Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 71183 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Julianne 

Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: 202/453–8049). The 

address is U.S. Department of State, SA–

44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, 

Washington, DC 20547–0001. 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant, Secretary for 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. E5–6519 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee Meeting on Transport 

Airplane and Engine Issues 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

public meeting of the FAA’s Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) to discuss transport airplane 

and engine (TAE) issues. 

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for 

Monday, December 12, 2005, starting at 

10:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

Arrange for oral presentations by 

December 8, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Ave, 

SW., Room 810, Washington, DC 20591. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Linsenmeyer, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–207, FAA, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

Telephone (202) 267–5174, FAX (202) 

267–5075, or e-mail at 

john.linsenmeyer@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is given of 

an ad hoc ARAC meeting to be held 

December 12, 2005 at the Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., Room 810, 

Washington, DC. The meeting/ 

teleconference is being held to consider 

the report on recommended guidance 

for Aging Airplane Safety from the 

Airworthiness Assurance Working 

Group (AAWG). This ad hoc TAE 

meeting is necessary because the report 

from the AAWG is a critical part of 

FAA’s effort to develop new guidance to 

support the Aging Airplane Safety Rule, 

issued January 25, 2005. 

The agenda will include: 

• Opening Remarks. 

• AAWG Report. 

Attendance is open to the public, but 

will be limited to the availability of 

meeting room space. Please confirm 

your attendance with the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section no later than December 

8, 2005. Please provide the following 

information: Full legal name, country of 

citizenship, and name of your industry 

association, or applicable affiliation. If 

you are attending as a public citizen, 

please indicate so. 

For persons participating 

domestically by telephone, the call-in 

number is (202) 493–4180; the Passcode 

is ‘‘5513.’’ To insure that sufficient 

telephone lines are available, please 

notify the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

your intent to participate by telephone 

by December 8. Anyone calling from 

outside the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area will be responsible for 

paying long-distance charges. 

The public must make arrangements 

by December 8, 2005, to present oral 

statements at the meeting. Written 

statements may be presented to the 

committee at any time by providing 25 

copies to the Assistant Executive 

Director for Transport Airplane and 

Engine Issues or by providing copies at 

the meeting. Copies of the document to 

be presented to ARAC for decision by 

the FAA may be made available by 

contacting the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

If you need assistance or require a 

reasonable accommodation for the 

meeting or meeting documents, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Sign and oral interpretation, as well as 

a listening device, can be made 

available if requested 10 calendar days 

before the meeting. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

17, 2005. 

Brenda D. Courtney, 

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E5–6528 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–22796] 

FRA Emergency Order No. 24, Notice 

No. 2; Emergency Order No. 24: HandOperated Main Track Switches; 

Amendment 

SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) of the United 

States Department of Transportation 

(DOT) issues this notice to amend 

Emergency Order No. 24 (EO 24) in 

response to informal comments received 

from railroads and labor organizations. 

This amendment provides additional 

guidance, clarifying amendments and 

expanded relief from the EO. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Douglas H. Taylor, Staff Director, 

Operating Practices Division, Office of 

Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., RRS–11, 

Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6255); or Alan H. 

Nagler, Senior Trail Attorney, Office of 

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., RCC–11, Mail Stop 10, 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

493–6038). 

Background 

EO 24 was issued on October 19, 

2005, published in the Federal Register 

on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61496) and 

required that railroads modify their 

operating rules and take certain other 

actions necessary to ensure that railroad 

employees who dispatch trains in nonsignaled territory or who operate handoperated main track switches (switches) 

in non-signaled territory, ensure the 

switches are restored to their proper 

(normal) position after use. 

EO 24 required that railroads 

‘‘immediately initiate steps to 

implement this EO * * * [and] 

complete implementation no later than 

November 22, 2005.’’ 70 FR 61496, 

61500. As the resulted community 

began implementation, practical 

concerns were raised with FRA 

regarding some aspects of the EO. In 

response to these informal comments, 

FRA has decided to provide the 

railroads and employees additional 

flexibility in complying with the EO. 

Because FRA is granting additional 

flexibility to the railroads and the 

employees, the November 22, 2005 

effective date of the EO is not changing. 

On November 4, 2005, FRA posted on 

its Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/ 

an additional document, in a question 

and answer format, that provided timely 

guidance to the informal comments 

offered by the regulated community. 

71184 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 

This Notice No. 2 reflects the guidance 

provided in that question and answer 

document. In addition, this Notice No. 

2 specifies additional relief granted by 

amending the ‘‘Relief’’ section in its 

entirety and issues clarifying 

amendments to the ‘‘Finding and 

Order’’ section of EO 24, Notice No. 1. 

