railroad safety advisory committee (rsac) federal railroad administration
TRANSCRIPT
Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Advisory Committees Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC) History Interest Based Bargaining General RSAC Structure RSAC Process Current RSAC Efforts
April 2008 – Office of Safety
Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972) applies
whenever the President or an agency
establishes or uses an outside group to receive
recommendations
The Negotiated Rulemaking
Act was passed by Congress
in 1990
Federal Advisory Committees
In 1994, the FRA established it’s first “ad hoc” formal
regulatory negotiation committee (“Reg-Neg”) to address
roadway worker safety
The resulting rulemaking both developed a new rule that
would reduce/eliminate the deaths and injuries occurring
to the industry’s roadway or track side workers and
demonstrated the validity of collaborative rulemaking FRA’s successful use of negotiated rulemaking pointed
to the need for the establishment of a formal advisory committee and process
Federal Advisory Committees & the FRA
RSAC History
The success of the initial government-industry working groups led
FRA to transition from;
March 1996 The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) was
officially chartered by the Secretary of Transportation and was
comprised of 48 voting representatives drawn from 27 member
organizations representing large and small railroads, rail labor
organizations, state associations, rail passenger representatives
with suppliers and other interested parties participating as non-
voting associate or advisory partners
a hear-and-decide
regulatory procedure a consensus model
Essentially RSAC provides a forum where:
“Enhanced communication enables all concerned stakeholders to become more directly involved in improving our Nation’s rail safety through a collaborative rulemaking
process”
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
RSAC History
Established to develop new regulatory standards, through a
collaborative process, with all segments of the rail community to find
solutions on safety regulatory issues
RSAC:
Early milestones:
Track Safety Standards revision (final 1998) Railroad Communications (final 1998)
RAIL INDUSTRY EXPERTS
WISDOM RESOURCESEXPERIENCE PRODUCE RESPONSIVEFLEXIBLE
BENEFICAL
RULES
RSAC History
Since the RSAC was federally chartered on March 25, 1996,
thirty-eight tasks have been accepted and more than 500
Committee, working group, and task force meetings have
been conducted to address critical railroad safety issues
Full RSAC Committee today - 37 organizations representing
labor, railroads, suppliers, States, chemical suppliers and
passenger advocates - plus advisors from FTA, NTSB, TSA,
Canada, Mexico, and other diverse groups
RSAC Today
RSAC Today
RSAC Guiding Principles
Decisions about the best approach to safety is made with full
participation of all affected parties
Provide a continuing forum for advice and recommendations to FRA on
major railroad safety issues
Seek agreement on the facts and data underlying any real or perceived
safety problems
Identify cost-effective solutions to safety problems and regulatory
options to implement solutions
RSAC is solely advisory in nature
The RSAC provides advice and recommendations on specific tasks
assigned to it by FRA
RSAC may elect to accept or reject a task, or to recommend that a
task be restructured
Working groups are formed for each task; they are comprised of
stakeholders interested in the particular subject area, as determined
by the chair after expressions of interest
Working group recommendations can only proceed to full RSAC
committee with consensus among stakeholders
FRA sets a target date for the presentation of RSAC’s
recommendations to the Administrator
FRA may withdraw a task from the RSAC at any time
RSAC Guiding Principles
RSAC Process Flow
Initial working group meeting
WG Deliberations
WG Reaches Consensus
RSAC forms working groups (WG)
WG presentation to RSAC
RSAC Considers
WG Recommendations
Presentation of RSAC
Recommendations to Administrator
FRA Publishes Proposed and Final
Rulemaking Actions
WG undertakes task
& acts as staff to RSAC
Chairperson briefs on task, resources, and
timetable for completion
Address relevant facts
Define safety problem
Develop options
All participants must support
recommendations of the group for consensus to
be reached
RSAC accepts task from FRA
How Caucus Works
During RSAC proceedings, a group represented by several
members, or even one member, can ask for a caucus to
meet privately within their group
The person/s who have requested a caucus break report
back to the RSAC group the results of their caucus
It is important that the members maintain clear channels of
communication with the organization that they represent
and accurately convey the organizations position on an
issue
How Caucus Works
This method is used routinely and effectively for the following reasons: To clarify unity of the vote
To request information from additional experts To clarify their private discussions To verify the group’s position prior to a vote To compose documents to present their positions To review their positions
Upon invitation, FRA staff may meet with a caucus to gain a better understanding on the concerns underlying expressed positions
Principles of Interest Based Bargaining
A bargaining technique in which the parties start with (or
at least focus on); Interests rather than proposals
Agree on criteria of acceptability that will be used to evaluate
alternatives
