87166 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nearmisses; 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 FTA-Knowledge@dot.gov at least 

three business days prior to the event. 

If you have any questions, please email 

FTA-Knowledge@dot.gov. 

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 margaretta.veltri@dot.gov. 

For legal matters, contact Ms. Emily 

Jessup, Attorney Advisor, FTA, 

telephone at (202) 366–8907 or 

emily.jessup@dot.gov. 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 industrywide, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87167 

established under § 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 § 671.25(c)(2)(i)(E). 

FTA added language at § 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87168 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1Rail 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. 

electrified systems. FTA also added 

general emergency response information 

at § 671.33(b)(4) and the inclusion of an 

emergency contact number for the 

roadway worker in charge at 

§ 671.33(b)(8). 

FTA revised § 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 § 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 

§ 671.33(d) to require a follow-up 

briefing in the event of a change in ontrack safety conditions. 

The good faith safety challenge 

process at § 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 § 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 § 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 

(§ 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] 

Item Annualized value 

(2% discount rate) 

Annualized value 

(3% discount rate) 

Annualized value 

(7% discount 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. 

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 nearmisses 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 safetyrelated 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 bestdemonstrated 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87170 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfmonitoring, 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 § 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 mediumsized 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 RWPrelated 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87172 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonrevenue 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 nonrevenue 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 

§ 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 § 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 ontrack 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 § 671.1(c) as 

suggested by commenters because FTA 

believes the language in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 RWPrelated requirements beyond the 

regulation, then the SSOA must 

collaborate with the RTA in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87174 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 ontrack 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 

§ 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 ontrack 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87176 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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, § 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 nearmisses 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 ‘‘ontrack 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 ‘‘ontrack safety’’ to encompass all hazards a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87178 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonrevenue service equipment or working 

adjacent to RTA infrastructure. For prerevenue 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 § 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 § 671.31 sufficiently 

addresses the RTA’s role in designating 

the roadway worker in charge. 

Similarly, § 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 ontrack safety be established for work 

crews only, as on-track safety in some 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 671.13(d)(1–7). 

RTAs may design their track access 

guides to address the components in 

this definition, and the requirements of 

§ 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87180 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (§§ 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 § 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 ontrack 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 § 671.5 because it is defined in 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87181 

requirements for safety reporting in 

§§ 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 § 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, nonsubstantive 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 § 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 § 671.13 requirements. 

One RTA asserted that FTA should not 

require the RWP manual to be a standalone 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 §§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87182 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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-todate 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 § 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 § 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 rightof-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87183 

its current track access guide to meet the 

requirement at § 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 § 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 siteby-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 ontrack equipment braking requirements’’ 

(§ 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-todate version. FTA believes that right-ofway 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 § 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87184 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 sitespecific 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’’ (§ 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 §§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87186 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 671.39(d). 

FTA disagrees that employing a 

secondary form of protection in addition 

to individual train detection is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 671.35 emphasize that a lone worker 

may not use individual rail transit 

vehicle detection as the only form of ontrack 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 671.25(c)(2)(i)(C), requiring the 

SSOA to conduct annual audits to 

assess the effectiveness of the RTA’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87188 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 671.21(a)(6). The RTA 

commented that the new mandatory 

reporting requirements for transit 

workers in § 671.21(a)(6) and § 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 ‘‘NearMiss 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87190 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 labormanagement issue.’’ 

One RTA expressed concern with the 

practicality of the requirement in 

§ 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 

§ 671.5. 

Commenting on § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 671.23(b). 

FTA declines to revise ‘‘fouling the 

track’’ to ‘‘fouling a track’’ to mirror the 

definition language (§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87191 

I. Section 671.25—State Safety 

Oversight Agency 

1. RWP Program Oversight (§ 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 § 671.5 includes any 

employee, contractor, or volunteer 

working on behalf of the RTA or SSOA. 

Per § 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, § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

(§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87192 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 industrywide 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 § 671.25(a)(1) and (2), within the 

section that is expressly directed to 

SSOAs. 

3. Annual RWP Program Audit 

(§ 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 

§ 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 dayto-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87193 

RWP audit will consist of a more indepth 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 § 671.25(c) and 

§ 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 samplebased 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 § 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, samplebased auditing practices to address the 

requirements of § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 671.25(c)(2)(i), is beyond an SSOA’s 

scope. These commenters asserted that 

SSOAs currently only oversee 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87194 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 674.31). 

