The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recently unveiled their website redesign. The site highlights numerous aspects of rail safety focused on the public, first responders and law enforcement. Click here to view the FRA’s upgraded site.
Tag: FRA
Support among railroaders, unions, states and others has come in the wake of last week’s Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) proposed two-person crew rule.
The proposed rule comes after a completed study by the FRA comparing two accidents: the Lac-Megantic, Quebec, derailment (operated by a one crewmember) and the Casselton, N.D. derailment (operated by three persons). After studying the two accidents, FRA determined that two-person crews are safer for all involved and published a proposed rule in the Federal Register.
Read more from People’s World.
Progressive Railroading reported that the Federal Railroad Administration is seeking public input as to whether federal regulations concerning the use of locomotive horns at public grade crossings should be changed. Read the entire story here.
CantonRep.com reported that Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) inspectors are now analyzing evidence to determine what led to the derailment of eight rail cars in the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway yard in Brewster, Ohio, on Monday, Feb. 1, 2016.
Cargo included flammable liquid that ignited upon impact, forcing the evacuation of hundreds of nearby residents. Investigators noted that the fire could have been much worse.
Read the complete story here.
On Monday, January 25, John Previsich, president of SMART Transportation Division, filed a letter with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in strong support of the FRA’s efforts to clarify vision standards and testing for locomotive engineers and conductors. Read the complete article here.
Enforcement push is part of broader effort to increase overall rail safety
WASHINGTON – The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced that its stepped-up enforcement of railroad safety regulations led to the highest-ever civil penalty collection rate in the agency’s 50-year history.
For Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the agency will collect 75 percent of all civil penalties it issued to railroads for violating federal safety regulations – a six percent increase over FY2014, and the largest percentage rate ever collected by the agency. The total amount of civil penalties in FY2015, $15 million, increased by 12 percent compared to the previous year.
“Safety must be the number one priority for every railroad, and the Department of Transportation will continue to take aggressive action against railroads who fail to follow safety rules,” said U.S Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “A strong safety enforcement program is critical to prevent accidents, save lives and move our country forward.”
FRA’s collection rate is the highest in the agency’s history and significantly higher than previous years.
| Year | Collection Rate |
| FY 2015 | 75% |
| FY 2014 | 69% |
| FY 2013 | 68% |
| FY 2012 | 69% |
| FY 2011 | 68% |
| FY 2010 | 68% |
| FY 2009 | 67% |
Last year, more than 6,485 railroad company violations resulted in civil penalties. The largest portion of those violations, 29 percent, was for motive power and equipment violations, followed by 26 percent for track violations.
| FRA Safety Discipline | Violations Resulting in a Civil Penalty | Percentage |
| Hazmat | 1,327 | 20% |
| MP&E | 1,869 | 29% |
| OP | 1,184 | 18% |
| Signal & Train Control | 416 | 7% |
| Track | 1,689 | 26% |
| TOTAL | 6,485 |
“Setting a record for collections is an important milestone, but it is just one element of FRA’s broader effort to achieve a safer rail system,” said FRA Administrator Sarah E. Feinberg. “As we continue to aggressively enforce safety regulations, FRA will also continue to implement new, innovative solutions to increase safety.”
The stepped-up enforcement of safety regulations is part of the Federal Railroad Administration’s larger, comprehensive effort to increase safety of the nation’s rail system. Administrator Feinberg has also prioritized railroad crossing safety, improving the safety of hazmat and crude transport, increasing transparency and working more closely with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
To read the full report, visit: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17311#p1_z5_gD
Both inspectors for a state rail safety program — aimed to prevent such fiery derailments involving crude oil as happened this year near Weimdal, N.D. — have been hired and are training with federal inspectors.
In July, an agreement was approved by the Public Service Commission with the Federal Railroad Administration to begin a pilot rail safety program in the state. The program is to supplement the work of the several FRA inspectors assigned to North Dakota and several other states in the region.
Read more from The Bismarck Tribune.
CHICAGO — The Federal Railroad Administration told SMART Transportation Division it has filed a violation against the Union Pacific Railroad in response to a union complaint that the railroad ordered a train crew to work outside its assigned territory while being piloted by a manager who was not qualified on the physical characteristics of the territory.