I. Discussion of Comments 

The comments received by FRA were 

informally provided by a diverse 

number of railroads and the following 

associations and labor organizations. 

The American Short Line & Regional 

Railroads Association (ASLRRA), the 

Association of American Railroads 

(AAR), the Brotherhood of Locomotive 

Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the 

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employees Division (BMWED), the 

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS) and the United Transportation 

Union (UTU). By discussing the 

comments and our responses in this 

notice, FRA is providing consistent 

information to the entire regulated 

community. 

Jurisdiction 

Some railroads, especially tourist 

railroads, contacted FRA regarding 

whether the EO applied to them. FRA 

responded that the EO applies to all 

railroads that have employees or 

contractor employees who operate 

hand-operated main track switches in 

non-signaled territory or dispatch trains 

in that type of territory unless specific 

relief has been granted. 70 FR 61500. 

Tourist railroads, or other railroads, that 

are unsure as to whether FRA exercises 

jurisdiction over them should refer to 

FRA’s published statement on the extent 

and exercise of FRA’s safety 

jurisdiction. 49 CFR Part 209, App. A. 

If a railroad is still unsure on this issue, 

please contact FRA’s Office of Chief 

Counsel at (202) 493–6038. 

Initial and Periodic Instruction 

Railroads and labor organizations 

alike were concerned that FRA did not 

adequately describe the method for 

initial and periodic instruction. 

Meanwhile, FRA believes the current 

instruction requirement is adequate and 

provides the following further guidance. 

Given that this is an emergency 

situation requiring railroads to quickly 

and effectively instruct employees, 

FRA’s expectation is that the minimum 

initial instruction and distribution of 

the EO would include a face-to-face onthe-job briefing covering the 

requirements of this EO and the 

operating rules to which they relate. In 

order to be effective, this job briefing 

must include examples or real time 

applications of the EO, as well as a 

reasonable opportunity for employees to 

ask questions. Regarding periodic 

instruction, railroads will include this 

instruction as part of their program of 

instruction pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11. 

Some railroads indicated that they 

already had operating rules that 

complied with this EO and had recently 

instructed their employees on those 

rules; thus, these railroads asked 

whether the prior training could count 

as the required initial training. FRA 

decided that any training prior to 

issuance of the EO was insufficient. 

FRA has identified an emergency 

situation and wants to raise the level of 

awareness for all employees who 

operate hand-operated switches in nonsignaled territory or who dispatch trains 

in that type of territory. In addition, it 

is significant for affected employees to 

understand that the Federal government 

will be able to assess civil penalties of 

up to $27,000 for a violation of the EO 

by any person. That said, FRA does not 

expect railroads to entirely discount 

prior instruction. This new instruction 

can build upon the prior instruction—

prior instruction on an unchanged 

operating rule does not need to be as indepth as it would be if the employees 

were being instructed on the relevant 

operating rules for the first time. 

Receipt or Acknowledgment of the EO 

by Employees 

Some railroads, and the associations 

that represent them, questioned the 

necessity for providing a copy of the EO 

to each employee and the method for 

keeping a receipt or acknowledgment. 

FRA explained that because of the 

critical importance of this EO and the 

importance of individual railroad 

employees’ compliance and 

accountability, FRA must be assured 

that employees have received their own 

paper copy of the EO. However, FRA 

did not intend to preclude the creation 

or retention of the receipt or keeping of 

the acknowledgment electronically. As 

long as the receipt or acknowledgment 

is a permanent record that is kept for 

each affected employee and can be 

searched and printed for FRA upon 

request, electronic recordkeeping is 

acceptable. The electronic 

recordkeeping system should have 

system integrity to prevent fraudulent 

entries, and may be added onto existing 

systems, e.g., those systems that already 

track attendance at railroad operating 

rules classes. If those systems do not 

allow employees to enter an 

acknowledgment, the attendance sheet 

at the face-to-face job briefing on the EO 

should indicate that the attendee’s 

signature reflects both attendance and 

receipt of a copy of the EO. 

A related concern is whether railroads 

also need to provide a copy of this 

Notice No. 2, to all affected employees. 

This Notice No. 2 provides guidance, 

relief and clarifying amendments from 

the earlier notice, but does not create 

additional burdens, and thus it is 

possible for compliance to be achieved 

by following Notice No. 1 only. FRA 

therefore is not requiring railroads to 

provide a copy of this Notice No. 2 to 

all affected employees. Certainly, any 

railroad amending its operating rules 

with regard to this Notice No. 2 will 

need to instruct its employees 

accordingly and may choose to post or 

distribute it. 