In response to the comments related 

to RWP audit elements, FTA does not 

see the need to define the term ‘‘RWPrelated 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 ‘‘RWPrelated 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 ontrack 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 671.35 within § 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 ontrack 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87196 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 671.35 within 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 ontrack 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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’’ (§ 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 (§ 671.33(b)(3)); 

emergency contact information for the 

roadway worker in charge 

(§ 671.33(b)(8)); and general emergency 

response information (§ 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 § 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 § 671.33(c). Two RTAs and 

an industry association suggested 

revising § 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 § 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 § 671.33(c)(2), which they 

suggested would certify the transit 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87198 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 

§ 671.33(c)(2) will help clarify 

requirements for roadway workers to 

individually acknowledge the job safety 

briefings. Both § 671.33(c)(2) and 

§ 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 

§ 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, ontrack 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 

§ 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 

§ 671.33(d) to require a follow-up 

briefing in the event on-track safety 

conditions change and made a 

corresponding change to § 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 ontrack 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 671.31(a)(4) 

provisions—which specify that a 

roadway worker in charge can only 

perform the function of maintaining ontrack safety and perform no unrelated 

job function—and the provisions in 

§ 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 § 671.23(b) as 

transit workers, not § 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 § 671.31(a)(4) and 

§ 671.35(a)(2), because these provisions 

apply to different scenarios. The 

restrictions in § 671.31(a)(4) apply to an 

active roadway worker in charge 

overseeing a work group, while 

§ 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 (§ 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 

§ 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 riskbased redundant protections pursuant to 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87200 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 

§ 671.35(a)(2) and § 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 

§ 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 § 671.35(a)(2) and 

§ 671.35(a)(3) are not contradictory but 

complementary. While § 671.35(a)(2) 

outlines the types of tasks a lone worker 

may perform, § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87201 

job safety briefings prior to fouling the 

track in § 671.35(b). 

One vendor expressed their 

expectation that the lone worker 

protocol would include a welfare checkin 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87202 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 671.39(a)(2) to be consistent with 

§ 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 labormanagement 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 § 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 § 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 § 673.27(c). 

FTA received comments on the ability 

of the SSOA to identify and require 

alternate redundant RWP protections for 

an RTA in § 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 

§ 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-sizefits-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 § 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 nearmisses, 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 § 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87203 

3. Types of Redundant Protections 

Comments: Multiple RTAs, multiple 

vendors, and the NTSB provided 

comments on the types of redundant 

protections presented in § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 671.39(d)(2)(xi) are not deemed part of 

a track zone. FTA notes the final rule 

defines track zone in § 671.5 and 

believes additional restatement is 

unnecessary. 

Section 671.39(d) identifies a nonexhaustive list of redundant protections. 

For clarity, FTA is revising § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87204 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 costsaving 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 § 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 computerbased 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 computerbased 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 inperson 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 

§ 671.41(c) are still required as part of 

the RWP training and program if these 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87206 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 highlevel 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 

§ 671.43(b)(1). One SSOA recommended 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-sizefits-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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87208 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 671.1 provides 

that, not later than one year after the 

effective date of the final rule, each RTA 

must have established an SSOAapproved 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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, §§ 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 § 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 § 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87210 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 ontrack 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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, § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 671.41 and is responsible for the ontrack 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87212 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ontrack 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, 

§ 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 § 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 ontrack 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 ontrack 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 § 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87214 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2Office of Management and Budget (2023). 

‘‘Circular No. A–4.’’ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf. 

3Public 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. 

4Bureau 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. 

5Multiplier 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. 

6U.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-departmentalguidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-ineconomic-analysis. 

7U.S. Department of Transportation (2023). 

‘‘Benefit Cost Analysis Guidance 2024 Update, 

Table A–1: Value of Reduced Fatalities, Injuries, 

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 riskbased 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 compliancemonitoring 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: 

• Adjusted labor hour estimates for 

establishing an RWP program from 96 to 

300 hours. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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.’’ 

• Added an estimated annual average 

of 10 hours per agency to update RWP 

manuals and 20 hours per agency to 

update training materials. 

• Added calculations using a 

discount rate of 2 percent, following 

guidance in the November 2023 update 

to OMB Circular A–4.2

• Updated occupational wage data 

from May 2020 to May 2023, the latest 

data available as of August 2024. 

• 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. 

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

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87215 

and Crashes.’’ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/ 

dot.gov/files/2023-12/Benefit%20Cost%20Analysis

%20Guidance%202024%20Update.pdf. 

8Federal 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-rightway-worker-protection-december-2013. 

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 startup 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-ofway 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. 

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 ‘‘FirstLine 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 monitoring ...................................................................................................... .............................. $29,234 

SSOA review ............................................................................................................................................... 139,210 ..............................

RWP program response to SSOA comments ............................................................................................. 55,684 ..............................

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

Requirement Workers Total required hours Total costs, 

initial 

Total costs, 

annual 

Development of initial training .............................................................. ........................ 135 hours per RTA ... $46,984 ........................

Development of recurring training ........................................................ ........................ 135 hours per RTA ... 98,665 ........................

Development of lone worker training .................................................... ........................ 240 hours per RTA ... 835,263 ........................

Development of training for all employees ........................................... ........................ 30 hours per RTA ..... 104,408 ........................

Training material updates ..................................................................... ........................ 20 hours per RTA ..... ........................ $69,605 

Initial training for roadway workers ....................................................... 31,974 143,882 ..................... 622,553 ........................