FRA Region IV Administrator Steve Illich informed SMART TD Illinois Legislative Director Robert W. Guy of the agency’s action in a letter dated October 27.
The incident under investigation by the FRA was reported to the Illinois Legislative Board by a member of the crew of a Bloomington-based local assigned to UP’s Springfield Subdivision.
Although the southern boundary of the territory for which the crew was qualified ends at Milepost 222, Carlinville, Ill., the May 28 job was ordered to retrieve some maintenance-of-way equipment spotted at milepost 234 near Shipman, Ill., 12 miles further south in territory over which none of the crew members were qualified.
“The standard procedure in such cases is to supply the crew with a pilot, normally a fellow transportation employee, who is qualified over the territory,” Guy said.
“But it turned out the UP manager assigned as pilot wasn’t qualified on that territory either,” Guy said. “In fact, he had never been over that track on a moving train, and he not only admitted his lack of qualification but claimed it wasn’t important.”
In his report to the SMART TD Illinois State Legislative Board, the conductor said that he and the engineer, “made it very clear that we were not comfortable having a pilot that he himself [admitted] was not qualified on the territory. His reply was that it was CTC, how hard could it be?”
The conductor asked the manager whether he had a copy of the work orders for the assignment. The manager allegedly replied that all he needed to know was that the ballast undercutter, two flat cars and two hopper cars of ballast were restricted to 25 miles-per-hour.
“The only paperwork I saw was that he had a timetable,” the conductor told the legislative board.
Guy said the crew handled the incident in exactly the right way.
“They notified the manager pilot that they weren’t comfortable,” Guy said. “Then once their tour was over they documented the incident and forwarded the details to local SMART TD officers for handling.”
“The FRA investigator in charge even noted the accuracy of the crew members’ statements regarding the manager pilot,” Guy said. “Once confronted, another UP manager stated that the pilot was not qualified on that segment of track.”
Guy also said he was “appalled” by the cavalier attitude of the manager pilot as witnessed by the crew involved in the May 28 incident.
“It’s not just that this official violated Part 240.231 of Section 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations,” Guy said. “It’s that he did it in such a flagrant and dismissive manner.”
Guy said the manager’s attitude is even more inappropriate in view of the territory where his violation occurred.
“The UP main line between Joliet and Alton has been one continual construction zone so it can be upgraded for 110-mph Amtrak service,” Guy said.
“This territory is full of equipment and manpower, and the track and bridge work migrates to different locations every day,” Guy said.
“Slow orders, Form Bs and other notices related to train movements can be issued and abolished quickly, which is why a crew unfamiliar with the track needs a pilot who knows not only the geography of the alignment but the way the railroad is using it from moment to moment.
“If a train crew is not familiar with the pilot assigned to their job, they should always question the qualifications of that pilot to determine if in fact the person is suitable to serve in that capacity.”
On May 8, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), published a final rule entitled, “Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains,” which adopted requirements designed to reduce the consequences and, in some instances, reduce the probability of accidents involving trains transporting large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids.
The Hazardous Materials Regulations provide a person the opportunity to appeal a PHMSA action, including a final rule. PHMSA received six appeals regarding the final rule, one of which was withdrawn.
The five remaining appeals were submitted by the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC), American Chemistry Council (ACC), Association of American Railroads (AAR), American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and jointly the Umatilla, Yakama, Warm Springs, and Nez Perce tribes (Columbia River Treaty Tribes) and the Quinault Indian Nation (Northwest Treaty Tribes).
Dangerous Goods Advisory Council
The DGAC contends that the applicability of the final rule should be limited to the transportation of crude oil and ethanol trains, which, it says, was the stated intention of the rule. DGAC argues that, if the Department wishes to pursue enhanced tank car standards and operational requirements for other Class 3 (flammable liquid) materials, it should do so in a separate rulemaking.
