies with unique challenges to consult with their SSOA for guidance 
on implementing effective training within their constraints. Industry 
associations and peer RTAs also may provide useful examples and support 
in addressing FTA's requirements. FTA will also provide technical 
assistance on RWP training expectations.
    The final rule permits online refresher training, provided it 
includes interactive training with the opportunity to ask the RWP 
trainer questions and raise and discuss RWP issues and demonstrations 
and assessments to ensure the ability to comply with RWP instructions 
given by transit workers performing, or responsible for, on-track 
safety and RWP functions. For example, the ``demonstrations and 
assessments'' requirement can be satisfied through well-designed 
virtual simulations and knowledge checks overseen by RWP trainers.
    FTA appreciates the suggestions for additional specific training 
elements. FTA has opted not to add additional specific training 
elements, as the current list was developed to apply to RTAs of varying 
sizes and complexity. While FTA has not explicitly added these 
recommendations to the rule text, FTA encourages agencies to consider 
incorporating these elements into their training programs as 
appropriate for their operations. This includes pre- and post-
assessments to determine comprehension for an RWP training element, 
additional training focused on primary protections, scenario-based 
training, safety-critical communication protocols, and providing 
current RWP manuals to workers as part of RWP training. FTA notes that 
the final rule requires that the RWP manual be distributed to all 
transit workers who access the roadway and the training program address 
how to interpret and use the RWP manual.
    The minimum contents for RWP training listed in Sec.  671.41(c) are 
intended to be comprehensive; however, if certain elements are not 
applicable to an agency's operations, they may omit those specific 
items after documenting the rationale in their training program. FTA 
has added ``as applicable'' to Sec.  671.41(c) for clarity. FTA 
recommends that RTAs consult with their SSOA to ensure their training 
program adequately covers all relevant safety aspects and encourages 
all agencies to work closely with their SSOAs in developing and 
implementing RWP training programs that meet the rule's requirements 
while addressing their specific operational needs and constraints.
3. Training Personnel Qualifications
    Comments: Three RTAs and one individual commented on the required 
qualifications of RWP training personnel outlined in Sec.  671.41(e). 
The individual recommended that all instructors should have sufficient 
experience in the operating environment and have spent time on the 
tracks. One RTA asked for clarification on what ``qualified'' means for 
trainers, and if it may differ based on the type of trainee. Another 
RTA commented that the requirement of the RWP training instructors to 
have an active RWP certification at the RTA does not directly translate 
to an instructor/facilitator's ability to provide effective training 
and suggested FTA adopt a definition for ``designated instructor,'' 
similar to FRA. The third RTA recommended that FTA require each RTA 
develop their staff based on the RTAs' right-of-way, special 
circumstances, and anomalies.
    FTA Response: FTA agrees that instructor experience is crucial and, 
as such, explicitly requires, per Sec.  671.41(e), that each RTA must 
ensure that transit workers delivering RWP training are qualified and 
possess an active RWP certification at the RTA for which they are 
providing the training.
    FTA has defined ``qualified'' in Sec.  671.5 to mean ``a status 
attained by a roadway worker or other transit worker who has 
successfully completed required training (including refresher training) 
for, has demonstrated proficiency in, and is authorized by the RTA to 
perform the duties of a particular position or function.'' Specifically 
for an RWP trainer, FTA expects these individuals to have the 
knowledge, skills, and abilities to effectively train others in the 
RTA's RWP program, including, in keeping with Sec.  671.41(b), the 
ability to answer RWP questions from trainees, discuss RWP issues with 
trainees, oversee the trainee's experience in a representative field 
setting, and conduct demonstrations and assessments of trainees to 
ensure their ability to comply with RWP instructions given by transit 
workers performing, or responsible for, on-track safety and RWP 
functions.
    FTA agrees with the RTA commenter that, while active RWP 
certification demonstrates current knowledge of the RTA's program, 
effective instruction requires additional skills. As specified in Sec.  
671.41(e), RTAs must consider both technical knowledge and 
instructional experience and ability when selecting trainers. While FTA 
is not adopting the FRA's ``designated instructor'' definition, RTAs 
may reference it when developing their own criteria for selecting RWP 
trainers, so long as the selected trainer also meets the rule's RWP 
qualification and experience requirements.
    FTA agrees with the importance of RTA-specific training 
development. RTAs should tailor their training programs and instructor 
qualifications to address their specific right-of-way characteristics, 
operational circumstances, and unique challenges.

P. Section 671.43--RWP Compliance Monitoring Program

1. General
    Comments: An industry association suggested that FTA remove the 
requirement for an RWP compliance monitoring plan, arguing that FTA's 
approach is duplicative of existing RTA

[[Page 87206]]

efforts, and FTA did not explain why more monitoring is necessary.
    One vendor recommended that FTA monitor the effectiveness of RTAs' 
RWP programs using a similar committee process to the General Code of 
Operating Rules (GCOR), Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee 
(NORAC), and other railroad operating rules and recommended this 
process would facilitate the RTAs' ability to share knowledge and 
lessons learned in their RWP program development.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees that the RWP compliance monitoring 
program is duplicative of existing RTA efforts across the board and 
declines to remove it from the rule. Rather than being duplicative, the 
requirement for compliance monitoring is consistent with and works in 
concert with Safety Assurance principles for safety performance 
monitoring and measurement required by the PTASP regulation. The 
additional monitoring required by this rule is intended to ensure RWP 
practices are uniformly and effectively implemented and will help 
ensure early identification of safety issues and ensure that the 
safeguards that are in place are effective.
    FTA declines to stand up a Federal committee to serve as a 
monitoring body for RWP compliance nationwide, as recommended by a 
commenter, because Congress has delegated direct safety oversight of 
RTAs to SSOAs (49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3)(A)). If FTA identifies nationwide 
trends or isolated concerns regarding RWP compliance, FTA will 
intervene as necessary and appropriate.
2. Required Elements
    Comments: FTA received comments from RTAs and the NTSB on the 
required elements for the RWP compliance monitoring program.
    One RTA sought clarity on the requirement that the RWP compliance 
monitoring program includes audits. Another RTA requested that FTA 
clarify its expectations for the differences between inspections, 
observations, and audits as elements of the RWP compliance program. 
Another RTA commented that FTA should require RWP compliance reviews be 
completed by rail agencies as part of existing agency Safety Assurance 
and SRM processes, such as the RTA internal safety review process.
    The NTSB recommended that FTA require compliance inspections to be 
unannounced to enable more efficient inspections.
    FTA Response: Audits are a methodology used regularly by RTAs in 
their Safety Assurance activities to examine and verify compliance with 
safety procedures, practices, plans, and programs. The RTA is 
responsible for developing and implementing compliance-monitoring 
activities that work for the agency to uncover and provide information 
on any deficiencies in the RWP program. FTA notes that all RTAs have 
already established a process to assess safety performance per Sec.  
673.27(d) and may use similar practices to conduct an audit of the RWP 
program, including how the audit is performed and the selection of the 
auditor performing the audit. This type of audit can verify whether or 
not the RWP program has any deficiencies, continues to comply with the 
regulation, and is achieving its objectives. In general, audits tend to 
examine the functionality of a department or unit and may include tasks 
such as inspections and observations to support the full audit 
activity. Generally speaking, an inspection is the review of a specific 
practice or item to carefully check the quality of how the practice is 
carried out or the condition of the item to ensure standards are met 
accordingly. In general, an observation is the shadowing of work by an 
informed manager, supervisor, or other knowledgeable individual, to 
identify and promptly address unsafe acts or conditions to prevent 
issues, injuries, or safety events. These types of monitoring 
activities may be used individually or together in the monitoring 
program. FTA agrees with the comment that RWP compliance monitoring 
executed by the RTA will fit within the constructs of the agency's SMS, 
particularly in Safety Assurance and SRM. Safety Assurance and 
compliance monitoring practices should be well-established at most 
RTAs; some agencies may need to add RWP compliance as an element for 
continued monitoring.
    FTA notes that Sec.  674.37 and 49 U.S.C. 5329(k) support an SSOA's 
use of unannounced inspections as part of the safety oversight of the 
RTAs. FTA declines to require unannounced inspections as part of the 
RWP compliance monitoring program to allow for discretion for RTAs to 
adopt a program for monitoring their compliance that accounts for 
available resources and operational demands. While FTA is not requiring 
RTAs to implement unannounced inspections as monitoring activities, FTA 
encourages RTAs to implement such inspections to capture true day-to-
day conditions when effective and beneficial.
3. Briefing to Accountable Executive and Board of Directors
    Comments: One RTA remarked that the requirement to provide an 
annual briefing to the Accountable Executive and also to the Board of 
Directors seems excessive and recommended that FTA allow RTAs to 
provide annual briefings only to the Accountable Executive. Another RTA 
remarked that the briefing requirements are unnecessary as this type of 
reporting is already incorporated into the review and update of the ASP 
and the delivery of internal safety reviews. The commenter went on to 
state that they believe the annual briefing requirement would add 
little value given all other types of reporting and data collection 
that already exist. Conversely, an SSOA supported the briefing 
requirement and recommended that FTA require the Chief Safety Officer 
and Accountable Executive provide the briefing to the Board of 
Directors.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees with the commenter that expressed 
concern that briefing the Board of Directors in addition to the 
Accountable Executive may be excessive or redundant. This requirement 
is consistent with Sec.  673.11(a)(1), which requires that the ASP be 
approved by the Board of Directors. Because the RWP program is part of 
the ASP, FTA believes there is value in briefing the Board of 
Directors, or equivalent entity, on the performance of the RWP program 
so that the Board of Directors is continually informed about the 
workers exposed to some of the highest levels of safety risk in the 
RTA, the effectiveness of the practices in place to protect them, and 
any concerning trends that may require mitigation and/or dedicated 
resources to make safety improvements. The Board's involvement brings 
the power of high-level decision-making and action, if necessary, to a 
discipline and work environment where safety is paramount.
    The final rule does not prescribe how the briefing is conducted at 
each RTA, but FTA encourages RTAs to have knowledgeable and informed 
personnel present this information to the Board of Directors, which may 
include the Chief Safety Officer, the Accountable Executive, and/or 
other subject matter experts.
4. Frequency of Reports to SSOA
    Comments: Several RTAs, one SSOA, two industry associations, and 
one vendor submitted comments regarding the requirement for RTAs to 
provide monthly reports to the SSOA documenting its compliance with and 
sufficiency of its RWP program in Sec.  671.43(b)(1). One SSOA 
recommended

[[Page 87207]]

that FTA eliminate the requirement and suggested that, instead, RTAs 
should assess the RWP program compliance and sufficiency on an ongoing 
basis, such as monthly, and submit documentation to the SSOA on an 
annual basis. The SSOA recommended this approach, noting that the 
internal safety review process is an existing RTA compliance monitoring 
process that could be expanded to include an annual review of RWP 
rather than creating a new compliance monitoring requirement. Two 
industry associations and one RTA also commented on the reporting 
requirement, stating that the monthly reporting would be overly 
burdensome to both generate and review and would likely hamper the 
functioning of the RWP program. Similar to the SSOA's comment, these 
commenters recommended leveraging existing related reporting 
requirements for RWP compliance reports on an annual basis. These 
commenters further noted that many SSO agencies and RTAs engage in 
quarterly reporting and that using these processes at already 
established reporting frequencies would be appropriate and more 
efficient.
    One commenter stated that a one-size-fits-all regulation is 
burdensome for inclined plane systems and would require an unreasonable 
amount of reporting. Another RTA suggested that FTA consider 
reconciling the requirements under part 671 with part 673 and 674 and 
stated that the monthly reports are redundant as SSOAs will already 
have adequate data from rule compliance programs, including RWP 
compliance, due to the risk-based inspections and pre-existing data 
collection and sharing provisions.
    One RTA and an industry association also stated that it is unclear 
how SSOAs are meant to use the various reports they receive from RTAs. 
The commenters suggested revising the language to require reports to 
SSOAs upon request.
    One RTA requested clarification on what kind of content an RTA 
would be required to provide as part of the monthly reports, and 
another RTA requested clarity on who would be responsible for 
submitting the reports to the SSOA.
    FTA Response: FTA appreciates the comments received on the proposed 
monthly RWP compliance monitoring reports to the SSOA and the various 
viewpoints that were presented. FTA agrees with commenters that argued 
monthly reporting may be too burdensome and has revised Sec.  
671.43(b)(1) as recommended by commenters to require quarterly 
reporting to the SSOA instead of monthly reporting. FTA believes that 
quarterly reporting will be sufficient to ensure SSOAs are regularly 
informed of RWP program performance and notes that the sharing of this 
quarterly report with the SSOA may be done through established 
communication avenues such as email, meetings, presentations, etc. as 
determined by the SSOA and RTA. These reports will help the SSOA 
identify deficiencies in the RTA's RWP program and ensure that the 
program complies with all requirements and is sufficient for the RTA's 
operating characteristics and environment.
    However, FTA declines to remove the reporting requirement 
altogether. FTA disagrees with the commenter that asserted RWP 
compliance reports are redundant with activities currently in place, 
because FTA has not previously required RTAs to develop an RWP program 
nor share RWP compliance information with SSOAs. In addition, RWP 
compliance is not specifically spelled out in risk-based inspection 
requirements. This final rule establishes consistent requirements for 
RTAs to share RWP compliance and performance information with their 
SSOAs.
    With respect to the request for clarification on the content of RWP 
compliance monitoring reports required at Sec.  671.43(b)(1), FTA 
defers to the RTA and SSOA to determine the content and how they will 
resolve disagreement on content. FTA recommends that RTAs refer to 
Sec.  671.25(c)(2)(i) as a reference and consider including the 
following: RWP safety events; compliance monitoring results and 
findings; monthly performance measures and targets; related CAPs; 
program or manual updates; good faith safety challenges issued; and RWP 
initial and refresher training conducted. FTA defers to the RTA to 
determine who within the agency will be responsible for submitting the 
quarterly reports to the SSOA.