Hand-Operated Main Track Switches—

Operational Concerns 

FRA received a number of inquiries 

requesting more information on the 

safety basis for certain operational 

requirements. 

Some railroads requested eliminating 

the requirement that the dispatcher 

confirm that both the conductor and 

engineer have initialed the switch 

position awareness form (SPAF). FRA 

has denied this request because of the 

strong safety reasons for its retention. 

While other requirements involve intracrew communication, the dispatcher’s 

confirmation provides an additional 

level of communication so that the 

crewmember releasing the train’s 

authority ensures that both the engineer 

and conductor have properly recorded 

on the SPAF the position of all switches 

operated and that there is no confusion 

among crewmembers as to the 

alignment of those switches. 

At least one railroad wanted to do 

away with the requirements that the 

engineer initial each entry, as opposed 

to only the final entry; however, FRA is 

denying this request because the 

engineer’s action of initialing each entry 

encourages intra-crew communication 

while employees are still at each switch. 

BLET asked that FRA clarify that 

entry of the engineer’s initials is an 

affirmation that the communication 

(representation) has been received and 

not that the engineer can personally 

vouch for the actions taken on the 

ground. FRA affirms that the engineer’s 

responsibility is to acknowledge the 

information provided by the conductor 

or brakeman, not to act as a guarantor 

with respect to the actual position in 

which the switch was left. 

Several concerns were raised 

regarding what FRA meant by the term 

‘‘releasing the limits of a main track 

authority.’’ The term means releasing all 

or a portion of the limits (i.e., rolling up 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 71185 

the limits) of an existing main track 

authority. 

Railroads and labor organizations 

alike raised concerns regarding whether 

a train crew that is relieved on line-ofroad must take the SPAF with them or 

whether the SPAF could be left for the 

subsequent train crew. The purpose of 

EO 24 was to establish responsibility, 

shared among the crew and the 

dispatcher, for confirmation of switch 

position for all switches operated before 

the authority is released. A subsequent 

crew will not have actual knowledge of 

the position of switches in the track 

segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew. 

Further, the declarations made on the 

SPAF are personal to each employee 

participating, and it is not possible for 

subsequent crew members to verify 

information about which they did not 

have contemporaneous knowledge. 

Accordingly, to accomplish the purpose 

of EO 24, the crew being relieved should 

contact the dispatcher and confirm the 

position of switches operated, at the 

same time releasing (rolling up) any 

portion of the authority not required by 

the relieving crew. The crew going off 

duty would finalize their SPAF at that 

time. The relieving crew would then 

initiate a new SPAF. The order has been 

amended to so provide. 

At least one request was received for 

clarification regarding the requirements 

of the EO if the limits of a main rack 

authority are rolled up behind a train or 

on-track equipment (OTE) by the 

dispatcher without the train crew’s or 

OTE operator’s knowledge. FRA’s 

position is that, in addition to 

determining the train’s or OTE’s 

location, the dispatcher must confirm 

the position of all switches operated by 

the employees within the limits being 

rolled up. 

There have been several concerns 

expressed regarding whether the EO 

applied in certain specific situations. 

For instance, FRA wants to make clear 

that the EO does not apply in Rule 251 

or GCOR Rule 9.14 territory, i.e., current 

of traffic, signaled in one direction only. 

However, the EO is applicable if the 

signal system for a track segment is 

suspended. Furthermore, the EO is 

applicable if a track, or portion thereof, 

is out-of-service, unless the operating 

rules or special instructions require all 

trains to approach all facing point handoperated switches prepared to stop 

during the entire period the track is outof-service. 

Finally, at least one comment was 

received regarding the requirement that 

before releasing the limits of a main 

track authority, the employee releasing 

the limits must report to the train 

dispatcher that all hand-operated main 

track switches operated have been 

restored to their normal position, unless 

the train dispatcher directs otherwise. 

The commenter noted that another 

sentence in this section regarding 

‘‘hand-operated main track switches’’

permitted the normal position of a main 

track switch to be designated by the 

railroad and the switch to be lined and 

locked in that position when not in use, 

except ‘‘when the switch is left in the 

charge of a crewmember of another 

train’’ or the train dispatcher directs 

otherwise. Accordingly, the commenter 

requested a clarifying amendment so 

that in addition to the train dispatcher 

exception, the switch may be left in the 

charge of a crewmember of another train 

before releasing the limits. FRA agrees 

with the commenter that this exception 

provides at least an equivalent level of 

safety and a clarifying amendment has 

been made in this notice. 