American Chemistry Council
ACC believes that the scope of the final rule will inadvertently affect nearly 40,000 legacy DOT-111 tank cars that transport Class 3 flammable liquids that were not accounted for in the accompanying RIA. ACC states that because a shipper cannot know how a carrier will assemble a train, the possibility that a shipper’s tank car will be placed into an HHFT will force all shippers of Class 3 materials to retrofit or purchase tank cars to meet the DOT-117R or DOT-117 specification. ACC believes that, coupled with a retrofit timeline that does not match the Canadian timeline, the final rule will fail to properly address the risks associated with hazardous materials offered and transported in unit trains.
Association of American Railroads
AAR contests the scope of the final rule because it permits shippers to continue to package Class 3 flammable liquid materials in tank cars that do not meet the new DOT-117 tank car standard. AAR states that PHMSA has created two pools of tank cars, those that meet the heightened standard for HHFTs and those that do not. As a result, AAR asserts, shippers may continue to offer Class 3 flammable liquid materials in DOT-111 tank cars as long as the DOT-111 is not placed in an HHFT. According to AAR, this places an unjustified burden on the railroads to continuously analyze the composition of each train transporting Class 3 flammable liquid materials in DOT-111 tank cars. AAR claims that PHMSA’s argument, that through fleet management the railroads can avoid this issue, is baseless. AAR believes that PHMSA should harmonize with Canada by banning the use of DOT-111 tank cars for transporting any Class 3 flammable liquid materials. By failing to harmonize with Canada in this respect, AAR contends that the U.S. market will become flooded with legacy DOT-111 tank cars, which will further exacerbate the fleet management challenges U.S. railroads will face to construct trains to avoid meeting the definition of an HHFT. To support its appeal, AAR submitted waybill data from its subsidiary Railinc showing numbers of flammable liquid shipments tendered in smaller groups of cars that do not by themselves meet the definition of an HHFT. Data from the first quarter of 2015 illustrate that 37,000 cars of flammable liquids (other than crude oil and ethanol) were tendered in blocks of 20 cars or fewer. During the same period, 37,576 tank cars of other flammable liquids (other than the 25,009 tank cars of crude oil or 39,956 tank cars of ethanol) were tendered in groups of fewer than 35 cars. According to AAR, had the final rule been in effect, a total of 102,541 cars of flammable liquids could have moved in existing DOT-111s. AAR contends that PHMSA should specify a sunset date for discontinuing the use of DOT-111 tank cars for hazardous materials not in an HHFT.
Summary of PHMSA and FRA response
PHMSA denies the appellants’ (DGAC, ACC, AAR, AFPM, and Treaty Tribes) appeals on Scope of Rulemaking, Tribal Impacts and Consultation, Retrofit Timeline and Tank Car Reporting Requirements, Thermal Protection for Tank Cars, and Advanced Brake Signal Propagation Systems. We conclude we reasonably determined how to apply new regulations and provided the regulatory analysis to support those decisions. While we understand that shippers, carriers, and tank car manufacturers for Class 3 flammable liquids will face new challenges in the wake of these regulations, we maintain that they are capable of complying with the final rule. We also deny DGAC’s appeal to eliminate or provide further guidance for the Sampling and Testing program. The sampling and testing program is reasonable, justified, necessary and clear as written. Additionally, we disagree that a delayed compliance date of March 31, 2016 should be provided for implementation of the requirements in § 173.41 for shippers to implement changes for training and documentation.
With respect to Information Sharing/Notification, PHMSA announced in a May 28, 2015, notice that it would extend the Emergency Order applicable to the topic of Information Sharing/Notification indefinitely, while it considered options for codifying the disclosure requirement permanently. Furthermore, on July 22, 2015, FRA issued a public letter instructing railroads transporting crude oil that they must continue to notify SERCs of the expected movement of Bakken crude oil trains through individual States. While the treaty tribes and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment on these future regulatory proposals in the course of that rulemaking proceeding, PHMSA will continue to seek opportunities to reach out to the tribes and consultation from tribal leaders.
Click here to read the full ruling.
Seeks input from public, stakeholders before Jan. 30, 2016 for final vision
WASHINGTON – The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today released a Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for NEC FUTURE, FRA’s long-term investment framework for the Northeast Corridor (NEC) between Washington, DC and Boston, Mass.