Q. Section 671.51--Recordkeeping

    Comments: FTA received one comment from an RTA asking for 
clarification on whether recordkeeping practices outlined in Sec.  
671.51 included maintaining job safety briefings or job hazard 
assessments. An SSOA recommended that FTA consider requirements for RTA 
record retention in order to allow SSOAs to adequately perform 
consistent auditing responsibilities.
    Regarding job safety briefing document retention, an SSOA 
recommended job safety briefing documentation be retained for a minimum 
of two years, while an individual noted that there is currently no 
requirement for how long job safety briefing documents must be kept, 
noting that it is essential to have job safety briefings available for 
investigations.
    FTA Response: The final rule finalizes, as proposed, the 
requirement that records and documents of the RTAs' compliance with the 
rule's requirements must be retained for a minimum of three years. This 
includes documents such as safety risk assessments, job safety 
briefings, and job safety briefing attestations. Retention of these 
records and documents will support SSOAs in performing audits and 
oversight activities and will serve as a library of RWP documentation 
for the RTA to reference as needed.

R. Benefits and Costs

    Comments: Four RTAs, one industry association, and one labor 
organization commented on FTA's analytical approach to the benefit and 
cost analysis for the proposed RWP rule, addressing overall costs and 
impacts, the analytical option FTA selected, and the hours FTA 
estimated for specific activities.
    An RTA expressed concern that implementing a Federal baseline RWP 
program could impose significant financial and operational burdens, 
especially on smaller agencies. This RTA noted that the costs involved 
in establishing and implementing redundant protections, conducting 
comprehensive safety risk assessments, and complying with training and 
equipment requirements could be substantial.
    The industry association reported that many of its members find 
Option 1, which FTA chose for the proposed RWP rule, excessively 
burdensome, particularly for smaller systems. They alleged that FTA did 
not provide a rationale for treating all rail transit modes equally, 
regardless of the varying risks to workers. The association argued that 
instead of selecting an option balancing costs and benefits, FTA should 
have considered the least costly approach: incorporating the APTA RWP 
Standard by reference, as it represents industry consensus. They 
suggested that FTA could then analyze and require any additional 
necessary measures based on specific risks.
    An industry association and an RTA challenged FTA's estimate that 
developing and implementing an RWP program would require 96 hours of 
labor. To illustrate their point, the industry association stated that 
the daily process of completing and acknowledging a form before each 
job safety briefing would alone consume thousands of labor hours 
annually. The RTA asserted that developing and

[[Page 87208]]

standing up a comprehensive RWP program would require an agency to 
invest several hundred man-hours. Further, the proposed requirement to 
revise and reissue the manual every two years would require substantial 
resources from multiple departments (if not additional contracted 
resources) on an ongoing basis and is not a one-time cost.
    A labor organization commented on FTA's decision to select Option 1 
over Option 3. The organization highlighted that Option 3 could 
potentially save one additional roadway worker life approximately every 
four years, and it could prevent three additional serious roadway 
worker injuries every two years. The labor organization also pointed 
out that while FTA estimated Option 3 would cost over 50% more than the 
chosen Option 1, it would prevent 63% more serious injuries and prevent 
20% more fatalities. The RTA asserted that this comparison emphasizes 
the potential safety benefits of the standards-based approach despite 
its higher estimated cost. The commenter raised concern that the rule 
as proposed is not a sufficient substitute for ``true RWP standards.''
    A small RTA commented that the proposed rule fails to recognize the 
significant resource limitations of smaller transit systems and the 
additional cost burdens recently required to implement new PTASP 
requirements.
    Another RTA requested that FTA provide the data on which FTA's cost 
estimations are based so that RTAs can assess realistic cost impacts. 
This commenter noted that some estimates seemed unrealistic.
    An RTA asserted that FTA's cost estimates do not account for 
downstream effects of the requirements, including to terminology, 
procedures and processes, roles and responsibilities, and equipment and 
safety devices. The RTA asserted that it would expect to need to assess 
and replace signage on the roadway; to assess, purchase, and develop 
procedures for new safety equipment; to review and update contractual 
language to align with new RWP requirements; to evaluate and 
potentially revise CBAs due to changes in affiliated employees' job 
responsibilities; to complete a full review and revision of roadway 
access request, planning, and documentation processes and systems; and 
to revise forms and documentation used for job briefings and other RWP-
related processes. The RTA asserted that the development of initial and 
recurring RWP program training would take far greater than 120 total 
hours to develop, commenting that one hour of training typically 
requires 30 or more hours of development. Further, the RTA commented 
that RWP trainings would have to be updated regularly, based on the 
requirement to update the RWP manual every two years.
    An RTA commented that the potential of additional costs to RTAs of 
providing alternative credentials to meet the display requirement in 
Sec.  671.21(b)(2) should be reflected in Table 3 of Regulatory 
Analyses and Notices as an initial and ongoing cost for the RTA.
    A vendor commented that it appears that FTA assumed the highest 
possible implementation and maintenance costs for physically redundant 
protections and did not consider the wide range of costs (low to high) 
of commercially available technology solutions from multiple vendors.
    FTA Response: In response to comments, FTA reviewed and revised the 
labor hour estimates as detailed in Section IV, ``Regulatory Analyses 
and Notices'' and summarized in this section. The updated costs and net 
benefits reflect the revised estimates.
    For establishing an RWP program, FTA increased the initial 
estimated labor hours from 96 hours to 300 hours, reflecting one 
commenter's estimate of several hundred hours to establish a program as 
well as comments highlighting various administrative aspects of 
establishing the program. For initial development of trainings, FTA 
used a commenter's estimate of 30 hours of development per hour of 
training for roadway workers, lone roadway workers, and all employees. 
To account for labor costs associated with updating the RWP manual, 
associated trainings, and documentation every two years, FTA added an 
estimated annual average of 10 hours for manual updates and 20 hours 
for training updates. Finally, for giving written acknowledgment, FTA 
added an estimated annual average of 8.7 hours per frontline employee 
at agencies not already known to require written acknowledgments.
    Although RTAs may incur additional costs related to the purchase of 
equipment or other physical protection, FTA assumes that agencies 
largely have the necessary equipment in place to comply with current 
requirements, as the rule provides flexibility with regard to the 
implementation of physical or procedural protections. FTA did not 
include additional labor hours for providing alternative credentials 
because requiring some form of identification is common practice among 
RTAs. The final rule does not specify the kinds of credentials 
required, but rather requires only that the credentials be visible.
    As described in ``Baseline and Analytical Approach,'' FTA used 
occupational wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the 
primary data source for its cost estimates, in addition to the labor 
hour estimates updated with information from commenters. To reflect 
recent increases in labor costs, FTA updated its calculations to use 
May 2023 occupational wage data, the latest available as of August 
2024.
    Finally, FTA selected the requirements of the final rule based on 
multiple considerations, as described in ``Regulatory Alternatives.'' 
Any estimated differences in prevented fatalities and injuries among 
the options analyzed should be interpreted with caution: the relative 
benefits of the options are sensitive to small differences in the 
expected number of prevented accidents, as shown in the sensitivity 
analysis. Although the final rule increases safety compliance costs for 
RTAs, FTA has taken several steps to reduce the burden while addressing 
roadway worker safety. The final rule provides agencies with a maximum 
of one year to develop an SSOA-approved RWP program.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart A--General

671.1--Purpose and Applicability
    This section sets forth the applicability of the RWP regulation. 
The regulation applies to any RTA that receives Federal financial 
assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 and all SSOAs that oversee the 
safety of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems. The final 
rule does not apply to rail systems that are subject to the safety 
oversight of the FRA.
    The final rule also applies to transit workers who access any rail 
fixed guideway public transportation system in the performance of their 
work.
     Subsection (d) of Sec.  671.1 provides that, not later than one 
year after the effective date of the final rule, each RTA must have 
established an SSOA-approved RWP program that complies with this part.
671.3--Policy
    Section 671.3(a) explains that part 671 establishes minimum safety 
standards for rail transit RWP. Each RTA and SSOA may prescribe 
additional or more stringent rules that are consistent with this part.
    Section 671.3(b) explains that FTA has adopted the use of SMS as 
the basis for enhancing the safety of public transportation. Activities 
conducted to

[[Page 87209]]

carry out this part must be integrated into the RTA's SMS, required 
under part 673 of this chapter.
671.5--Definitions
    This section sets forth the definitions of key terms used in the 
regulation. Most notably, readers should refer to the definitions of 
``fouling a track,'' ``individual rail transit vehicle detection,'' 
``job safety briefing,'' ``lone worker,'' ``minor task,'' ``on-track 
safety,'' ``rail fixed guideway public transportation system,'' ``rail 
transit agency,'' ``rail transit vehicle,'' ``redundant protection,'' 
``roadway,'' ``roadway worker,'' ``roadway worker protection,'' ``track 
zone,'' ``and ``transit worker.''

Subpart B--RWP Program and Manual

    This subpart establishes minimum requirements for the RWP program, 
which must be adopted and implemented by each RTA. This subpart also 
establishes minimum requirements for the RWP manual. The RWP manual 
documents the mechanisms by which the RTA will carry out its RWP 
program.
671.11--RWP Program
    Section 671.11(a) requires that each RTA adopt and implement an RWP 
program designed to improve transit worker safety and that this program 
must be consistent with Federal and State requirements.
    Section 671.11(b) requires that the RWP program include an RWP 
manual, described further in Sec.  671.13, and all the RWP program 
elements described in subpart D of this part.
    Section 671.11(c) requires each RTA to submit its RWP manual and 
subsequent updates to its SSOA for review and approval, as described in 
Sec.  671.25.
671.13--RWP Manual
    Section 671.13(a) requires each RTA to establish and maintain a 
separate, dedicated RWP manual. The creation of this document as a 
separate, dedicated manual reflects FTA's expectation that this manual 
will be a critical safety component of an RTA's rail program. This 
requirement also reflects FTA's belief that separation from other 
manuals or documents ensures all parties know where all RWP information 
can be found. FTA also believes that maintaining one document will 
encourage more efficient review and update processes.
    Section 671.13(b) requires that the RWP manual include the 
terminology, abbreviations, and acronyms used by the RTA to describe 
its RWP program activities and requirements. This requirement reflects 
FTA's expectation that RTAs will continue to use, or, when necessary, 
create standard terminology, abbreviations, and acronyms used 
throughout the agency in relation to RWP.
    Section 671.13(c) specifies the list of required elements that must 
be documented in the RWP manual. The required elements of the manual 
include all elements of the RWP program required in subpart D (Required 
RWP Program Elements) of this part and a definition of RTA and transit 
worker responsibilities as described in subpart C (Responsibilities) of 
this part. This section requires that the RWP manual document the 
training, qualification, and supervision the RTA requires for transit 
workers to access the track zone, by labor category or type of work 
performed. This section requires the RWP manual to document the 
processes and procedures for all transit workers who may access the 
track zone in the performance of their work, including safety and 
oversight personnel. In addition, this section specifies that 
procedures for SSOA personnel to access the roadway must conform with 
the SSOA's risk-based inspection program. By requiring an RWP manual to 
contain certain elements, this requirement ensures that all critical 
elements of an RWP program are documented in one manual. FTA expects 
this to reduce the potential for conflicting RWP program directions and 
provide a single authoritative source of RWP program information.
    Section 671.13(d) requires that the RWP manual include or 
incorporate by reference a track access guide to support on-track 
safety. FTA is providing flexibility for RTAs to choose to maintain 
this track access guide separately from their RWP manual to allow 
frequent updates as the condition of the track system changes. This 
section specifies that this guide must be based on a physical survey of 
the track geometry and condition of the track system.
    Section 671.13(d)(1) requires that the track access guide includes 
locations with limited, close, or no clearance, including locations 
that have size or access limitations. Locations with size or access 
limitations may include but are not limited to alcoves, recessed 
spaces, or other designated places or areas of refuge or safety. FTA 
understands that although areas of refuge or safety should not be used 
in a way that limits access, such as being used to store or otherwise 
house tools, equipment, or materials, RTAs may use some of these areas 
to store or ``stage'' items used to repair, maintain, or inspect the 
roadway. This section requires including these areas in the physical 
survey to ensure roadway workers are aware of any such areas with 
access limitations.
    Section 671.13(d)(2) requires that the track access guide must also 
identify locations with increased rail vehicle or on-track equipment 
braking requirements.
    Sections 671.13(d)(2), (3), (4), and (5) require that the track 
access guide identify areas with limited visibility, including 
locations with reduced rail transit operator visibility due to weather 
conditions, curves with limited or no visibility, locations with 
limited or no visibility due to obstructions or topography, and all 
portals with restricted views.
    Finally, Sec. Sec.  671.13(d)(6) and (7) require that the track 
access guide identify locations with heavy outside noise or other 
environmental conditions that impact on-track safety and any other 
locations with access considerations.
    In Sec.  671.13(e), FTA requires the RTA to completely review and 
update its RWP manual at least every two years. This includes updates 
to reflect current conditions, lessons learned in implementing the RWP 
program as described in the manual, and information provided by the 
SSOA and FTA. This section requires that this review and update occur 
within the two years following the SSOA's initial approval of the RWP 
manual and at least every two years thereafter.
    As the track access guide must be included or incorporated by 
reference in the RWP manual, this complete review and update will 
include the track access guide, regardless of whether the guide is 
maintained as a separate document from the RWP manual.
    Further, in Sec.  671.13(f), FTA requires RTAs to update both the 
RWP manual and the track access guide as soon as is practicable when a 
change in RTA conditions means either document does not reflect current 
conditions.
    Section 671.13(g) requires that the RTA distribute the RWP manual 
to all transit workers who access the roadway and that the RTA 
distribute the revised manual to all transit workers who access the 
roadway after each revision. For RTAs that decide to maintain the track 
access guide separately from the RWP manual, this section requires that 
those RTAs distribute the track access guide to all transit workers who 
access the roadway and distribute the revised track access guide to all 
transit workers after each revision.