BLET asked that language in item (2) 

of the order be amended to delete 

‘‘except when the switch is left in the 

charge of a crewmember of another train 

or the train dispatcher directs 

otherwise,’’ following the requirement 

that switches be left in normal position 

when not in use. BELT suggested that 

this would heighten the sense of 

individual responsibility that the order 

seeks to promote. FRA appreciates the 

suggestion and recognizes that it is 

thematically consistent with the general 

thrust of the order. However, FRA is 

unable to act upon it for three reasons. 

First, this change does not appear to be 

necessary to abate the emergency. 

Recent accidents caused by misaligned 

switches have generally involved error 

on the part of the crew initially 

reversing the switch, rather than than 

miscommunication or lapses associated 

with handing off responsibility for the 

switch. Second, such a change could 

expose employees to hazards 

unnecessarily, as when it might be 

necessary to cross live tracks, walk on 

uneven ballast, or traverse areas covered 

with snow or ice. Third, imposing this 

requirement would cause significant 

delay and inefficiency in railroad 

operation. 

Line Segment Relief Versus System 

Basis Relief Previously Granted 

Several railroads requested that the 

automatic relief granted to a railroad, 

where operating rules require trains to 

approach all facing point hand-operated 

switches prepared to stop on a system 

basis, be extended to a line segment 

basis. The request also covered the two 

other situations articulated in the EO; 

i.e., where hand-operated main track 

switches in non-signaled territory 

(unless out of service) are protected by 

either distant switch indicators or by 

switch point indicators. FRA is granting 

this relief although, in our opinion, this 

relief is a logical extrapolation from the 

relief previously provided. FRA will 

grant automatic relief on a line segment 

basis when the relief is predicated on a 

permanent application of the relevant 

operating rules and special instructions 

for the territory involved. Employees or 

dispatchers involved with more than 

one line segment may require 

instruction if one of the other line 

segments does not meet any of the 

conditions for relief. Distant switch 

indicators are arrangements that provide 

crews with advance indication of switch 

position in a manner similar to an 

approach signal. These arrangements are 

typically designed and maintained in a 

manner similar to technology employed 

under 49 CFR Part 236, the Rules, 

Standards and Instructions for signal 

and train control systems and have a 

well-established history of performance 

in the industry. 

In this Notice, FRA has required 

specific acceptance of ‘‘switch point 

indicators’’ as alternative to the rule 

because the term does not apply to a 

closed set of technologies and in order 

to provide FRA an opportunity to 

evaluate whether the technology 

provides safety equivalently to that 

provided by compliance with this order 

by properly qualified employees. In part 

because of the risk to trains associated 

with unauthorized operation of switches 

by vandals, FRA is encouraging 

exploration and implementation of 

appropriate technology that can detect 

misaligned main track switches and 

provide a means of safeguarding train 

operations. 

On-Track Safety 

Many comments were received 

expressing concern that the EO was 

largely silent regarding employees 

involved with on-track safety such as 

signalmen, maintenance-of-way 

employees, bridge workers, and others. 

Some commenters were unsure of 

whether the EO applied to employees 

involved with on-track safety. When 

FRA explained that the EO applied to 

these workers, more comments were 

received questioning the logistics of 

how the EO would apply in practice. In 

consideration of these comments, FRA 

has decided to issue clarifying 

amendments (discussed below) that 

should allow for smoother operations—

although the EO 24, Notice No. 1 

requirement of having each employee 

fill out a SPAF is a feasible option as 

well. 

FRA is issuing a clarifying 

amendment to allow an employee 

71186 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 

responsible for on-track safety, such as 

an employee in charge (EIC), to 

complete the SPAF for all employees 

working under the EIC’s jurisdiction. 

The employee responsible for on-track 

safety pursuant to 49 CFR 214, Subpart 

C, may maintain the SPAF in lieu of the 

individual worker(s) operating switches. 

Likewise, FRA is amenable to issuing a 

clarifying amendment so that each 

railroad could choose whether to create 

a SPAF specifically tailored to the 

communications among employees 

involved with on-track safety. Of course, 

if a worker operates a switch, that 

worker must still be qualified, i.e., 

instructed on, the relevant operating 

rules for operating a switch, even if they 

are not the employee completing a 

SPAF. 

Additionally, FRA is clarifying that if 

an EIC of on-track safety permits a train 

into the EIC’s authority limits and there 

are switches operated by that train crew, 

both the EIC and the train crew must 

complete a SPAF. This clarification 

does not require an amendment to the 

EO. 

