Opinion ID: 765540
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Blue Signal Regulations

Text: 35 In 1993, the FRA promulgated a new rule regarding utility employees temporarily assigned to work with train or yard crews. Some background is necessary to understand the FRA's rule-making. Since 1970, the FRA's regulations had distinguished train and yard crews from workers. 4 The former were the engineers, conductors, and brakemen who were assigned to a particular train--rolling equipment. Workmen were employees who were not a part of a particular crew but whose job required them to work on, under, or between rolling equipment doing such things as inspecting or repairing locomotives and cars. When a worker was working on, under, or between rolling equipment, he was required to comply with certain blue signal rules found in 29 C.F.R. part 218. Essentially, the worker posted a blue flag or sign on or near the train. No one could then move the train until he had found the worker who posted the blue signal and verified that the worker was not in danger when the train moved. Train and yard crew members were generally excluded from the blue signal requirement. The logic of the rule is simply that one of the greatest dangers to an employee working around rolling equipment is that the equipment might move unexpectedly because of a lack of communication between the crew and a worker. Because train and yard crews work together as a team and keep in constant communication, there is much less danger of the engineer unexpectedly moving the train while another crewman is, for example, uncoupling a car. 36 In 1993, however, the FRA modified its regulations to account for substantial changes in the typical size of train crews, and the development of a new type of employee: the utility employee. In announcing the new regulation, the FRA stated: 37 Since promulgation of the regulation [in 1970], the size of train and yard crews has been significantly reduced through the collective bargaining process and increased operating efficiencies. Implementation of the recommendations of Presidential Emergency Board No. 219 (PEB 219) (see Pub. L. No. 102-29, 1991) is greatly accelerating this process. Through this and prior processes, crews that once consisted of a locomotive engineer, fireman, conductor, and two trainmen, have in many cases been reduced to a locomotive engineer and conductor only. 38 58 Fed. Reg. 43288. As the crew sizes decreased, many railroads began using utility employees who were attached temporarily to train and yard crews. Under the prior regulations, there was confusion and disagreement about whether these utility employees were train and yard crew members, thus excluded from the blue signal requirement, or were workers who were not. After studying the situation, in 1993 the FRA changed the regulations to expressly account for the changes in the industry. The new regulations defined train and yard crews, utility employees, and workers, and set out when each was subject to the blue signal requirement. In so doing, the FRA recognized that sometimes train or yard crews had only one person, and it adopted a different standard for such crews. 39 The regulations provided that a utility employee could be part of train and yard crews, and so excluded from the blue signal requirement, only when an engineer was at the controls of the locomotive, or at least in the cab. 29 C.F.R. sec. 218.22(c) & (e). The FRA explained that [t]he presence and vigilance of the engineer at of the controlling locomotive is essential. 58 Fed. Reg. 43291. The FRA permitted, however, another member of the train or yard crew to go into the cab if the engineer had to perform some function outside. Id. The notice also explained: 40 A single locomotive engineer in helper service, or a single hostler may not take advantage of the exclusion from blue signal protection unless joined by a utility employee. Absent a crew member to monitor the locomotive, blue signal protection is required. 41 Id. The exclusion of single-person train and yard crews from the blue signal protection was noted only in the preamble to the new rule, not in the text itself. The FRA later explained why it had done so: 42 FRA's notice of proposed rule making requested comment on the protection needed for a single locomotive engineer performing helper or hostler service. . . . Protecting one-member crews was therefore within the scope of the notice. FRA chose not to address the subject in rule text because no comments were received. In the preamble to the final rule, however, FRA expressed discomfort with one-member crews. It was stated that a lone engineer could not take advantage of the exclusion from blue signal protection unless joined by a utility employee to ensure that the locomotive cab was always occupied. 43 60 Fed. Reg. 11047. 44 In response to the preamble's making one-person train and yard crews subject to the blue signal requirement, the AAR petitioned the FRA for reconsideration. On March 1, 1995, the FRA announced an amendment to the rule. 60 Fed. Reg. 11047. The FRA summary stated [t]he amendment will permit single-person crews to work within the protections provided for train and yard crews. Id. The FRA expressed its continued concern with the unique risk faced by lone engineers despite the current lack of evidence of a substantial injury record for one-member crews. An engineer assigned to helper or hostler service must frequently perform work, such as placing rear end markers or making connections between locomotives, that puts that employee in danger, particularly when this work is performed in 11047, 11048. So the FRA issued a new regulation, 49 C.F.R. sec. 218.24, which permitted a lone engineer to work on, under, or between rolling stock without blue signal protection only if certain specified conditions were met. The regulation also covered how a single engineer in helper service would communicate with the crew he was assisting and how the two crews would go about moving their respective trains. In response to this new rule for one-person crews, the FRA received numerous comments and petitions. After reviewing them, the FRA suspended the regulation as of its effective date, May 15, 1995. 60 Fed. Reg. 30469. The FRA also reopened the comment period on the amendment regarding only the issue of one-person crews and the comment period is apparently still open. 45