Recurring training for roadway workers ............................................... 31,974 143,882 ..................... ........................ 1,307,361 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87216 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

9Agencies identified include Chicago Transit 

Authority, Hillsborough Transit Authority (Florida); 

Tren Urbano (San Juan); Metropolitan Atlanta 

Rapid Transit Authority; Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority and Port Authority TransHudson 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 4—RWP TRAINING PROGRAM COSTS BY OCCUPATION

Occupation Fully loaded 

wage rate Workers Hours per worker 

Total required 

hours, initial 

Total required 

hours, annual 

Total costs, 

initial 

Total costs, 

annual 

49–9071 Maintenance and 

Repair Workers, General.

$38.43 13,824 ................................... 4.5 6,221 13,064 $239,046 $501,997 

53–4041 Subway and Streetcar Operators.46.96 18,150 ................................... 4.5 8,167 17,151 383,507 805,365 

00–0000 All Occupations ...... 42.60 50,132 ................................... 1 ........................ 50,132 ........................ 2,135,457 

49–9071 Maintenance and 

Repair Workers, General 

(Lone Workers).

38.43 5,500 ..................................... 8 ........................ 44,000 ........................ 1,690,763 

49–1011 First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers.63.28 6 (initial training); 12 (recurring training); 55 (lone 

worker and all employee 

training).

540 17,152 ........................ 1,085,320 69,605 

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 fulltime 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: 

• Developing an RWP manual (40 onetime hours) and making periodic 

updates (__hours per year) 

• Establishing rail fixed guideway 

public transportation system 

responsibilities (81.4 one-time hours; 

5.3 hours per year) 

• Establishing employee responsibilities 

(160 hours per year) 

• Providing written acknowledgment of 

job safety briefings if they do not do 

so already (8.7 hours per roadway 

worker per year) 

• Conducting a risk assessment for 

redundant protections (40 one-time 

hours) 

• Maintaining employee injury and 

illness program records (12 hours per 

year) 

• Establishing a near-miss reporting 

program (320 one-time hours; 100 

hours per year) and maintaining 

records (16 hours per year) 

• 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. 

TABLE 5—ADDITIONAL RWP REQUIREMENTS

Requirement Affected entities Total required 

hours, initial 

Total required 

hours, annual 

One-time 

costs 

Recurring 

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 safety briefings.3,329 maintenance workers ............. ........................ 28,851 ........................ 1,108,654 

Risk assessment for redundant protections.55 RTAs ........................................... 2,200 ........................ 121,125 ........................

Employee injury and illness program 

and records.

55 RTAs ........................................... ........................ 660 ........................ 36,337 

Near-miss reporting program and 

records.

55 RTAs ........................................... 17,600 6,380 968,998 351,262 

Recordkeeping .................................. 55 RTAs ........................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 27,842 

Total ........................................... ........................................................... 22,968 44,357 1,248,823 2,100,689 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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] 

Requirement Ten-year cost 

RWP programs ....................... $904,868 

RWP manual .......................... 180,974 

Rail system responsibilities .... 161,331 

Employee responsibilities ....... 5,568,418 

TABLE 6—TEN-YEAR COSTS OF THE

FINAL RULE, SUMMARY—Continued 

[2025–2034] 

Requirement Ten-year cost 

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. 

• Alternative 1: FTA would establish 

requirements for an RWP program but 

would not mandate the use of 

redundant protections. 

• 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87218 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

10Federal Transit Administration (2021). 

‘‘Request for Information on Transit Worker 

Safety.’’ https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2021/09/24/2021-20744/request-forinformation-on-transit-worker-safety. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87219 

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-transportationorder-56102a. 

12Federal Transit Administration (February 

2020). ‘‘Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for 

Federal Transit Administration Recipients.’’ https:// 

www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/ftacirculars/environmental-justice-policy-guidancefederal-transit. 

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. 

• Type of Collection: Operators of rail 

public transportation systems. 

• Respondents to Collection: RTAs in 

the SSO program, SSOAs, and rail 

transit workers who access the roadway 

to perform work. 

• Type of Review: OMB Clearance. 

New information collection request. 

• 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. 

• 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

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 671 

Mass transportation, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 

Veronica Vanterpool, 

Deputy Administrator. 

■ 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 673.25 of 

this chapter, and the Safety Assurance 

process, specified in § 673.27 of this 

chapter. 

§ 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 ontrack 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 673.23(b) that allows transit 

workers to report safety concerns, 

including transit worker assaults, nearmisses, 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 671.25. 

§ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87222 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 87223 

who must enter a track zone to perform 

work; 

(F) A representative sample of written 

job safety briefing confirmations as 

described in § 671.33; and 

(G) The compliance monitoring 

program described in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 ontrack 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 ontrack safety is observed, a follow-up job 

safety briefing must be conducted. 

§ 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 

§ 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 ontrack safety. 

(b) Communication. Each lone worker 

must communicate prior to fouling the 

track with a supervisor or another 

designated employee to receive an ontrack safety job briefing consisting of the 

elements in § 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 

§ 671.33(c). 

§ 671.37 Good faith safety challenge. 

(a) Written procedure. Each RTA must 

document its procedures that provide to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
87224 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

§ 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 ontrack 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 § 673.25(c) 

of this chapter. The RTA must use the 

methods and processes established 

under § 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 

§ 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 nearmisses, 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. 

§ 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, nearmiss 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 ontrack 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2