[[Page 87210]]

Subpart C--Responsibilities

    This section sets forth RWP responsibilities for three distinct 
entities: the RTA, the transit worker, and the SSOA.
671.21--Rail Transit Agency
    Section 671.21 specifies responsibilities for the RTA, including 
establishing procedures and requirements for equipment and protection.
    Section 671.21(a) establishes general requirements for the RTA as 
described in each subsection below. Section 671.21(a)(1) requires the 
RTA to establish procedures to provide ample time and determine 
appropriate sight distance based on maximum authorized track speeds. 
FTA's definition for terms used in this part can be found in Sec.  
671.5. As previously noted, it is FTA's intent with this rulemaking to 
ensure that roadway workers receive adequate time to move sufficiently 
clear of moving vehicles or equipment determined not only by the amount 
of time needed to move physically off the tracks but also by the amount 
of time needed in that specific location to be sufficiently clear of 
moving vehicles.
    FTA expects that RTAs include considerations for roadway work group 
size when making these determinations, to ensure ample time for all 
workers to be sufficiently clear of moving vehicles. For example, if 
the nearest place of safety is not sufficiently large to allow the 
entire roadway work group to be sufficiently clear of moving vehicles, 
the RTA must include additional time for members of the work group to 
access another location clear of moving vehicles.
    Section 671.21(a)(2) prohibits the use of individual rail transit 
vehicle detection as the only form of protection in the track zone. 
This prohibition reflects FTA's determination that a lone worker may 
not be able to reliably detect approaching rail transit vehicles or 
equipment in ample time and, further, that the safety risk associated 
with the practice of individual rail transit vehicle detection as the 
only form of protection in the track zone is unacceptable. This 
prohibition is consistent and responsive to the NTSB recommendations to 
require redundant protections for roadway workers and to eliminate the 
use of individual rail vehicle detection, which the NTSB has determined 
is a relatively weak form of on-track safety.
    Sections 671.21(a)(3) and (4) require that the RTA establish 
procedures to provide job safety briefings to all transit workers who 
enter a track zone to perform work whenever a rule violation is 
observed.
    Section 671.21(a)(5) requires that the RTA establish procedures to 
provide transit workers with the right to challenge and refuse in good 
faith any assignment based on on-track safety concerns and resolve such 
challenges and refusals promptly and equitably. This is often called a 
``good faith safety challenge'' or ``good faith challenge.'' The good 
faith safety challenge process described in Sec.  671.37 is generally 
modeled on the existing FRA good faith challenge. FTA understands that 
many RTAs already implement a version of this procedure and that their 
version may encompass more than just on-track safety concerns. The 
final rule does not require RTAs to revise their existing procedure and 
process, as long as they meet the minimums specified here.
    Section 671.21(a)(6) requires that the RTA establish procedures to 
require the reporting of unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, and near-
misses on the roadway to the Transit Worker Safety Reporting Program. 
This creates additional safety reporting requirements for an RTA's 
Transit Worker Safety Reporting Program established under FTA's PTASP 
regulation at Sec.  673.23(b). An RTA's Transit Worker Safety Reporting 
program must include mandatory reporting of three major categories of 
safety concerns on the roadway (unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, and 
near-misses). This expansion of an RTA's safety reporting program 
reflects the safety critical nature of information related to RWP.
    Section 671.21(a)(7) requires the RTA to establish procedures to 
ensure that all transit workers who must enter a track zone to perform 
work understand, are qualified in, and comply with the RWP program. 
This requirement reflects industry practice and is intended to ensure 
that the RWP program is sufficiently broad in application to address 
all transit workers who may access a track zone.
    Section 671.21(a)(8) requires the RTA to establish procedures to 
ensure that all individuals who do not fall into the category of 
roadway worker or transit worker and are not RWP certified are provided 
with an escort prior to entering the track zone, as needed.
    Section 671.21(b) requires the RTA to establish requirements for 
on-track safety, including equipment and protection. Section 
671.21(b)(1) requires the RTA to establish requirements for equipment 
transit workers must have in order to access the roadway or track zone. 
In acknowledgement of the differences in equipment that different job 
functions may require, FTA specifies that the RTA must establish these 
equipment requirements by labor category. FTA's intent is to ensure 
that RTAs establish minimum basic requirements for equipment that 
consider which positions at their agency may require additional 
equipment and address those requirements accordingly.
    Section 671.21(b)(2) requires the RTA to establish requirements for 
credentials that transit workers must obtain and display while on the 
roadway or in the track zone. FTA's examples include a badge, 
wristband, or RWP card, but RTAs may identify alternate forms of 
credentialing. FTA requires that the RTA must also establish a 
requirement for display of credentials such that they are visible when 
on the roadway or in the track zone. A physical indication of an 
individual's qualification to access the roadway or the track zone is 
reflective of industry best practices.
    Section 671.21(b)(3) requires the RTA to establish requirements for 
on-track safety, including protections for emergency response personnel 
who must access the roadway or the track zone. This requirement 
supports the safety of emergency personnel who need to access the 
roadway or track zone in the performance of their job duties.
    Section 671.21(b)(4) requires the RTA to establish protections for 
multiple roadway work groups within a common area in a track zone. This 
requirement is responsive to NTSB recommendations and reflects FTA's 
expectation that these protections include, at a minimum, information 
such as, when multiple work groups are present, who is considered the 
roadway worker in charge, whether one job safety briefing is sufficient 
or multiple job safety briefings must occur, and how track access is 
granted and released.
671.23--Transit Worker
    Section 671.23 establishes specific responsibilities for transit 
workers in part to respond to common industry observations that, when 
regulations apply only to the RTA, some RTAs experience difficulty 
ensuring compliance from the workforce. This section also establishes 
specific responsibilities for transit workers as a reflection of the 
key role the individual transit worker plays in ensuring on-track 
safety. This approach is consistent with FRA's requirement for 
individual roadway workers in 49 CFR 214.313.
    Section 671.23(a) requires transit workers to follow the 
requirements of the RTA's RWP program as it applies to their position 
and labor category.
    Section 671.23(b) prohibits transit workers from fouling the track 
until they have received appropriate

[[Page 87211]]

permissions and redundant protections have been established as 
specified in the RWP manual.
    Section 671.23(c) requires transit workers to understand the 
protections that they will use for their on-track safety while 
performing the specific task that requires access to the roadway or 
track zone. Further, transit workers must acknowledge these protections 
in writing before they access the roadway or track zone.
    Section 671.23(d) permits a transit worker to refuse to foul the 
track if the worker makes a good faith determination that an assignment 
does not comply with the RTA's RWP program or are otherwise unsafe. 
This section is the companion to Sec.  671.21(a)(5), which requires 
RTAs to provide transit workers the right to challenge and refuse in 
good faith any assignment based on on-track safety concerns.
    Similarly, Sec.  671.23(e) requires transit workers to report 
unsafe acts and conditions and near-misses related to the RWP program 
as part of the RTA's Transit Worker Safety Reporting Program. This 
section is the companion to Sec.  671.21(a)(6).
671.25--State Safety Oversight Agency
    Section 671.25 establishes responsibilities for the SSOA and 
requires the SSOA to fulfill these responsibilities for every RTA under 
their jurisdiction. SSOAs that oversee an RTA that operates in a 
location that places the RTA under the jurisdiction of two or more 
SSOAs must work cooperatively with the other SSOA(s) having 
jurisdiction, as required under part 674.
    Section 671.25(a) requires the SSOA to review and approve the RWP 
manual and any subsequent updates for each RTA within their 
jurisdiction. This is reflective of the SSOA's primary safety oversight 
responsibility for RTAs.
    Section 671.25(a)(1) requires the SSOA to review and initially 
approve RWP program elements in coordination with the RTA so that the 
RWP program can be established and approved within one calendar year 
from the effective date of the rule. It is expected that an RTA and 
SSOA will consult throughout the development of the RWP program, and as 
needed to resolve any concerns or deficiencies on an ongoing basis 
during this timeframe. This requirement reflects FTA's expectation that 
SSOAs complete full and detailed reviews of all program elements 
commensurate to the critical role the RWP program plays in ensuring 
transit worker safety. FTA encourages SSOAs and RTAs to collaborate 
early and often in the development of the initial RWP program to ensure 
that (1) the SSOA and RTA can meet the one-year deadline for 
establishment of an SSOA-approved RWP program and (2) the RWP program 
developed is sufficient to ensure transit worker safety.
    Section 671.25(a)(2) requires the SSOA to submit all approved RWP 
program elements for each RTA in its jurisdiction, and any subsequent 
updates, to FTA within 30 calendar days of when the SSOA approves those 
elements. This requirement ensures FTA can validate these safety 
critical elements.
    Section 671.25(b) requires the SSOA to update its program standard 
to explain the role of the SSOA in overseeing the RTA's execution of 
its RWP program. FTA believes that, as a key safety element of an 
SSOA's oversight program, the RWP program must be reflected in the 
SSOA's program standard. FTA encourages SSOAs and RTAs to work 
collaboratively on this update in conjunction with the recommended 
collaboration on the initial RWP program. This requirement is intended 
to help SSOAs leverage RTA experience and vice versa, ultimately 
reducing the need for a prolonged RWP program review and revision 
process and strengthening both the RWP program and the SSOA's RWP 
program oversight.
    Section 671.25(c)(1) requires the SSOA to conduct an annual audit 
of the RTA's compliance with its RWP program. This also requires that 
the audit include all required RWP program elements and be conducted 
for each RTA the SSOA oversees. FTA expects SSOAs to conduct these 
audits independently from any analogous RTA internal audit or 
compliance process. However, to avoid redundancy, SSOAs may review and 
approve an RTA's ASP and conduct the annual RWP program audit 
simultaneously. If the SSOA elects to conduct their annual RWP program 
audit alongside their annual review of the ASP or integrate the review 
of the RWP program into its triennial review of the ASP, the review 
must meet the RWP program audit requirements specified at Sec.  
671.25(c). The requirement is responsive to NTSB recommendations to 
require SSOAs to ensure RTAs meet the safety requirements for roadway 
workers.
    Section 671.25(c)(2) requires the SSOA to issue a report with any 
findings and recommendations arising from the audit. This report must 
include, at a minimum, (1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the RWP 
program; (2) recommendations for improvements, if necessary or 
appropriate; and (3) corrective action plan(s), if necessary or 
appropriate. This section requires that the RTA be given an opportunity 
to comment on any findings and recommendations. In including this 
requirement, FTA expects the SSOA to exercise judgment and incorporate 
changes to the findings or recommendations when presented with errors 
of fact or other reasonable requests from the RTA. FTA believes these 
audit reports will be a valuable tool for communicating the results of 
the SSOA's audit in a form that supports communication of these results 
to the RTA and, ultimately, resolution of any findings and 
incorporation of any recommendations as appropriate. SSO audit reports 
of the RWP program must include corrective action plans if necessary or 
appropriate. SSOAs and RTAs must follow processes established in part 
674 for requiring, developing, approving, and executing corrective 
action plan(s) related to the RWP program audit.

Subpart D--Required RWP Program Elements

    This section sets forth minimum RWP program element requirements: 
roadway worker in charge, job safety briefings, requirements for lone 
workers, good faith safety challenges, risk-based redundant 
protections, an RWP training and qualification program, and an RWP 
compliance monitoring program.
671.31--Roadway Worker in Charge Requirements
    Section 671.31(a) requires that the RTA designate one roadway 
worker in charge for each roadway work group whose duties require 
fouling a track. The roadway worker in charge must be qualified under 
the training and qualification program specified in Sec.  671.41 and is 
responsible for the on-track safety for all members of the roadway work 
group. The individual assigned as the roadway worker in charge must 
serve only the function of maintaining on-track safety for all members 
of their roadway work group and to perform no other unrelated job 
function while designated for duty. RTAs may designate a general 
roadway worker in charge or may designate a roadway worker in charge 
specifically for a particular work situation.
    For multiple roadway work groups within common working limits, the 
final rule allows an RTA to designate a single roadway worker in 
charge, provided each group is accompanied by an employee qualified to 
the level of a roadway worker in charge who is responsible for direct 
communication with the roadway worker in charge.