Some commenters did not understand 

whether the EO required the EIC to 

complete the SPAF in a situation when 

trains are operating through the limits of 

an EIC’s authority and the EIC instructs 

all trains to operate at restricted speed. 

FRA explained that the EO does not 

need amending as this is a temporary 

application of the relevant operating 

rules for the territory involved and thus 

the EIC in that situation must complete 

a SPAF. 

Another concern regarding OTE was a 

request for clarification on the SPAF 

requirements when an OTE is moving to 

a work location. FRA’s expectation is 

that the employee that receives the 

authority will complete the SPAF for all 

switches operated while under that 

authority. 

Furthermore, a SPAF is still required 

if an employee operates a switch when 

it is not necessary to receive permission 

from a dispatcher. 

Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF) 

Some commenters were confused as 

to how the EO applied to an employee, 

other than a crewmember, who lines a 

switch for a train. FRA believes the EO 

clearly conveys that each employee, 

other than a crewmember, operating a 

switch for a train must complete a SPAF 

for all switches operated. 

The SPAF’s content was also 

criticized as being too specific to train 

crews, rather than more general in 

nature so as to apply to any employee 

handling a switch. By requiring both the 

engineer’s and conductor’s names, the 

engineer’s initials for each entry, and 

the conductor’s signature when the form 

is completed, FRA addressed the 

common situation of a two-person crew 

in which the conductor is operating the 

switches. The commenters explained 

that there may be regular circumstances 

in which someone other than the 

conductor is operating a switch and 

therefore that person’s initials must 

appear on the SPAF instead of the 

conductor’s. One commenter asked 

whether a SPAF can provide spaces for 

the engineer and the person handling 

the switch to initial, and a space for the 

conductor to sign when the form is 

completed. FRA finds that such a SPAF 

would be in compliance with the EO. 

A question was raised regarding the 

requirement that the date be entered on 

the SPAF when an employee’s tour of 

duty spans two calendar days. FRA’s 

requirement is fulfilled as long as the 

date entered is the date that the tour of 

duty began. Of course, this is a 

minimum requirement and railroads are 

permitted to require multiple dates. For 

example, a railroad would be in 

compliance with the EO if it chooses to 

require the date for each switch entry 

instead of the date the crew started its 

tour of duty. Furthermore, FRA would 

certainly not find fault with an 

employee who chose to be more 

exacting than FRA has required—even if 

not required by railroad operating rules. 

Some railroads raised concerns that 

the SPAF was too specific in requiring 

employees to identify the track segment 

by a ‘‘subdivision’’ entry in that some 

railroads do not have subdivisions. FRA 

understands that some railroads do not 

have subdivisions and that instead of 

‘‘subdividion’’ the SPAF may be filled 

out to include branch, secondary track, 

or some other appropriate designation. 

FRA has added a clarifying amendment 

to address this issue. 

Communication 

A concern shared by many 

commenters was that the EO was 

written in such a way as to indicate that 

unless radio communication was 

inoperable, no alternative method of 

communication among crewmembers 

would be acceptable to indicate a switch 

position. Some railroads requested an 

amendment because they preferred to 

use a method of communication other 

than radio as their primary method, 

such as hand or whistle signals. FRA 

has issued a clarifying amendment to 

indicate that it will accept alternate 

methods of intra-crew communication 

when they afford an equivalent level of 

communication integrity relevant to the 

prevailing operating conditions. FRA 

agrees with a comment from BLET that 

there will be situations where hand 

signals do not provide unambiguous 

information, as where a ground 

employee is expected to restore a switch 

behind a movement that will not be 

using the switch to exit the area. In 

those cases, radio communications or 

face-to-face communication will be 

required. 

An Exception to Initialing the SPAF 

Prior to Leaving a Switch 

Several commenters raised concerns 

regarding the requirement that before 

employees leave the location of a 

switch, they must make the required 

entries on the SPAF ‘‘as soon as 

practicable.’’ Some commenters did not 

understand what the phrase ‘‘as soon as 

practicable’’ meant, and asked for 

clarification. Other commenters 

requested an amendment because there 

could be situations in which all 

involved employees might find it 

impracticable to initial the SPAF prior 

to leaving the switch. 

Regarding the phrase ‘‘as soon as 

practicable,’’ FRA’s expectations are 

that when employees are in close 

prosimity, the required SPAF entries 

will be personally completed by the 

individual employees before they 

actually leave the location of the switch. 

