Mark Lindsey
Chief Counsel
Federal Railroad Administration
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: Roadway Worker Protection 49 CFR Parts 214 FRA Docket No. RSOR 13, Notice No. 6
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration appreciated the opportunity to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on May 13, 1996. The proposed rule would require employers to have a program for on-track safety for employees.
Your office contacted my staff and discussed the issues raised in our previous letter. We have found the FRA to be very responsive to our concerns.
After consultation, the Office of Advocacy and FRA have agreed that the agency will use the Surface Transportation Board's class III definition of railroads for the analysis required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The decision is based on current available data. The industry of course must be given the opportunity to comment on the alternative size standard in this rulemaking. FRA assesses that most small railroads (i.e., firms with less than 1,500 employees)fall within the class III definition and a few are in class II. We are especially concerned about the companies and nonprofit organizations operating tourist railroads. While many of the requirements placed on the large railroads are appropriate, we want to assure that the contribution of tourist railways, as well as other small railroads, to particular regulatory problems are proportional to their regulatory burden (e.g., worker safety standards and accident reporting). By focusing analysis on class III railroads, the agency should be able to address this concern.
The issues we raised about the impact of this particular rulemaking related to contractors and tourist railroads. We understand that a contractor organization testified at a public meeting and did not object to this rulemaking. However, FRA is clarifying for the industry how a contractor's responsibilities to FRA relates to their obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
We also understand that FRA is estimating that the non-general system exemption will exempt 180 of the 220 tourist railroads. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency will address in the regulatory preamble and analysis how the cost of compliance is not significant for the small railroads that must comply. The analysis should further the agency's argument that the regulation, including the costs and benefits associated with it, will effectively address a proven problem for small railroads.
We want to emphasize that small railroads' regulatory burden should effectively change behavior, and the burden should not outweigh their actual contribution to the problem.
We recognize that FRA has a tremendous responsibility for America's railways. The Office of Advocacy appreciates the opportunity to work with the agency. Please contact me or Anita Drummond of my staff if you have any further questions about our comments or the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Sincerely,
Jere W. Glover
Chief Counsel for Advocacy
cc: Honorable Sally Katzen
May 14, 1996
Docket Clerk
Office of Chief Counsel
Room 8201
Federal Railroad Administration
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: Railroad Worker Protection
49 CFR Parts 214
FRA Docket No. RSOR 13, Notice No. 6
To the docket officer:
Please be advised this comment was sent the Office of Chief Counsel by facsimile on May 13, 1996. Please place the original in the record.
Regards,
Anita Drummond
Policy Advocate Enclosure