[[Page 87212]]

    Section 671.31(b) requires that the RTA ensure that the roadway 
worker in charge provides a job safety briefing to all roadway workers 
before any member of the roadway work group fouls a track. 
Additionally, this section requires that the roadway worker in charge 
provide an updated job safety briefing before the on-track safety 
procedures change during the work period, whenever on-track safety 
conditions change, or immediately after any observed violation of on-
track safety procedures before track zone work continues.
    FTA understands that emergencies may occur such that roadway 
workers in charge may not be able to provide updated job safety 
briefings of changes to on-track safety. Therefore, Sec.  671.31(b)(2) 
specifies, in the event of an emergency, any roadway worker must be 
warned immediately to leave the roadway and must not return until on-
track safety is re-established and they have been given an updated job 
safety briefing.
671.33--Job Safety Briefing Policies
    Section 671.33 establishes specific requirements for job safety 
briefings. This requirement is responsive to NTSB safety 
recommendations about establishing requirements for job safety 
briefings and is generally consistent with FRA requirements.
    Section 671.33(a) reiterates the requirements that the RTA must 
ensure the roadway worker in charge provides any roadway worker who 
must foul a track with a job safety briefing prior to fouling the 
track, every time the roadway worker fouls the track.
    Section 671.33(b) establishes the required minimum elements, as 
appropriate, of the job safety briefing that the roadway worker in 
charge must provide. This section includes the ``as appropriate'' 
language because not all of the elements may be relevant to each rail 
transit system.
    FTA expects that the discussion of the nature and characteristics 
of the work will include any relevant information for multiple roadway 
worker groups working in adjacent areas. The inclusion of instructions 
for each on-track safety procedure to be followed and the role and 
responsibilities for communication for all transit workers involved in 
the work in job safety briefings is responsive to NTSB recommendations.
    Section 671.33(b)(10) requires that the job safety briefing 
identify designated place(s) of safety. FTA intends that the identified 
designated place(s) of safety will be sufficient for the number of 
transit workers in the roadway work group. FTA's expectation is that, 
where multiple work groups occupy overlapping or adjacent work 
locations, the associated roadway workers in charge coordinate to 
ensure that their job safety briefings identify designated place(s) of 
safety sufficient for the combined number of transit workers in the 
roadway work group.
    Section 671.33(c) requires that, to complete a job safety briefing, 
the roadway worker in charge must confirm that each roadway worker 
understands the on-track safety procedures and instructions and has 
provided the roadway worker in charge with written acknowledgement of 
the job safety briefing, and the roadway worker in charge verifies in 
writing that they have received each roadway worker's written 
acknowledgment of the briefing.
    Section 671.33(d) requires that, if there is any change in the 
scope of work or roadway work group after the initial job safety 
briefing, if on-track safety conditions change, or if a violation of 
on-track safety is observed, a follow-up job safety briefing must be 
conducted.
671.35--Lone Worker
    Section 671.35 addresses common industry and NTSB concerns and 
recommendations about the practice of permitting a single person to 
foul the track alone. Specifically, 671.35(a) allows RTAs to authorize 
lone workers to perform limited duties that require fouling a track 
only under limited circumstances.
    Section 671.35(b) requires that each lone worker must communicate 
with a supervisor or other designated transit worker to receive an on-
track safety briefing consistent with Sec.  671.33(b) prior to fouling 
the track. This briefing must include a discussion of the planned work 
activities and the procedures they will use to establish on-track 
safety. The lone worker must acknowledge and document the job safety 
briefing in writing.
671.37--Good Faith Safety Challenge
    Section 671.37(a) requires the RTA to document the procedures that 
it provides to roadway workers to challenge and refuse in good faith 
any assignment they believe is unsafe or would violate the RTA's RWP 
program. Section 671.37(b) requires that this written procedure include 
methods or processes to ensure prompt and equitable resolution of any 
challenges and refusals made. Section 671.37(c) requires that the 
roadway worker provide a description of the safety concern regarding 
on-track safety and states that the roadway work group must remain 
clear of the roadway or track zone until the challenge and refusal is 
resolved. This process reflects common industry practice and provides a 
mechanism for transit workers, who often are the most familiar with the 
particular needs and hazards related to their specific job tasks, to 
appropriately address unsafe situations.
671.39--Risk-Based Redundant Protections
    Section 671.39(a) establishes requirements for the RTA to identify 
and provide redundant protections for each category of work that 
roadway workers perform on the roadway or track. This section also 
requires RTAs to establish redundant protections to ensure on-track 
safety for multiple roadway work groups within a common area. This 
requirement is responsive to NTSB recommendations for FTA to require 
the use of redundant protections.
    Section 671.39(b) requires that the RTA use the appropriate methods 
and processes of its SMS established in part 673 to assess safety risk 
and establish mitigations in the form of redundant protections. This 
requirement reflects FTA's adoption of the principles of SMS as the 
mechanism for ensuring transit safety.
    Section 671.39(b)(1) requires that this safety risk assessment be 
consistent with the RTA's ASP and the SSOA's program standard. This 
includes ensuring consistency in instances where SSOA program standards 
impose additional requirements on an RTA's safety risk assessment 
process beyond the provisions in part 673.
    Section 671.39(b)(2) specifies that the RTA may supplement the 
safety risk assessment with engineering assessments, inputs from the 
Safety Assurance process established in part 673, the results of safety 
event investigations, and other SRM strategies and approaches.
    Section 671.39(b)(3) requires that the RTA review and update the 
safety risk assessment at least every two years. This requirement is 
intended to ensure that the safety risk assessment reflects current 
conditions, lessons learned from safety events, actions the RTA has 
taken to address reports of unsafe acts and conditions and near-misses, 
and the results of the agency's monitoring of redundant protection 
effectiveness.
    Section 671.39(b)(4) specifies that the SSOA may identify and 
require the RTA to implement alternate redundant protections based on 
the RTA's unique operating characteristics and capabilities.
    Section 671.39(c) requires that the RTA identify redundant 
protections for roadway workers performing different categories of work 
on the roadway and

[[Page 87213]]

within track zones. This flexibility is intended to reflect the wide 
range of activities conducted on the roadway and to provide the 
opportunity for RTAs to ``right size'' protections based on the safety 
risk associated with different categories of work. RTAs must establish 
and layer redundant protections commensurate with the work being 
performed.
    Section 671.39(d)(1) specifies that redundant protections may be 
procedural or physical. The final rule includes definitions for each 
kind of protection as it is likely that RTAs will use a mix of 
procedural and physical redundant protections to ensure on-track 
safety. Allowing both physical and procedural redundant protections is 
responsive to RFI respondents, the majority of whom recommended that 
FTA allow both physical and redundant protections for workers on the 
roadway.
    Section 671.39(d)(2) includes common examples of redundant 
protections. FTA is not defining an explicit set of redundant 
protections; rather, FTA expects that RTAs and SSOAs will use any of 
the redundant protections listed in this section or identify, using the 
agency's SRM process, redundant protections suitable to the specific 
circumstance under which they will be used.
    Section 671.39(d)(3) requires that redundant protections for lone 
workers must include, at a minimum, foul time or an equivalent 
protection approved by the SSOA.
671.41--RWP Training and Qualifications
    Section 671.41(a) establishes the general requirement for an RTA to 
adopt an RWP training program. This requirement is responsive to NTSB 
recommendations.
    Section 671.41(a)(1) requires that the training program address all 
transit workers responsible for on-track safety by position.
    Section 671.41(a)(2) requires that a transit worker complete the 
RWP training program for the relevant position before the RTA may 
assign that transit worker to perform the duties of a roadway worker; 
to oversee or supervise access to the track zone from the operations 
control center; or to operate vehicles, on-track equipment, and roadway 
maintenance machines on the rail transit system.
    Section 671.41(a)(3) requires that the RWP training program address 
RWP hazard recognition and mitigation. This requirement is responsive 
to an NTSB recommendation to require initial and recurring training for 
roadway workers in hazard recognition and mitigation. This section also 
specifies that the training program must address lessons learned 
through the results of compliance testing, near-miss reports, reports 
of unsafe acts or conditions, and feedback received on the training 
program.
    Section 671.41(a)(4) requires that the RWP training program include 
both initial and refresher training by position and that refresher 
training must occur every two years at a minimum.
    Section 671.41(a)(5) requires that the RTA review and update its 
RWP program not less than every two years (i.e., at least once every 
two years). This includes incorporating lessons learned in implementing 
the RWP program and information provided by the SSOA and FTA. The 
review and update process must include an opportunity for roadway 
worker involvement to ensure that potentially valuable safety 
information from workers executing tasks on the roadway can be 
collected and incorporated into the safety training program.
    Section 671.41(b) establishes the required elements of the RWP 
training program. These elements are based on industry best practices 
and best practices for adult learners and require that the RWP training 
program include interactive training that provides the opportunity for 
workers to ask the RWP trainer questions and for workers and trainers 
to raise and discuss RWP issues.
    The final rule requires initial training to include experience in a 
representative field setting, meaning that the initial training may not 
be classroom only. Both the initial and refresher training must include 
worker demonstrations and trainer assessments of the worker's ability 
to comply with RWP instructions.
    Section 671.41(c) establishes minimum contents for the RWP training 
program. Section 671.41(d) establishes that the RWP program must 
include specialized minimum training and qualifications for transit 
workers with additional responsibilities for on-track safety. Similar 
to the general RWP training program, this specialized training must 
include demonstration and assessment of the transit worker's ability to 
perform these additional responsibilities. Refresher training on these 
additional responsibilities must occur at least every two years. This 
requirement reflects the critical safety role these transit workers 
have in establishing, supervising, and monitoring on track safety.
    Section 671.41(e) requires that the RTA ensure that those transit 
workers providing RWP training are qualified and have active RWP 
certification at the RTA.
671.43--RWP Compliance Monitoring Program
    Section 671.43 requires that the RTA develop and implement a 
program to monitor its own compliance with the requirements specified 
in its RWP program. This monitoring program is consistent with Safety 
Assurance principles and is intended to ensure consistent and effective 
RWP program implementation. This program must include, at a minimum, 
inspections, observations, and audits consistent with the safety 
performance monitoring and measurement practices established in the 
RTA's ASP and the SSOA's program standard.
    Section 671.43(b)(1) requires each RTA to provide quarterly reports 
to the SSOA documenting the RTA's compliance with and sufficiency of 
the RWP program, and Sec.  671.43(b)(2) specifies that the RTA must 
provide an annual briefing to the Accountable Executive and the Board 
of Directors, or equivalent entity, regarding the performance of the 
RWP program and any identified deficiencies requiring corrective 
action.

Subpart E--Recordkeeping

671.51--Recordkeeping
    This section sets forth recordkeeping requirements related to the 
RWP program in keeping with the recordkeeping requirements established 
in part 673, which requires RTAs to maintain documents related to SMS 
implementation and the results of SMS processes and activities.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review''), as 
supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review'') and Executive Order 14094 (``Modernizing 
Regulatory Review''), directs Federal agencies to assess the benefits 
and costs of regulations, select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits when possible, and consider economic, environmental, and 
distributional effects. It also directs the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to review significant regulatory actions, including 
regulations with annual economic effects of $200 million or more. OMB 
has determined that the final rule is not significant within the 
meaning of Executive Order 12866 and has not reviewed it under that 
order.

[[Page 87214]]

Overview and Need for Regulation

    FTA has determined that unsafe practices and conditions place rail 
transit workers at risk of being killed or seriously injured while 
performing work on the roadway. According to data collected by FTA, 
roadway worker safety events have caused more transit worker fatalities 
than any other type of safety event. Since 1994, 52 rail transit 
workers have been killed and over 200 workers have experienced major 
injuries from roadway safety events, primarily from collisions with 
rail transit vehicles, falls, and electrocution. From January 1, 2008, 
to October 31, 2022, 22 workers have been killed and 120 workers 
seriously injured in roadway accidents. Currently, there are no Federal 
regulations or standards governing RWP for rail transit workers, 
despite recommendations from the NTSB and TRACS.
    The final rule establishes RWP program standards for RTAs in all 
States. The rule establishes minimum baseline standards and requires 
risk-based redundant protections, defined as protections outside of the 
employee's individual ability to detect a train and move to a place of 
safety, such as shunts or derailers, for rail transit roadway workers 
occupying the rail roadway. The final rule requires RTAs to do the 
following:
    1. Set minimum standards for RWP program elements, including an RWP 
manual and track access guide.
    2. Meet requirements for on-track safety and supervision, job 
safety briefings, good faith safety challenges, and reporting unsafe 
acts and conditions and near-misses;
    3. Develop and implement risk-based redundant protections for 
workers; and
    4. Establish RWP training, qualification, and compliance-monitoring 
activities.
    The final rule applies to RTAs in the SSO program, SSOAs, and rail 
transit workers who access the roadway to perform work. SSOAs oversee 
and enforce FTA's RWP program requirements.

Updates From the NPRM

    FTA made the following changes to the regulatory impact analysis in 
response to comments and updates to data sources:
    <bullet> Adjusted labor hour estimates for establishing an RWP 
program from 96 to 300 hours.
    <bullet> Adjusted labor hour estimates for developing initial and 
recurring training for roadway workers from 160 to 270 hours. The 
amount reflects an estimated 30 hours to develop one hour of training.
    <bullet> Added labor hour estimates of 30 hours for developing 
training for all workers and 240 hours for developing training for lone 
roadway workers. The amounts reflect an estimated 30 hours to develop 
one hour of training.
    <bullet> Added an estimated annual average of 8.7 labor hours per 
roadway worker for giving written acknowledgment of safety briefings at 
agencies not already known to require written acknowledgment. The 
amount reflects an estimated 2 minutes to give written acknowledgment 
per briefing and one briefing per day, multiplied by 260 working days 
per year for full-time employees.
    <bullet> Added an estimated annual average of 60 hours for near-
miss reporting requirements. The average reflects FTA's expectation 
that RTAs capture much of this information through existing practices, 
as described in ``Support for Regulation.''
    <bullet> Added an estimated annual average of 10 hours per agency 
to update RWP manuals and 20 hours per agency to update training 
materials.
    <bullet> Added calculations using a discount rate of 2 percent, 
following guidance in the November 2023 update to OMB Circular A-4.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Office of Management and Budget (2023). ``Circular No. A-
4.'' https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Updated occupational wage data from May 2020 to May 2023, 
the latest data available as of August 2024.
    <bullet> Updated the ten-year analysis period to start in 2024 and 
end in 2035. To give RTAs time to implement RWP programs and procedures 
and to conduct initial trainings, FTA will require compliance with RWP 
requirements one year from publication of the rule.