FRA is not concerned if there is some 

delay in filling out the entries on the 

SPAF if other duties would normally, 

logically, or operationally be performed 

first. Of course, if the SPAF is readily 

available to the employee, it is a best 

practice for the employee to fill out the 

form first lest the employee forget either 

to fill it out or record exactly how the 

switch was last positioned. 

FRA recognizes that there are 

operating conditions, such as extreme 

physical separation, which would make 

recording the required entries on the 

SPAF before employees leave a location 

of a switch impracticable. In 

circumstances such as this, where it is 

logistically unfeasible, and in some 

situations unsafe, to record the required 

entries on the SPAF before leaving the 

location of a switch, FRA is issuing a 

clarifying amendment so that the 

crewmember completing the SPAF may 

make an appropriate entry on the SPAF. 

An appropriate entry would state that 

the necessary radio job briefing 

concerning the switch position was 

accomplished. Furthermore, the 

crewmember completing the SPAF 

should then enter the required 

employee’s initials for that employee, 

clearly reflecting who made the entry 

(e.g., ‘‘AD for CS’’). FRA will consider 

the entries on teh SPAF for that switch 

to be complete at that time. 

For example, a conductor reverses a 

main switch for an intended 100-car 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 71187 

shoving movement into a 2-mile 

industrial lead. After lining the switch, 

the conductor begins the shoving 

movement, remaining on the leading 

end to protect the movement. When the 

engine clears the switch, the movement 

stops, and the brakeman lines the main 

track switch to its normal position, and 

the shoving movement resumes, with 

the conductor still protecting the 

lending end of the movement. In this 

case, it would be impracticable to 

require the conductor to talk back 100 

car-lengths to the engine in order to 

obtain the brakeman’s initials on the 

SPAF, and then walk back 100 carlenghts to the lending end to continue 

protecting the movement. Thus, the 

clarifying amendment would allow the 

conductor to complete the SPAF by (1) 

noting that the brakeman confirmed that 

the switch was normalized by radio, or 

other acceptable communication, and 

(2) entering the brakeman’s name or 

initials. 

Application of the Hours of Service 

Laws 

Some comments regarding the 

application of the hours of service laws 

in conjunction with the EO. One 

question was whether the act of filling 

out a SPAF is itself covered service. 

This issue raised the beggest concern for 

maintenance-of-way employees because 

they are not otherwise typically 

performing work that is considered 

covered service under the hours of 

service laws. FRA wants to be clear that 

the act of filling out any portion of a 

SPAF does not by itself trigger covered 

service. 

Meanwhile, for employees that are 

covered by the hours of service laws, the 

act of filling out a SPAF is commingled 

service that should be performed within 

the statutory period. Railroads and 

employees are responsible for 

completing all activities required of 

them within that period. A railroad that 

requires an employee to perform a task 

in the last few minutes of a tour of duty 

must be mindful of whether it is 

possible to complete all required tasks 

within the allotted time. Meanwhile, 

employees should be mindful that many 

of the accidents that led to FRA issuing 

this EO could have been prevented if 

the employees had been more diligent 

about complying with railroad operating 

rules regarding the alignment of handoperated main track switches in nonsignaled territory at the end of their 

tours of duty. Thus, regardless of the 

hours of service implications, 

employees should not hastily fill out a 

SPAF at the end of a tour of duty, with 

disregard to its accuracy, or release or 

roll up their limits without conferring 

that the entries on the SPAF have been 

completed, as these actions require the 

type of communication among 

employees that can prevent lifethreatening accidents. 

At least one commenter was 

concerned about the legistical issue of 

how the time associated with 

completion of the SPAF should be 

recorded on the time return or in the 

hours of service electronic system. For 

employees otherwise subject to the 

hours of service laws, there is no 

requirement to make a separate entry of 

the time associated with completion of 

the form. It is intended that completion 

of the form be integral to the 

accomplishment of the work, so it may 

be considered as part of covered service 

for hours of service recordkeeping 

purposes. 

II. Amendment to Emergency Order No. 

24 

The ‘‘Finding and Order’’ section of 

EO 24 is amended by adding the 

following clarifying amendments. 

Clarifying Amendments 

Instruction 

• Given that this is an emergency 

situation requiring railroads to quickly 

and effectively instruct employees, the 

minimum initial instruction and 

distribution of the EO would include a 

face-to-face on-the-job briefing covering 

the requirements of this EO and the 

operating rules to which they relate. In 

order to be effective, this job briefing 

must include examples or real time 

applications of the EO, as well as a 

reasonable opportunity for employees to 

ask questions. Regarding periodic 

instruction, railroads will include this 

instruction as part of their program of 

instruction pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11. 