“Over the next 30 years, an additional six million people will live along this corridor. To keep everyone to move safely, quickly and efficiently, we need smart planning and significant investment in the Northeast Corridor,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “We are seeking input as we work toward developing a long-term vision that will prioritize rail investments to ensure a vibrant and safe future for the northeast region and the nation.”
The Tier 1 Draft EIS includes alternative visions for investment in the NEC. The visions range from maintaining the current level of investment and service to significant investment that would dramatically increase rail’s role in transportation for the Northeast. FRA will hold 11 public hearings to gather input and feedback from stakeholders that will inform FRA’s decision on a preferred investment program.
The NEC is the nation’s busiest rail corridor, with more than 700,000 passengers traveling each weekday through eight states and the District of Columbia. The NEC contributes more than $100 million every day to the Northeast’s economy, but it currently operates on outdated infrastructure, much of it built more than 100 years ago, with capacity constraints that cannot accommodate future growth. Choke points and aging infrastructure often disrupt the system’s reliability and performance.
“Trains that connect our nation’s university hub to its financial center to its capital ride over bridges built before 1910 and through tunnels built after the Civil War,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg. “NEC FUTURE will guide the region in developing a long-term framework to build a stronger Northeast Corridor that supports economic growth and creates jobs.”
The Tier 1 Draft EIS, which outlines the various visions, is now available for download and review by the public at www.necfuture.com. Print copies are also available at libraries throughout the region.
FRA considered a broad range of alternatives for the NEC, beginning in 2012 with a public scoping process and analysis of travel markets. In 2013, the FRA consolidated nearly 100 initial concepts into 15 visions (Preliminary Alternatives) that varied by level of investment, service, and route. In 2014, the FRA evaluated the Preliminary Alternatives and identified three distinct Action Alternatives; these have been refined and analyzed in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. Each Action Alternative represents a different long-term vision for improving passenger rail service that will enhance mobility options, improve performance, and better serve existing and future passengers in the study area.
Public Hearings
The hearings provide an opportunity for public input on the Tier 1 Draft EIS. No decision has been made on which alternative best meets the region’s needs, and the FRA will consider all comments received during the comment period in making its decision.
FRA will hold public hearings in each of the eight states along the NEC and the District of Columbia. Hearings will be held from 4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. on the following dates and locations:
- 12/9, Boston, MA – Back Bay Events Center, 180 Berkeley Street
- 12/14, New Haven, CT – Gateway Community College, 20 Church Street
- 12/15, New York, NY – CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue (at 34th Street)
- 12/16, Washington, DC – Hall of States, 444 North Capitol Street, NW
- 12/17, Providence, RI – Rhode Island Department of Administration, One Capitol Hill
- 1/11, Philadelphia, PA – SEPTA, 1234 Market Street, Mezzanine Level
- 1/12, Mineola, NY – Nassau County Municipal Building, 1550 Franklin Avenue
- 1/13, Hartford, CT – The Lyceum, 227 Lawrence Street
- 1/14, Baltimore, MD – University of Baltimore, 21 W. Mt. Royal Avenue, 5th Floor
- 1/19, Newark, NJ – NJ Transit, 1 Raymond Plaza East, 9th floor
- 1/20, Wilmington, DE – Delaware Technical Community College, 333 Shipley Street
Each hearing will include brief presentations at 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. There will be an opportunity to speak following each presentation. Individuals planning to speak should sign up when they arrive. A stenographer will also be available for private testimony.
In the event of inclement weather, hearings may be canceled or rescheduled. Please check the website at www.necfuture.com. Persons requiring special assistance to attend a hearing should contact the NEC FUTURE team at comment@necfuture.com.
Email links icon at least five days prior to the hearing they wish to attend.
Public Comment Period
The public comment period for the Tier 1 Draft EIS is open until January 30, 2016. Comments may be submitted orally or in writing at the public hearings listed above, online at www.necfuture.com, by email to comment@necfuture.com.
Email links icon, or sent to: Rebecca Reyes-Alicea, USDOT Federal Railroad Administration, One Bowling Green, Suite 429, New York, NY 10004. Comments must be received by January 30, 2016, to ensure that they are considered and added to the public record.
More information is available at www.necfuture.com.