Baseline and Analytical Approach

    To assess the effects of the final rule, FTA analyzed roadway 
worker injuries and fatalities outside California from January 1, 2008, 
to September 19, 2020 (12.7 years). The analysis excludes California 
because the State already established RWP safety standards for its 
agencies in 2016.\3\ Agencies outside California reported 97 injuries 
and 20 fatalities, for an annual average of 7.6 injuries and 1.6 
fatalities. FTA used the annual averages as a baseline rate for 
fatalities and injuries in the absence of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Public Utilities Commission of the State of California 
(2016). ``General Order No. 175-A: Rules and Regulations Governing 
Roadway Worker Protection Provided by Rail Transit Agencies and Rail 
Fixed Guideway Systems.'' https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M159/K905/159905345.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate labor costs associated with meeting the requirements of 
the final rule, FTA used occupational wage data from the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics as of May 2023 for the ``Urban Transit Systems'' 
industry (North American Industry Classification System code 
485100).\4\ FTA used median hourly wages as a basis for the estimated 
labor costs, multiplied by 1.62 to account for employer benefits.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Bureau of Labor Statistics (2024). ``May 2023 National 
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: United States: NAICS 
485000--Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation.'' https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/naics3_485000.htm.
    \5\ Multiplier derived using Bureau of Labor Statistics data on 
employer costs for employee compensation in December 2022 (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.htm). Employer costs for State and 
local government workers averaged $57.60 an hour, with $35.69 for 
wages and $21.95 for benefit costs. To estimate full costs from 
wages, one would use a multiplier of $57.60/$21.95, or 1.62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate benefits and costs of the final rule, FTA used a ten-
year analysis period from 2024 to 2033. All listed dollar amounts are 
in 2023 dollars.

Benefits

    Transit subject matter experts working with FTA reviewed injuries 
and fatalities reported in the National Transit Database (NTD) to 
determine if the protections required by the final rule would have 
prevented them. FTA then calculated the average annual number of 
preventable injuries and fatalities to estimate the benefits of the 
protections. FTA estimates that the protections would prevent an 
average of 2.4 injuries and 1.2 fatalities per year.
    One source of uncertainty for the estimate is that FTA does not 
have information on the RWP programs or protections that the agencies 
adopted voluntarily after the safety events. As a result, the analysis 
may overestimate the benefits (as well as the associated costs) of the 
final rule.
    To determine the monetized values for prevented fatalities and 
injuries, FTA used a value of $13.2 million for a fatality, based on 
Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance on valuation of a 
statistical life,\6\ and a value of $210,000 for an injury, based on 
values derived from the KABCO Injury Classification Scale for an injury 
with ``Severity Unknown'' and inflated to 2023 dollars.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Department of Transportation (2024). ``Departmental 
Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis.'' 
https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
    \7\ U.S. Department of Transportation (2023). ``Benefit Cost 
Analysis Guidance 2024 Update, Table A-1: Value of Reduced 
Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes.'' https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-12/Benefit%20Cost%20Analysis%20Guidance%202024%20Update.pdf.

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

[[Page 87215]]

    Table 1 displays undiscounted and annualized benefits of the final 
rule. Over the ten-year analysis period, the rule has undiscounted 
benefits of $161.5 million. Annualized benefits are $15.8 million at a 
2 percent rate discounted to 2024, $15.7 million at a 3 percent rate, 
and $15.1 million at a 7 percent rate.

                   Table 1--Benefits of the Final Rule
                               [2025-2034]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Benefits                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted............................................    $161,519,087
Annualized
  2% discount rate......................................      15,835,205
  3% discount rate......................................      15,681,465
  7% discount rate......................................      15,095,242
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs

    Agencies are expected to incur start-up and ongoing costs to 
implement the requirements of the final rule. Agencies would incur 
costs for standalone RWP programs, RWP training programs, redundant 
worker protections, and other requirements.

RWP Programs

    RTAs would incur costs to develop and implement programs for right-
of-way workers if they do not already have formal standalone programs. 
FTA estimates that 33 of the 55 RTAs outside California (60 percent) 
already have formal standalone programs, based on industry responses to 
FTA Safety Advisory 14-1,\8\ and that 26 of the 33 RTAs already monitor 
the effectiveness of the programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Federal Transit Administration (December 2013). ``FTA Safety 
Advisory 14-1: Right-of-Way Worker Protection.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/oversight-policy-areas/safety-advisory-14-1-right-way-worker-protection-december-2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the remaining 22 RTAs (40 percent), FTA estimates that an RTA 
would need an average of 300 labor hours to develop and implement a 
formal standalone RWP program, plus 40 hours per year to monitor the 
program's effectiveness. The 40-hour estimate also applies to the 5 
RTAs that already have programs but do not monitor their effectiveness. 
FTA assumes that the RWP program tasks are performed by an employee in 
the ``First-Line Supervisor of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers'' 
category with a median wage rate of $63.28 per hour. The program 
requirements have estimated one-time costs of $612,525 and annual 
recurring costs of $29,234 (Table 2).

                       Table 2--RWP Program Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Requirement               One-time costs    Recurring costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RWP program establishment.........           $417,631  .................
RWP program effectiveness           .................            $29,234
 monitoring.......................
SSOA review.......................            139,210  .................
RWP program response to SSOA                   55,684  .................
 comments.........................
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total.........................            612,525             29,234
------------------------------------------------------------------------

RWP Training Programs
    The final rule requires agencies to establish initial and refresher 
training for roadway workers, as well as training for all RTA employees 
and for lone workers. FTA subject matter experts estimated the 
resources needed for RTAs to develop and implement the training 
programs. FTA assumes that initial training and refresher trainings for 
roadway workers would require 4.5 hours to complete per employee, 
training for all employees would require 1 hour, and training for lone 
workers would require 8 hours. FTA assumes that an RTA would need 
approximately 30 hours to develop one hour of training. RTAs that have 
not already developed training would need 135 hours to develop initial 
training, 135 hours to develop refresher training, 30 hours to develop 
training for all employees, and 240 hours to develop training for lone 
workers.
    FTA estimates that 90 percent of RTAs have already developed 
initial training programs for roadway workers and 79 percent of RTAs 
have already developed refresher training for roadway workers. FTA 
assumes that no RTAs have already developed training for all employees 
or training for lone workers.
    RTAs would also need to update the trainings periodically. Although 
the time needed would vary by agency and by year, FTA assumes that an 
RTA would need an average of 40 hours every two years, or an average of 
20 hours every year.
    The training has estimated one-time costs of $1.7 million and 
annual recurring costs of $5.2 million. Table 3 shows estimated costs 
for RWP training in the first year and subsequent years; Table 4 shows 
estimated costs by occupation.

                                       Table 3--RWP Training Program Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Total costs,    Total costs,
           Requirement                Workers          Total required hours           initial         annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of initial training.  ..............  135 hours per RTA.............         $46,984  ..............
Development of recurring          ..............  135 hours per RTA.............          98,665  ..............
 training.
Development of lone worker        ..............  240 hours per RTA.............         835,263  ..............
 training.
Development of training for all   ..............  30 hours per RTA..............         104,408  ..............
 employees.
Training material updates.......  ..............  20 hours per RTA..............  ..............         $69,605
Initial training for roadway              31,974  143,882.......................         622,553  ..............
 workers.
Recurring training for roadway            31,974  143,882.......................  ..............       1,307,361
 workers.
Training for all employees......          50,132  50,132........................  ..............       2,135,457
Training for lone workers.......           5,500  44,000........................  ..............       1,690,763
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............................       1,707,873       5,203,187
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 87216]]


                                                    Table 4--RWP Training Program Costs by Occupation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fully loaded                            Hours per    Total required  Total required   Total costs,    Total costs,
            Occupation                 wage rate           Workers            worker      hours, initial   hours, annual      initial         annual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49-9071 Maintenance and Repair              $38.43  13,824..............             4.5           6,221          13,064        $239,046        $501,997
 Workers, General.
53-4041 Subway and Streetcar                 46.96  18,150..............             4.5           8,167          17,151         383,507         805,365
 Operators.
00-0000 All Occupations...........           42.60  50,132..............               1  ..............          50,132  ..............       2,135,457
49-9071 Maintenance and Repair               38.43  5,500...............               8  ..............          44,000  ..............       1,690,763
 Workers, General (Lone Workers).
49-1011 First-Line Supervisors of            63.28  6 (initial                       540          17,152  ..............       1,085,320          69,605
 Mechanics, Installers, and                          training); 12
 Repairers.                                          (recurring
                                                     training); 55 (lone
                                                     worker and all
                                                     employee training).
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ..............  87,606..............  ..............          31,540         124,347       1,707,873       5,203,187
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redundant Worker Protections
    The major cost driver for redundant worker protections is the 
number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees needed to establish 
worker controls and access limitations. The final rule requires 
agencies to conduct a risk assessment to determine the types of 
redundant protections to use.
    The estimated number of FTEs needed to implement the protections is 
derived from information in California's Public Utilities Commission 
General Order Number 175-A. FTA assumes that the FTEs are in the 
``Maintenance and Repairs, General'' occupational category, which has a 
labor rate of $38.43 per hour. FTA assumes that agencies would need a 
total of 80 additional FTEs (at 2,080 hours per FTE), for an annual 
total of 166,400 hours and $6,394,160 in recurring costs.
Additional RWP Requirements
Additional requirements in the final rule include:

<bullet> Developing an RWP manual (40 one-time hours) and making 
periodic updates (__hours per year)
<bullet> Establishing rail fixed guideway public transportation system 
responsibilities (81.4 one-time hours; 5.3 hours per year)
<bullet> Establishing employee responsibilities (160 hours per year)
<bullet> Providing written acknowledgment of job safety briefings if 
they do not do so already (8.7 hours per roadway worker per year)
<bullet> Conducting a risk assessment for redundant protections (40 
one-time hours)
<bullet> Maintaining employee injury and illness program records (12 
hours per year)
<bullet> Establishing a near-miss reporting program (320 one-time 
hours; 100 hours per year) and maintaining records (16 hours per year)
<bullet> Maintaining other recordkeeping (8 hours per year)

    Table 5 lists one-time and recurring costs for the additional 
requirements. To estimate the number of employees that would provide 
written acknowledgment of job safety briefings, FTA used facility 
maintenance worker data from the National Transit Database, adjusted 
for agencies known to require written acknowledgments.\9\ FTA subject 
matter experts identified these agencies based on direct experience 
with the agencies. Other agencies may require written acknowledgments 
as well, which would result in lower compliance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Agencies identified include Chicago Transit Authority, 
Hillsborough Transit Authority (Florida); Tren Urbano (San Juan); 
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority; Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority and Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation 
(New York); Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston); 
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia); 
TriMet (Portland); Sun Link (Tucson); and Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Authority (Washington DC).

                                      Table 5--Additional RWP Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Affected      Total required  Total required                     Recurring
          Requirement               entities      hours, initial   hours, annual  One-time costs       costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RWP manual....................  22 RTAs.........             880             220         $55,684         $13,921
Rail system responsibilities..  20 RTAs.........           1,628             106         103,016           5,831
Employee responsibilities.....  55 RTAs.........  ..............           8,800  ..............         556,842
Written acknowledgment of job   3,329             ..............          28,851  ..............       1,108,654
 safety briefings.               maintenance
                                 workers.
Risk assessment for redundant   55 RTAs.........           2,200  ..............         121,125  ..............
 protections.
Employee injury and illness     55 RTAs.........  ..............             660  ..............          36,337
 program and records.
Near-miss reporting program     55 RTAs.........          17,600           6,380         968,998         351,262
 and records.
Recordkeeping.................  55 RTAs.........  ..............  ..............  ..............          27,842
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ................          22,968          44,357       1,248,823       2,100,689
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 87217]]

Summary of Costs
    Table 6 summarizes the costs of the provisions over the ten-year 
analysis period. The largest cost is for the RWP training program, 
which has estimated costs of $54.0 million over the ten-year period.

           Table 6--Ten-Year Costs of the Final Rule, Summary
                               [2025-2034]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Ten-year
                        Requirement                             cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RWP programs..............................................      $904,868
RWP manual................................................       180,974
Rail system responsibilities..............................       161,331
Employee responsibilities.................................     5,568,418
Job safety briefing.......................................    11,086,540
Minimum controls and limitations..........................    63,941,595
RWP training..............................................    53,739,740
Risk assessment for redundant protections.................       121,125
Employee injury and illness program and records...........       363,374
Near-miss reporting program and records...................     4,481,618
Recordkeeping.............................................       278,421
                                                           -------------
    Total ten-year costs..................................   140,828,004
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule has one-time undiscounted costs of $2.6 million and 
annual undiscounted costs of $13.6 million. Over a ten-year period, the 
total undiscounted costs are $140.8 million. The annualized costs, 
discounted to 2024, are $13.8 million at a 2 percent rate, $13.7 
million at a 3 percent rate, and $13.3 million at a 7 percent rate. 
Table 7 lists the estimated discounted costs for each requirement.