• Any instruction completed prior to 

issuance of the EO is sufficient to meet 

the instruction requirements. However, 

FRA does not expect railroads to 

entirely discount prior to instruction as 

this new instruction can build upon the 

prior instruction. Thus, prior instruction 

on an unchanged operating rule does 

not need to be as in-depth as it would 

be if the employees were being 

instructed on the relevant operating 

rules for the first time. 

Hand-Operating Main Track Switches 

• EO 24 contains a requirement that 

before releasing the limits of a main 

track authority, the employee releasing 

the limits must report to the train 

dispatcher that all hand-operated main 

track switches operated have been 

restored to their normal position, unless 

the train dispatcher directs otherwise. 

This requirements remains in effect 

except that FRA will also permit the 

employee releasing the limits to report 

to the train dispatcher the switches that 

were left in the charge of a crewmember 

of another train before releasing the 

limits, if left in other than normal 

position. 

• The EO does not apply in Rule 251 

or GCOR Rule 9.14 territory, i.e., current 

traffic, signaled in one direction only. 

However, the EO is applicable if the 

signal system for a track segment is 

suspended or a track is out-of-service, 

unless the operating rules or special 

instructions require trains to approach 

all facing point hand-operated switches 

prepared to stop during the entire 

period the signal system is suspended or 

the track is out of service. 

Switch Position Awareness Form (SPAF) 

• FRA specifically amending the 

requirement that an employee operating 

a hand-operated main track switch in 

non-signaled territory shall be the 

employee to complete a SPAF. As an 

alternative, FRA will allow an employee 

responsible for on-track safety, such as 

an employee in charge (EIC), to 

complete a SPAF for all employees 

working under the EIC’s jurisdiction. An 

employee responsible for on-track safety 

pursuant to 49 CFR Part 214, Subpart C, 

may maintain a SPAF in lieu of the 

individual worker(s) operating switches. 

• In conjunction with the above 

clarifying amendment for on-track 

safety, FRA is clarifying the requirement 

in EO 24 that the SPAF must contain the 

engineer’s initials for each entry and the 

conductor’s signature when the form is 

completed because those SPAF 

requirements would not be applicable to 

an on-track safety situation. Each 

railroad may continue to use the train 

crew oriented SPAF, as described in EO 

24, Notice 1, for its on-track safety 

situations. Similarly, a railroad may 

permit its employees involved in ontrack safety the discretion to make notes 

or modify the SPAF so that it both 

contains the mandatory information and 

is understandable in the context of an 

on-track safety situation. Alternatively, 

FRA has no objection to railroads 

exceeding the EO’s requirements by 

creating a SPAF that is tailored to 

communications among employees 

involved with on-track safety. 

• FRA is amending the requirement 

that each SPAF must identify the track 

segment by a ‘‘subdivision’’ entry as not 

every railroad has subdivisions. 

Employees cannot be expected to 

provide a subdivision designation when 

no such designation exists. However, a 

railroad that does not have subdivisions 

should instruct its employees to provide 

71188 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Notices 

some other appropriate designation, 

such as branch or secondary track, for 

the ‘‘subdivision’’ entry. To facilitate the 

appropriate designation entry, a railroad 

that does not have subdivisions is 

encouraged to amend its SPAF by 

replacing the ‘‘subdivision’’ entry with 

a more suitable entry. If the exact name 

and location of a main track switch to 

be operated by an employee is 

identified, but there is no suitable entry 

for subdivision, branch, secondary 

track, etc., an employee may leave that 

entry blank or identify that entry as not 

applicable. 

• EO 24 requires that entries made 

with respect to a specific hand-operated 

main track switch is non-signaled 

territory must be recorded as soon as 

practicable after the switch is reversed, 

and as soon as practicable after the 

switch is returned to its normal position 

before leaving the location. FRA 

recognizes that there are operating 

conditions which would make recording 

the required entries on the SPAF before 

employees leave a location of a switch 

impracticable due to extreme physical 

separation. Thus, in circumstances in 

which it is logistically unfeasible or 

unsafe to record the required entries on 

the SPAF before leaving the location of 

a switch, FRA will allow the 

crewmember completing the SPAF to 

make an appropriate entry on the SPAF. 

Such entry would stat that the necessary 

radio job briefing concerning the switch 

position was accomplished. 

Furthermore, the crewmember 

completing the SPAF should then enter 

the required employee’s initials for that 

employee. FRA will consider the entries 

on the SPAF for that switch complete at 

that time. 