                                            Table 7--Discounted Costs
                                                   [2025-2034]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Requirement                         2% Discount rate   3% Discount rate   7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RWP program............................................           $846,191           $819,475           $726,900
RWP manual.............................................            162,737            154,656            127,857
Rail system responsibilities...........................            150,370            145,397            128,256
Employee responsibilities..............................          4,903,803          4,611,625          3,655,163
Job safety briefing....................................          9,763,313          9,181,596          7,277,310
Minimum controls and limitations.......................         56,309,884         52,954,833         41,971,870
RWP training...........................................         47,463,188         44,701,327         35,645,934
Risk assessment for redundant protections..............            116,421            114,172            105,795
Employee injury and illness program and records........            320,004            300,938            238,522
Near-miss reporting program and records................          4,024,744          3,822,438          3,152,077
Recordkeeping..........................................            245,190            230,581            182,758
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total costs........................................        124,305,845        117,050,160         93,224,602
    Annualized costs...................................         13,840,028         13,721,849         13,273,086
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Benefits

    Table 8 shows the estimated net benefits of the final rule with 
discount rates of 2, 3, and 7 percent, discounted to 2024. The rule has 
annualized net benefits of $2.2 million at a 2 percent discount rate, 
$2.1 million at 3 percent, and $2.0 million at 7 percent.

                                              Table 8--Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Item                            2% Discount rate   3% Discount rate   7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits...............................................       $142,241,072       $133,766,075       $106,022,662
Costs..................................................        122,746,034        115,532,045         91,895,133
Net benefits...........................................        124,319,225        117,050,160         93,224,602
Annualized net benefits................................         17,921,846         16,715,916         12,798,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Alternatives

    FTA considered two regulatory alternatives when developing the 
rulemaking, with the key distinction being the degree to which the 
alternatives require redundant protections.
    <bullet> Alternative 1: FTA would establish requirements for an RWP 
program but would not mandate the use of redundant protections.
    <bullet> Alternative 2: Instead of requiring RTAs to perform a risk 
analysis to determine what types of redundant protections must be used, 
FTA would mandate the use of physical redundant protections to protect 
workers when accessing the roadway.
    Table 9 shows the number of annual preventable injuries and 
fatalities under the final rule and regulatory alternatives. Table 10 
shows the net benefits with 2, 3, and 7 percent discount rates. The 
estimated costs for Alternative 1 and 2 reflect the labor hour 
adjustments made in response to feedback from commenters and updates to 
data sources.

[[Page 87218]]



                               Table 9--Annual Preventable Injuries and Fatalities
                                            [Regulatory alternatives]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Item                               Final rule       Alternative 1      Alternative 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injuries...............................................               2.37               1.34               3.87
Fatalities.............................................               1.18               0.87               1.42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Table 10--Net Benefits
                                            [Regulatory alternatives]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Regulatory option                      2% Discount rate   3% Discount rate   7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule:
    Benefits...........................................       $142,241,072       $133,766,075       $106,022,662
    Costs..............................................        124,319,225        117,050,160         93,224,602
    Net benefits.......................................         17,921,846         16,715,916         12,798,060
    Annualized net benefits............................          1,995,177          1,959,615          1,822,156
Alternative 1:
    Benefits...........................................        150,189,934        124,983,494         84,286,314
    Costs..............................................         67,892,841         56,864,332         38,969,995
    Net benefits.......................................         82,297,093         68,119,162         45,316,318
    Annualized net benefits............................          9,161,850          7,985,644          6,452,024
Alternative 2:
    Benefits...........................................        172,690,626        162,401,387        128,718,939
    Costs..............................................        180,571,999        169,948,989        135,144,586
    Net benefits.......................................         -7,881,372         -7,547,601         -6,425,647
    Annualized net benefits............................           -877,406           -884,809           -914,868
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The net benefits of the final rule and regulatory alternatives 
primarily depend on the estimated number of fatalities they would 
prevent. FTA conducted a sensitivity analysis to understand how changes 
to the estimates would affect their net benefits. If the redundant 
worker protections that agencies adopt under the final rule would 
prevent more fatalities and injuries than estimated, then the net 
benefits of the final rule would increase. The protections would need 
to prevent an additional 1.1 fatalities (for an annual average of 2.3 
fatalities) for the rule to have the same net benefits as Alternative 1 
at a 2 percent discount rate. For Alternative 2, the redundant worker 
protections would need to prevent an additional 0.3 fatalities (for an 
annual average of 1.7 fatalities) for Alternative 2 to have the same 
net benefits as the final rule.
    FTA selected the requirements of the final rule because they would 
prevent more roadway worker safety events than Alternative 1 while 
maintaining net positive benefits. Many current rail transit RWP 
programs have provisions that allow roadway workers onto the track to 
perform work without protections beyond their own ability to detect 
oncoming trains and clear the tracks before their arrival. FTA's 
internal SRM process identified the lack of redundant protections as 
the most significant contributor to rail transit roadway worker safety 
events. Similarly, the NTSB, TRACS, and many commenters responding to 
FTA's RFI on Rail Transit Worker Safety also support the use of 
redundant protections.\10\ Because no two RTAs are the same, the 
requirements provide RTAs the flexibility to determine the types of 
procedural and physical redundant protections to incorporate. The 
requirements also provide a clear role for SSOAs to approve RWP 
programs and to ensure overall program effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Federal Transit Administration (2021). ``Request for 
Information on Transit Worker Safety.'' https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/24/2021-20744/request-for-information-on-transit-worker-safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the impact of a regulation on small 
entities unless the agency determines that the regulation is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.
    The final rule establishes new RWP program requirements for RTAs 
and SSOAs. Under the Act, public-sector organizations and local 
governments qualify as small entities if they serve a population of 
less than 50,000. No RTAs in current operation qualify as small 
entities because they all operate in urbanized areas with populations 
greater than 50,000, and SSOAs do not qualify because they are State 
agencies. FTA has therefore determined that the final rule does not 
have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    FTA has determined that this rule would not impose unfunded 
mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year, adjusted for 
inflation, by State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or 
by the private sector. The threshold in 2023 dollars is $183 million 
after adjusting for inflation using the gross domestic product implicit 
price deflator. Additionally, the definition of ``Federal mandate'' in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the 
type in which State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to 
adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes 
made in the program by the Federal government. The Federal Transit Act 
permits this type of flexibility.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)
    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and 
timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that may have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and

[[Page 87219]]

responsibilities among the various levels of government. This action 
has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria 
contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and FTA 
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect 
or sufficient federalism implications on the States. FTA also 
determined that this action will not preempt any State law or 
regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State 
governmental functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply 
to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq.) (PRA), and the White House OMB's implementing regulation 
at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA is seeking approval from OMB for a new 
information collection request abstracted below.
    <bullet> Type of Collection: Operators of rail public 
transportation systems.
    <bullet> Respondents to Collection: RTAs in the SSO program, SSOAs, 
and rail transit workers who access the roadway to perform work.
    <bullet> Type of Review: OMB Clearance. New information collection 
request.
    <bullet> Summary of the Collection: The collection of information 
includes: (1) Each RTA must adopt and implement an RWP program to 
improve transit worker safety that is consistent with Federal and State 
safety requirements and approved by the SSOA; they are required to 
review and update their program manual at least every two years; (2) 
Require implementation of comprehensive job safety briefings and 
reporting of near-misses; (3) Documenting formal training and 
qualification programs for all workers who access the roadway; (4) 
Program compliance auditing and monitoring; (5) Periodic RFI; and (6) 
Ensuring compliance of SSOAs responsibility to approve, oversee and 
enforce RWP requirements (7) submission of RWP programs and updates to 
FTA.
    <bullet> Frequency: Bi-Annual, Periodic.
National Environmental Policy Act
    Federal agencies are required to adopt implementing procedures for 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that establish specific 
criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: (1) 
those that normally require preparation of an Environmental Impact 
Statement, (2) those that normally require preparation of an 
Environmental Assessment, and (3) those that are categorically excluded 
from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). This rule qualifies for 
categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) (planning and 
administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to 
construction). FTA has evaluated whether the rule will involve unusual 
or extraordinary circumstances and has determined that it will not.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights. FTA does not believe that this rule affects taking of 
private property or otherwise has taking implications under Executive 
Order 12630.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    This rule meets applicable standards in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
    FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA 
certifies that this action will not cause an environmental risk to 
health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
    FTA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13175, 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and 
believes that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or 
more Indian Tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs 
on Indian Tribal governments; and will not preempt Tribal laws. 
Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
    FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. FTA has determined that this action is not a 
significant energy action under that order and is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Executive Orders 14096 and 12898 (Environmental Justice)
    Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All) (Apr. 21, 2023) (which builds upon 
Executive Order 12898) and DOT Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534, May 10, 
2012) \11\ require DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice (EJ) 
as part of their mission consistent with statutory authority by 
identifying, analyzing, and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects, 
including those related to climate change and cumulative impacts of 
environmental and other burdens on communities with EJ concerns. All 
DOT agencies seek to advance these policy goals and engage in this 
analysis as appropriate, in all rulemaking activities. On August 15, 
2012, FTA's Circular 4703.1 became effective, which contains guidance 
for recipients of FTA financial assistance to incorporate EJ principles 
into plans, projects, and activities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Department of Transportation Updated Environmental Justice 
Order 5610.2(a): Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 77 FR 27534 (May 
10, 2012). https://www.transportation.gov/transportation-policy/environmental-justice/department-transportation-order-56102a.
    \12\ Federal Transit Administration (February 2020). 
``Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit 
Administration Recipients.'' https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/environmental-justice-policy-guidance-federal-transit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTA has evaluated this action under its EJ policies and FTA has 
determined that this action will not cause disproportionate and adverse 
human health and environmental effects on communities with EJ concerns.
Regulation Identifier Number
    A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading 
of this document can be used to cross-reference this rule with the 
Unified Agenda.

[[Page 87220]]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 671

    Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Safety, Transportation.

Veronica Vanterpool,
Deputy Administrator.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 
5329 and 5334, and the delegations of authority at 49 CFR part 1.91, 
the Federal Transit Administration hereby amends Chapter VI of Title 
49, Code of Federal Regulations, by adding part 671 to read as follows:

PART 671--RAIL TRANSIT ROADWAY WORKER PROTECTION

Subpart A--General
Sec.
671.1 Purpose and Applicability.
671.3 Policy.
671.5 Definitions.
Subpart B--Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) Program and Manual
671.11 RWP Program.
671.13 RWP Manual.
Subpart C--Responsibilities
671.21 Rail Transit Agency.
671.23 Transit Worker.
671.25 State Safety Oversight Agency.
Subpart D--Required RWP Program Elements
671.31 Roadway Worker in Charge Requirements.
671.33 Job Safety Briefing Policies.
671.35 Lone Worker.
671.37 Good Faith Safety Challenge.
671.39 Risk-Based Redundant Protections.
671.41 RWP Training and Qualification Program.
671.43 RWP Compliance Monitoring Program.
Subpart E--Recordkeeping
671.51 Recordkeeping.

PART 671--RAIL TRANSIT ROADWAY WORKER PROTECTION

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329, 49 CFR 1.91.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  671.1  Purpose and Applicability.

    (a) The purpose of this part is to set forth the applicability of 
the rail transit Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) regulation.
    (b) This part applies to rail transit agencies (RTA) that receive 
Federal financial assistance authorized under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53; and 
to State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSOA) that oversee the safety of 
rail fixed guideway public transportation systems. This part does not 
apply to rail systems that are subject to the safety oversight of the 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
    (c) This part applies to transit workers who access any rail fixed 
guideway public transportation systems in the performance of work.
    (d) An RTA must coordinate with an SSOA to establish an SSOA-
approved RWP program that meets the requirements of this part, within 
one calendar year from the effective date of this rule.


Sec.  671.3  Policy.

    (a) This part establishes minimum safety standards for rail transit 
Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) to ensure the safe operation of public 
transportation systems and to prevent safety events, fatalities, and 
injuries to transit workers who may access the roadway in the 
performance of work. Each RTA and SSOA may prescribe additional or more 
stringent operating rules, safety rules, and other special instructions 
that are consistent with this part.
    (b) The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted the 
principles and methods of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis 
for enhancing the safety of public transportation in the United States. 
Activities conducted to carry out these RWP safety standards must be 
integrated into the RTA's SMS, including the Safety Risk Management 
(SRM) process, specified in Sec.  673.25 of this chapter, and the 
Safety Assurance process, specified in Sec.  673.27 of this chapter.


Sec.  671.5  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    Accountable Executive means a single identifiable person who has 
ultimate responsibility for carrying out the Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plan of a transit agency; responsibility for carrying out 
the transit agency's Transit Asset Management Plan; and control or 
direction over the human and capital resources needed to develop and 
maintain both the transit agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety 
Plan, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and the transit agency's 
Transit Asset Management Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5326.
    Ample time means the time necessary for a roadway worker to be 
clear of the track zone or in a place of safety 15 seconds before a 
rail transit vehicle moving at the maximum authorized speed on that 
track could arrive at the location of the roadway worker.
    Equivalent entity means an entity that carries out duties similar 
to that of a Board of Directors, for a recipient or subrecipient of FTA 
funds under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, including sufficient authority to 
review and approve a recipient or subrecipient's Public Transportation 
Agency Safety Plan.
    Equivalent protection means alternative designs, materials, or 
methods that the RTA can demonstrate to the SSOA will provide equal or 
greater safety for roadway workers than the means specified in this 
part.
    Flag person means a roadway worker designated to direct or restrict 
the movement of rail transit vehicles or equipment past a point on a 
track to provide on-track safety for roadway workers, while engaged 
solely in performing that function.
    Foul time protection is a method of establishing working limits in 
which a roadway worker is notified by the control center that no rail 
transit vehicles will be authorized to operate within a specific 
segment of track until the roadway worker reports clear of the track.
    Fouling a track means the placement of an individual or an item of 
equipment in such proximity to a track that the individual or equipment 
could be struck by a moving rail transit vehicle or on-track equipment, 
typically within four feet of the outside rail on both sides of any 
track.
    Individual rail transit vehicle detection means a process by which 
a lone worker acquires on-track safety by visually detecting 
approaching rail transit vehicles or equipment and leaving the track in 
ample time.
    Job safety briefing means a meeting addressing the requirements of 
this part that is conducted prior to commencing work by the Roadway 
Worker in Charge, typically at the job site, to notify roadway workers 
or other transit workers about the hazards related to the work to be 
performed and the protections to eliminate or protect against those 
hazards. Alternatively, briefings can be conducted virtually for those 
individuals who are working remotely on the job site.
    Lone worker means an individual roadway worker who is not afforded 
on-track safety by another roadway worker, who is not a member of a 
roadway work group, and who is not engaged in a common task with 
another roadway worker.
    Maximum authorized speed means the highest speed permitted for the 
movement of rail transit vehicles established by the rail transit 
vehicle control system, service schedule, and operating rules. This 
speed is used when calculating ample time.
    Minor tasks mean those tasks performed without the use of tools 
during the execution of which a roadway worker or other transit worker 
can hear and visually assess their

[[Page 87221]]

surroundings at least every five (5) seconds for approaching rail 
transit vehicles and that can be performed without violating ample 
time.
    Near-miss means a narrowly avoided safety event.
    On-track safety means a state of freedom from the danger of being 
struck by a moving rail transit vehicle or other equipment, and other 
on-track hazards, as provided by operating and safety rules that govern 
track occupancy by roadway workers, other transit workers, rail transit 
vehicles, and on-track equipment.
    Place of safety means a space an individual or individuals can 
safely occupy outside the track zone, sufficiently clear of any rail 
transit vehicle, including any on-track equipment, moving on any track.
    Qualified means a status attained by a roadway worker or other 
transit worker who has successfully completed required training 
(including refresher training) for, has demonstrated proficiency in, 
and is authorized by the RTA to perform the duties of a particular 
position or function.
    Rail fixed guideway public transportation system means any fixed 
guideway system, or any such system in engineering or construction, 
that uses rail, is operated for public transportation, is within the 
jurisdiction of a State, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Railroad Administration. These include but are not limited to 
rapid rail, heavy rail, light rail, monorail, trolley, inclined plane, 
funicular, and automated guideway.
    Rail transit agency (RTA) means any entity that provides services 
on a rail fixed guideway public transportation system.
    Rail transit vehicle means any rolling stock used on a rail fixed 
guideway public transportation system, including but not limited to 
passenger and maintenance vehicles.
    Rail transit vehicle approach warning means a method of 
establishing on-track safety by warning roadway workers of the approach 
of rail transit vehicles in ample time for them to move to or remain in 
a place of safety in accordance with the requirements of this part.
    Redundant protection means at least one additional protection 
beyond individual rail transit vehicle detection to ensure on-track 
safety for roadway workers. Redundant protections may be procedural, 
physical, or both.
    Roadway means land on which rail transit tracks and support 
infrastructure have been constructed to support the movement of rail 
transit vehicles.
    Roadway maintenance machine means a device which is used on or near 
rail transit track for maintenance, repair, construction or inspection 
of track, bridges, roadway, signal, communications, or electric 
traction systems. Roadway maintenance machines may have road or rail 
wheels or may be stationary.
    Roadway worker means a transit worker whose duties involve 
inspection, construction, maintenance, repairs, or providing on-track 
safety such as flag persons and watchpersons on or near the roadway or 
right-of-way or with the potential of fouling track.
    Roadway work group means two or more roadway workers organized to 
work together on a common task.
    Roadway worker in charge means a roadway worker who is qualified 
under this part to establish on-track safety.
    Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) means the polices, processes, and 
procedures implemented by an RTA to prevent safety events for transit 
workers who must access the roadway in the performance of their work.
    RWP manual means the entire set of the RTA's on-track safety rules 
and instructions maintained together, including operating rules and 
other procedures concerning on-track safety protection and on-track 
safety measures, designed to prevent roadway workers from being struck 
by rail transit vehicles or other on-track equipment.
    Safety event means an unexpected outcome resulting in injury or 
death; damage to or loss of the facilities, equipment, rolling stock, 
or infrastructure of a public transportation system; or damage to the 
environment.
    Sight distance means the length of roadway visible ahead for a 
roadway worker.
    State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) means an agency established by 
a State that meets the requirements and performs the functions 
specified by 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and (k) and 49 CFR part 674.
    Track access guide means a document that describes the physical 
characteristics of the RTA's track system, including track areas with 
close or no clearance, curves with blind spots or restricted sight 
lines, areas with loud noise, and potential environmental conditions 
that require additional consideration in establishing on-track safety.
    Track zone means an area identified by the RTA where a person or 
equipment could be struck by the widest equipment that could occupy the 
track.
    Transit worker means any employee, contractor, or volunteer working 
on behalf of the RTA or SSOA.
    Transit Worker Safety Reporting Program means the process required 
under Sec.  673.23(b) that allows transit workers to report safety 
concerns, including transit worker assaults, near-misses, and unsafe 
acts and conditions to senior management, provides protections for 
transit workers who report safety conditions to senior management, and 
describes transit worker behaviors that may result in disciplinary 
action.
    Watchperson means a roadway worker qualified to provide warning to 
roadway workers of approaching rail transit vehicles or track equipment 
whose sole duty is to look out for approaching rail transit vehicles 
and track equipment and provide at least 15 seconds advanced warning 
plus time to clear based on the maximum authorized track speed for the 
work location to transit workers before the arrival of rail transit 
vehicles.
    Working limits means a segment of track with explicit boundaries 
upon which rail transit vehicles and on-track equipment may move only 
as authorized by the roadway worker having control over that defined 
segment of track.
    Work zone means the immediate area where work is being performed 
within the track zone.

Subpart B--Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) Program and Manual


Sec.  671.11  RWP program.

    (a) Each RTA must adopt and implement an approved RWP program to 
improve transit worker safety that is consistent with Federal and State 
safety requirements and meets the minimum requirements of this part.
    (b) The RWP program must include:
    (1) An RWP manual as described in Sec.  671.13; and
    (2) All of the RWP program elements described in Subpart D of this 
part.
    (c) Each RTA must submit its RWP manual and subsequent updates to 
its SSOA for review and approval as described in Sec.  671.25.


Sec.  671.13  RWP manual.

    (a) Each RTA must establish and maintain a separate, dedicated 
manual documenting its RWP program.
    (b) The RWP manual must include the terminology, abbreviations, and 
acronyms used to describe the RWP program activities and requirements.
    (c) The RWP manual must document:
    (1) All elements of the RWP program in Subpart D of this part.

[[Page 87222]]

    (2) A definition of RTA and transit worker responsibilities as 
described in Subpart C--Responsibilities.
    (3) Training, qualification, and supervision required for transit 
workers to access the track zone, by labor category or type of work 
performed.
    (4) Processes and procedures, including any use of roadway workers 
to provide adequate on-track safety, for all transit workers who may 
access the track zone in the performance of their work, including 
safety and oversight personnel. Procedures for SSOA personnel to access 
the roadway must conform with the SSOA's risk-based inspection program.
    (d) The RWP manual must include or incorporate by reference a track 
access guide to support on-track safety. The track access guide must be 
based on a physical survey of the track geometry and condition of the 
transit system and include, at a minimum:
    (1) Locations with limited, close, or no clearance, including 
locations (such as alcoves, recessed spaces, or other designated places 
or areas of refuge or safety) with size or access limitations.
    (2) Locations subject to increased rail vehicle or on-track 
equipment braking requirements or reduced rail transit vehicle operator 
visibility due to precipitation or other weather conditions.
    (3) Curves with no or limited visibility.
    (4) Locations with limited or no visibility due to obstructions or 
topography.
    (5) All portals with restricted views.
    (6) Locations with heavy outside noise or other environmental 
conditions that impact on-track safety.
    (7) Any other locations with access considerations.
    (e) Following initial approval of the RWP manual by its SSOA, not 
less than every two years, the RTA must review and update its RWP 
manual to reflect current conditions and lessons learned in 
implementing the RWP program and information provided by the SSOA and 
FTA.
    (f) The RTA must update its RWP manual and track access guide as 
necessary and as soon as practicable upon any change to the system that 
conflicts with any element of either document.
    (g) The RWP manual must be distributed to all transit workers who 
access the roadway and redistributed after each revision.

Subpart C--Responsibilities


Sec.  671.21  Rail transit agency.

    (a) In General. Each RTA must establish procedures to:
    (1) Provide ample time and determine the appropriate sight distance 
based on maximum authorized track speeds.
    (2) Ensure that individual rail transit vehicle detection is never 
used as the only form of protection in the track zone.
    (3) Provide job safety briefings to all transit workers who must 
enter a track zone to perform work.
    (4) Provide job safety briefings to all transit workers whenever a 
rule violation is observed.
    (5) Provide transit workers with the right to challenge and refuse 
in good faith any assignment based on on-track safety concerns and 
resolve such challenges and refusals promptly and equitably.
    (6) Require the reporting of unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, and 
near-misses on the roadway as part of the Transit Worker Safety 
Reporting Program and described in Sec.  673.23(b) of this chapter.
    (7) Ensure all transit workers who must enter a track zone to 
perform work understand, are qualified in, and comply with the RWP 
program.
    (8) Provide an escort, as needed, to support individuals that are 
not RWP certified and do not fall into the categories of roadway 
worker, transit worker, or emergency personnel if they must enter a 
track zone.
    (b) Equipment and protections. Each RTA must establish the 
requirements for on-track safety, including:
    (1) Equipment that transit workers must have to access the roadway 
or a track zone by labor category, including personal protective 
equipment such as high-reflection vests, safety shoes, and hard hats.
    (2) Credentials (e.g., badge, wristband, RWP card) for transit 
workers to enter the roadway or track zone by labor category and how to 
display them so they are visible.
    (3) Protections for emergency response personnel who must access 
the roadway or the track zone.
    (4) Protections for multiple roadway work groups within a common 
work area in a track zone.


Sec.  671.23  Transit worker.

    (a) RWP program. Each transit worker must follow the requirements 
of the RTA's RWP program by position and labor category.
    (b) Fouling the track. A transit worker may only foul the track 
once they have received appropriate permissions and redundant 
protections have been established as specified in the RWP manual.
    (c) Acknowledgement of protections providing on-track safety. A 
transit worker must understand and acknowledge in writing the 
protections providing on-track safety measures for their specific task 
before accessing the roadway or track zone.
    (d) Refusal to foul the track. A transit worker may refuse to foul 
the track if the transit worker makes a good faith determination that 
that they believe any assignment is unsafe or would violate the RTA's 
RWP program.
    (e) Reporting. A transit worker must report unsafe acts and 
conditions and near-misses related to the RWP program as part of the 
RTA's Transit Worker Safety Reporting Program.


Sec.  671.25  State safety oversight agency.

    (a) Review and approve RWP program elements. The SSOA must review 
and approve the RWP manual and any subsequent updates for each RTA 
within its jurisdiction:
    (1) The SSOA must coordinate with the RTA on the initial review and 
approval of the RWP program elements so that the RWP program is 
established and approved within one calendar year from December 2, 
2024, and
    (2) The SSOA also must submit all approved RWP program elements for 
each RTA in its jurisdiction, and any subsequent updates, to FTA within 
30 calendar days of approving them.
    (b) RWP program oversight. The SSOA must update its program 
standard to explain the role of the SSOA in overseeing an RTA's 
execution of its RWP program.
    (c) Annual RWP program audit. (1) The SSOA must conduct an annual 
audit of the RTA's compliance with its RWP program, including all 
required RWP program elements, for each RTA that it oversees.
    (2) The SSOA must issue a report with any findings and 
recommendations arising from the audit, which must include, at minimum:
    (i) An analysis of the effectiveness of the RWP program, including, 
at a minimum, a review of:
    (A) All RWP-related events over the period covered by the audit;
    (B) All RWP-related reports made to the Transit Worker Safety 
Reporting Program over the period covered by the audit;
    (C) All documentation of instances where a transit worker(s) 
challenged and refused in good faith any assignment based on on-track 
safety concerns and documentation of the resolution for any such 
instance during the period covered by the audit;
    (D) An assessment of the adequacy of the track access guide, 
including whether the guide reflects current track geometry and 
conditions;
    (E) A review of training and qualification records for transit 
workers

[[Page 87223]]

who must enter a track zone to perform work;
    (F) A representative sample of written job safety briefing 
confirmations as described in Sec.  671.33; and
    (G) The compliance monitoring program described in Sec.  671.43.
    (ii) Recommendations for improvements, if necessary or appropriate.
    (iii) Corrective action plan(s), if necessary or appropriate, must 
be developed and executed consistent with requirements established in 
part 674.
    (3) The RTA must be given an opportunity to comment on any findings 
and recommendations.

Subpart D--Required RWP Program Elements


Sec.  671.31  Roadway worker in charge requirements.