• When a train crew is relieved on 

line-of-road, a member of the train crew, 

typically the conductor, shall either 

retain the SPAF for the required five 

days or turn it in to the designated 

railroad official who shall retain it for 

the required period. A SPAF should not 

be left for the subsequent train crew 

unless the relieved crew purposely 

makes an extra copy for the benefit of 

the relieving crew. The purpose of EO 

24 was to establish responsibility, 

shared among the crew and the 

dispatcher, for confirmation of switch 

position for all switches operated before 

the authority is released. A subsequent 

crew will not have actual knowledge of 

the position of switches in the track 

segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew. 

Further, the declarations made on the 

SPAF are personal to each employee 

participating, and it is not possible for 

subsequent crew members to verify 

information about which they did not 

have contemporaneous knowledge. 

Accordingly, to accomplish the purpose 

of EO 24, the crew being relieved must 

contact the dispatcher and confirm the 

position of switches operated, at the 

same time releasing (rolling up) any 

portion of the authority not required by 

the relieving crew and closing out the 

SPAF. The crew going off duty would 

finalize its SPAF at that time. The 

relieving crew would then initiate a new 

SPAF. 

Radio Communication 

• EO 24 requires that train 

crewmembers shall communicate by 

radio unless the radio is inoperable. 

FRA amends the EO so that alternate 

methods of intra-crew communication 

will be acceptable, regardless of whether 

the radios are operable, when they 

afford an equivalent level of 

communication integrity relevant to the 

prevailing operating conditions. Hand 

or whistle signals are examples of 

acceptable methods of alternate intracrew communications. 

Distribution of Emergency Order 

• A railroad may retain an electronic 

receipt or acknowledgment, as an 

alternative to a written receipt or 

acknowledgment, for each employee 

affected by the EO that indicates that the 

employee was provided with a copy of 

EO 24, Notice No. 1. As long as the 

receipt or acknowledgment is a 

permanent record that is kept for each 

affected employee and can be searched 

and printed for FRA upon request, 

electronic recordkeeping is acceptable. 

The electronic recordkeeping system 

should have system integrity, to prevent 

fraudulent entries, and may be added 

onto existing systems, e.g., those 

systems that already track attendance at 

railroad operating rules classes. If those 

systems do not allow employees to enter 

an acknowledgment, the attendance 

sheet at the face-to-face job briefing on 

the EO should reflect that the attendee’s 

signature reflects both attendance and 

receipt of a copy of the EO. 

• FRA is not requiring railroads to 

provide a copy of this Notice No. 2 to 

all affected employees. Certainly, any 

railroad that amends its operating rules 

with regard to Notice No. 2 will need to 

instruct its employees accordingly and 

may choose to post or distribute this 

notice. 

The ‘‘Relief’’ section of Emergency 

Order No. 24 is amended in its entirety 

to read as follows: 

Relief 

Petitions for special approval to take 

action not in accordance with EO 24 

may be submitted to the Associate 

Administrator for Safety, who shall be 

authorized to dispose of those requests 

without the necessity of amending this 

EO. In reviewing any petition for special 

review, the Associate Administrator for 

Safety shall only grant petitions in 

which a petitioner has clearly 

articulated an alternative action that 

will provide, in the Associate 

Administrator for Safety’s judgment, at 

least an equivalent level of safety as this 

EO provides. A copy of this petition 

should be submitted to the Docket 

Clerk, Department of Transportation 

Central Docket Management System, 

Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Such request may be in written 

or electronic form consistent with the 

standards and requirements established 

by the Central Docket Management 

System and posted on its Web site at 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

FRA recognizes that certain railroad 

operating rules or equipment used by 

some railroads already provide a level of 

safety equivalent to this EO. If all of a 

railroad’s hand-operated main track 

switches in non-signaled territory are 

covered by one or more of the protective 

measures identified below, a railroad 

need not apply for relief from this EO 

as relief shall be deemed automatically 

granted. FRA also grants automatic 

relief on a line segment basis when the 

relief is predicated on a permanent 

application of the relevant operating 

rules and special instructions for the 

territory involved. Relief from this EO is 

automatically granted when: 

• Operating rules require trains to 

approach all facing point hand-operated 

switches in non-signaled territory 

prepared to stop; 

• Hand-operated main track switches 

in non-signaled territory (unless out of 

service) are protected by distant switch 

indicators; or 

• Hand-operated main track switches 

in non-signaled territory are protected 

by switch point indicators accepted by 

the Associate Administrator as 

providing safety equivalent to that 

provided by positioning and securing of 

switches in compliance with this order. 

This amendment is effective from the 

date of issue of this notice. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

18, 2005. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–23303 Filed 11–21–05; 4:31 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–M