    (a) On-track safety and supervision. The RTA must designate one 
roadway worker in charge for each roadway work group whose duties 
require fouling a track.
    (1) The roadway worker in charge must be qualified under the RTA's 
training and qualification program as specified in Sec.  671.41.
    (2) The roadway worker in charge may be designated generally or may 
be designated specifically for a particular work situation.
    (3) The roadway worker in charge is responsible for the on-track 
safety for all members of the roadway work group.
    (4) The roadway worker in charge must serve only the function of 
maintaining on-track safety for all members of the roadway work group 
and perform no other unrelated job function while designated for duty.
    (5) For multiple roadway work groups within common working limits, 
the RTA may designate a single roadway worker in charge for the entire 
working limit. If a single roadway worker in charge is designated over 
multiple roadway work groups within a working limit, each work group 
must be accompanied by an employee qualified to the level of a roadway 
worker in charge, as specified in Sec.  671.41, who shall be 
responsible for direct communication with the roadway worker in charge.
    (b) Communication. The RTA must ensure that the roadway worker in 
charge provides a job safety briefing to all roadway workers before any 
member of a roadway work group fouls a track, following the 
requirements specified in Sec.  671.33.
    (1) The roadway worker in charge must provide a job safety briefing 
to all members of the roadway work group before any on-track safety 
procedures change during the work period, whenever on-track safety 
conditions change, or immediately following an observed violation of 
on-track safety procedures, before work in the track zone may continue.
    (2) In the event of an emergency, the roadway worker in charge must 
warn each roadway worker to immediately leave the roadway and not 
return until on-track safety is re-established, and a job safety 
briefing is completed.


Sec.  671.33  Job safety briefing policies.

    (a) General. The RTA must ensure the roadway worker in charge 
provides any roadway worker who must foul a track with a job safety 
briefing prior to fouling the track, every time the roadway worker 
fouls the track.
    (b) Elements. The job safety briefing must include, at a minimum, 
the following, as appropriate:
    (1) A discussion of the nature of the work to be performed and the 
characteristics of the work, including work plans for multiple roadway 
worker groups within a single work area;
    (2) Working limits;
    (3) The hazards involved in performing the work. For RTAs with 
electrified systems, this discussion must include the status of power 
and hazards explicitly related to the electrified system;
    (4) Information on how on-track safety is to be provided for each 
track identified to be fouled; identification and location of key 
personnel, such as a watchperson and the roadway worker in charge; and 
information on what should be done in the event of an emergency;
    (5) Instructions for each on-track safety procedure to be followed, 
including appropriate flags and proper flag placement;
    (6) Communication roles and responsibilities for all transit 
workers involved in the work;
    (7) Safety information about any adjacent track, defined as track 
next to or adjoining the track zone where on-track safety has been 
established, and identification of roadway maintenance machines or on-
track equipment that will foul such tracks;
    (8) Information on the accessibility of the roadway worker in 
charge, including emergency contact information, and alternative 
procedures in the event the roadway worker in charge is no longer 
accessible to members of the roadway work group;
    (9) Required personal protective equipment;
    (10) Designated place(s) of safety of a sufficient size to 
accommodate all roadway workers within the work area; and
    (11) The means for determining ample time.
    (c) Confirmation and written acknowledgement. A job safety briefing 
is complete only after:
    (1) The roadway worker in charge confirms that each roadway worker 
understands the on-track safety procedures and instructions;
    (2) Each roadway worker acknowledges in writing the briefing and 
the requirement to use the required personal protective equipment; and
    (3) The roadway worker in charge confirms in writing that they have 
received written acknowledgement of the briefing from each worker.
    (d) Follow-up briefings. If after the initial job safety briefing 
there is any change in the scope of work or roadway work group, or on-
track safety conditions change, or a violation of on-track safety is 
observed, a follow-up job safety briefing must be conducted.


Sec.  671.35  Lone worker.

    (a) On-track safety and supervision. The RTA may authorize lone 
workers to perform limited duties that require fouling a track.
    (1) The lone worker must be qualified as a roadway worker in charge 
and lone worker under the RTA's training and qualification program as 
specified in Sec.  671.41.
    (2) The lone worker may perform routine inspection or minor tasks 
and move from one location to another. The lone worker may not use 
power tools and may only access locations have defined in the track 
access guide as appropriate for lone workers, i.e., no loud noises, no 
restricted clearances, etc.
    (3) The lone worker may not use individual rail transit vehicle 
detection, where the lone worker is solely responsible for seeing 
approaching trains and clearing the track before the trains arrive, as 
the only form of on-track safety.
    (b) Communication. Each lone worker must communicate prior to 
fouling the track with a supervisor or another designated employee to 
receive an on-track safety job briefing consisting of the elements in 
Sec.  671.33(b), including a discussion of their planned work 
activities and the procedures that they intend to use to establish on-
track safety. The lone worker must acknowledge and document the job 
safety briefing in writing consistent with Sec.  671.33(c).


Sec.  671.37  Good faith safety challenge.

    (a) Written procedure. Each RTA must document its procedures that 
provide to

[[Page 87224]]

every roadway worker the right to challenge and refuse in good faith 
any assignment they believe is unsafe or would violate the RTA's RWP 
program.
    (b) Prompt and equitable resolution. The written procedure must 
include methods or processes to achieve prompt and equitable resolution 
of any challenges and refusals made.
    (c) Requirements. The written procedure must include a requirement 
that the roadway worker provide a description of the safety concern 
regarding on-track safety and that the roadway work group must remain 
clear of the roadway or track zone until the challenge and refusal is 
resolved.


Sec.  671.39  Risk-based redundant protections.

    (a) General requirements. (1) Each RTA must identify and provide 
redundant protections for each category of work roadway workers perform 
on the roadway or track.
    (2) Each RTA must establish redundant protections to ensure on-
track safety for multiple roadway work groups within a common work 
area.
    (b) Safety risk assessment to determine redundant protections. Each 
RTA must assess the risk associated with transit workers accessing the 
roadway using the methods and processes established under Sec.  
673.25(c) of this chapter. The RTA must use the methods and processes 
established under Sec.  673.25(d) of this chapter to establish 
redundant protections for each category of work performed by roadway 
workers on the rail transit system and must include lone workers.
    (1) The safety risk assessment must be consistent with the RTA's 
Agency Safety Plan (ASP) and the SSOA's program standard.
    (2) The safety risk assessment may be supplemented by engineering 
assessments, inputs from the safety assurance process established under 
Sec.  673.27 of this chapter, the results of safety event 
investigations, and other SRM strategies or approaches.
    (3) The RTA must review and update the safety risk assessment at 
least every two years to include current conditions and lessons learned 
from safety events, actions taken to address reports of unsafe acts and 
conditions, and near-misses, and results from compliance monitoring 
regarding the effectiveness of the redundant protections.
    (4) The SSOA may also identify and require the RTA to implement 
alternate redundant protections based on the RTA's unique operating 
characteristics and capabilities.
    (c) Categories of work requiring redundant protections. Redundant 
protections must be identified for roadway workers performing different 
categories of work on the roadway and within track zones, which may 
include but are not limited to categories such as:
    (1) Roadway workers moving from one track zone location to another;
    (2) Roadway workers performing minor tasks;
    (3) Roadway workers conducting visual inspections;
    (4) Roadway workers using hand tools, machines, or equipment in 
conducting testing of track system components or non-visual 
inspections;
    (5) Roadway workers using hand tools, machines, or equipment in 
performing maintenance, construction, or repairs; and/or
    (6) Lone workers accessing the roadway or track zone or performing 
visual inspections or minor tasks.
    (d) Types of redundant protections. (1) Redundant protections may 
be procedural or physical.
    (i) Procedural protections alert rail transit vehicle operators to 
the presence of roadway workers and use radio communications, 
personnel, signage, or other means to direct rail transit vehicle 
movement.
    (ii) Physical protections physically control the movement of rail 
transit vehicles into or through a work zone.
    (2) Redundant protections may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Approaches consistent with the FRA rules governing redundant 
protections;
    (ii) Rail transit vehicle approach warning;
    (iii) Foul time;
    (iv) Exclusive track occupancy, defined as a method of establishing 
working limits, as part of on-track safety, in which movement authority 
of rail transit vehicles and other equipment is withheld by the control 
center or restricted by flag persons and provided by a roadway worker 
in charge;
    (v) Warning signs, flags, or lights;
    (vi) Flag persons;
    (vii) Lock outs from the rail transit vehicle control systems or 
lining and locking track switches or otherwise physically preventing 
entry and movement of rail transit vehicles;
    (viii) Secondary warning devices and alert systems;
    (ix) Shunt devices and portable trip stops to reduce the likelihood 
of rail transit vehicles from entering work zone with workers;
    (x) Restricting work to times when propulsion power is down with 
verification that track is out of service, and when barriers are placed 
that physically prevent rail transit vehicles, including on-track 
equipment, from entering the work zone;
    (xi) Use of walkways in tunnels and on elevated structures to 
reduce roadway worker time in the track zone; and
    (xii) Speed restrictions.
    (3) Redundant protections for lone workers must include, at a 
minimum, foul time or an equivalent protection approved by the SSOA.


Sec.  671.41  RWP training and qualification program.

    (a) General. Each RTA must adopt an RWP training program.
    (1) The RWP training program must address all transit workers 
responsible for on-track safety, by position, including roadway 
workers, operations control center personnel, rail transit vehicle 
operators, operators of on-track equipment and roadway maintenance 
machines, and any others with a role in providing on-track safety or 
fouling a track for the performance of work.
    (2) The RWP training program must be completed for the relevant 
position before an RTA may assign a transit worker to perform the 
duties of a roadway worker, to oversee or supervise access to the track 
zone from the operations control center, or to operate vehicles, on-
track equipment, and roadway maintenance machines on the rail transit 
system.
    (3) The RWP training program must address RWP hazard recognition 
and mitigation, and lessons learned through the results of compliance 
testing, near-miss reports, reports of unsafe acts or conditions, and 
feedback received on the training program.
    (4) The RWP training program must include initial and refresher 
training, by position. Refresher training must occur every two years at 
a minimum.
    (5) The RTA must review and update its RWP training program not 
less than every two years, to reflect lessons learned in implementing 
the RWP program and information provided by the SSOA and FTA. The RTA 
must provide an opportunity for roadway worker involvement in the RWP 
training program review and update process.
    (b) Required elements. The RWP training program must include 
interactive training with the opportunity to ask the RWP trainer 
questions and raise and discuss RWP issues.
    (1) Initial training must include experience in a representative 
field setting.
    (2) Initial and refresher training must include demonstrations and 
assessments to ensure the ability to comply with RWP instructions given 
by transit workers performing, or

[[Page 87225]]

responsible for, on-track safety and RWP functions.
    (c) Minimum contents for RWP training. The RWP training program 
must address, as applicable, the following minimum contents:
    (1) How to interpret and use the RTA's RWP manual;
    (2) How to challenge and refuse assignments in good faith;
    (3) How to report unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, and near-misses 
after they occur, and the mandatory duty to make such reports;
    (4) Recognition of the track zone and understanding of the space 
around tracks within which on-track safety is required, including use 
of the track access guide;
    (5) The functions and responsibilities of all transit workers 
involved in on-track safety, by position;
    (6) Proper compliance with on-track safety instructions given by 
transit workers performing or responsible for on-track safety 
functions;
    (7) Signals and directions given by watchpersons, and the proper 
procedures upon receiving a rail transit vehicle approach warning from 
a watchperson;
    (8) The hazards associated with working on or near rail transit 
tracks to include traction power, if applicable;
    (9) Rules and procedures for redundant protections identified under 
Sec.  671.37 and how they are applied to RWP; and
    (10) Requirements for safely crossing rail transit tracks in yards 
and on the mainline.
    (d) Specialized training and qualification for transit workers with 
additional responsibilities for on-track safety. The RWP training 
program must include additional training for watchpersons, flag 
persons, lone workers, roadway workers in charge, and other transit 
workers with responsibilities for establishing, supervising, and 
monitoring on-track safety.
    (1) This training must cover the content and application of the 
additional RWP program requirements carried out by these positions and 
must address the relevant physical characteristics of the RTA's system 
where on-track safety may be established.
    (2) This training must include demonstrations and assessments to 
confirm the transit worker's ability to perform these additional 
responsibilities.
    (3) Refresher training on additional responsibilities for on-track 
safety, by position, must occur every two years at a minimum.
    (e) Competency and qualification of training personnel. Each RTA 
must ensure that transit workers providing RWP training are qualified 
and have active RWP certification at the RTA to provide effective RWP 
training, and at a minimum must consider the following:
    (1) A trainer's experience and knowledge of effective training 
techniques in the chosen learning environment;
    (2) A trainer's experience with the RTA RWP program;
    (3) A trainer's knowledge of the RTA RWP rules, operations, and 
operating environment, including applicable operating rules; and
    (4) A trainer's knowledge of the training requirements specified in 
this part.


Sec.  671.43  RWP compliance monitoring program.

    (a) General. Each RTA must adopt a program for monitoring its 
compliance with the requirements specified in its RWP program.
    (b) Required elements. The RWP compliance monitoring program must 
include inspections, observations, and audits, consistent with safety 
performance monitoring and measurement requirements in the RTA's ASP 
described in Sec.  673.27(b) of this chapter and the SSOA's program 
standard.
    (1) The RTA must provide quarterly reports to the SSOA documenting 
the RTA's compliance with and sufficiency of the RWP program.
    (2) The RTA must provide an annual briefing to the Accountable 
Executive and the Board of Directors, or equivalent entity, regarding 
the performance of the RWP program and any identified deficiencies 
requiring corrective action.

Subpart E--Recordkeeping


Sec.  671.51  Recordkeeping.

    (a) Each RTA must maintain the documents that set forth its RWP 
program; documents related to the implementation of the RWP program; 
and results from the procedures, processes, assessments, training, and 
activities specified in this part for the RWP program.
    (b) Each RTA must maintain records of its compliance with this 
requirement, including records of transit worker RWP training and 
refresher training, for a minimum of three years after they are 
created.
    (c) These documents must be made available upon request by the FTA 
or other Federal entity, or an SSOA having jurisdiction.

[FR Doc. 2024-25042 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>