Generate several alternatives that are consistent with their
interests
Apply the agreed-upon acceptability criteria to the alternatives so
generated in order to arrive at mutually acceptable positions
Principles of Interest Based Bargaining
Successful Interest Based Bargaining depends in large measure upon the following:
Mutual trust Candor Willingness to share information
But even where these are lacking, the technique, with its focus on interests and on developing alternatives, tends to make the parties more flexible and open to alternative solutions and thus increases the likelihood of agreement
General RSAC Structure
The RSAC consists of three membership levels, all of which will reflect representative parity:
The RSAC full Committee, which is appointed and chaired by FRA;
Working groups responsible for developing recommendations on one or more specific tasks assigned to the RSAC; and
Task Forces that develop data and recommended actions with respect to elements of tasks assigned to working groups
General RSAC Structure
TASK FORCES
“TF”
WORKING GROUPS
“WG”
FULL RSAC COMMITTEE
Develops data and recommended actions with respect to elements of tasks assigned to working groups
Develops recommendationson one or more specific tasks assigned to RSAC
Accepts or rejects tasks from FRA, appoints and assigns tasks to working groups, approves or rejects WG recommendations
Task Statements
Task statements are drafted by FRA with approval of Administrator
38 accepted tasks to date Tasks are numbered by year i.e.
2008-01 Contain a purpose, description,
specifics and target dates for deliverables
Authority & Responsibility
The RSAC and all Working Groups established under authority of the RSAC will:
Seek agreement on the facts and data underlying any real or perceived safety problem
Identify cost effective solutions based on the agreed-upon facts
Identify regulatory options where necessary to implement those solutions
Voting
Proxy voting is essential to accommodate the busy schedules of those who will serve at the various levels without jeopardizing representation of their interests
Voting by proxy is permitted at any of the three levels, using a simple form developed by RSAC to record them
The RSAC, working group, or task force can choose to waive the use of written proxy as long as the proxy is noted in the records of the meeting
Working Group Formation
RSAC establishes a working group to undertake
each program development task (e.g.,
rulemaking or issue to be examined for possible
rulemaking)
A working group may be assigned more than
one task if tasks are clearly related, but standing
working groups are not employed
Working Group Formation
The working group functions as staff to the RSAC
and is comprised of individual representatives
from RSAC member organizations who may be,
but need not be, RSAC members themselves
That working group will be dissolved when the
task is completed (normally following issuance of
a final rule or decision not to institute rulemaking)
Working Group Deliberations
The working group meets as necessary, assigning
responsibility for specific tasks and formulating the
structure of their recommendations to the RSAC
If the working group has established a task force,
the working group is responsible for ensuring that
it meets the goal set for reporting to the working
group
Working Group Deliberations
For each task assigned, the working group
addresses the relevant facts, defines the safety
problem presented, develops a range of options
and decides upon a recommended option
When necessary to reach agreement on the
relevant facts, the working group is expected to
visit appropriate sites on railroads to observe the
facts directly
Working Group Deliberations
The working group will operate by full consensus,
with all participants supporting the
recommendations of the group, after having had
ample opportunity to persuade others of the
rightness of their preferred positions
Consensus: If all participants can live with and
support the final working group recommendation
Task Force Formation
The working group may establish a task force on any task
This may be especially useful where significant fact finding and data development are necessary, where the working group has more than one task at a time, and/or where the overall task assigned by FRA can be efficiently divided into sub-tasks
Task Force Formation
The task force reports to the working group that
established it
The task force must adopt its report by full
consensus, i.e., unanimously
When full consensus cannot be reached, the
task force notifies the working group of this fact
Working Group Presentation to the RSAC
Once the working group has reached consensus about its recommendations to the full RSAC, the RSAC Chairperson is notified
The RSAC receives the working group report and considers whether to adopt the recommendations set forth in the report
The working group normally presents its recommendations during a public meeting of the RSAC but mail ballot may be employed with prior briefing with the Committee’s approval
The Chairperson places the working group
presentation on the agenda for the next RSAC
meeting
Public notice of the presentation of the working
group’s recommendations to the RSAC is
published in the Federal Register, indicating the
date, time, and location for the meeting
Working Group Presentation to the RSAC
Working Group Presentation to the RSAC
When the RSAC meeting is convened, the
working group spokesperson presents its
recommendations to the RSAC and:
1. Responds to any questions regarding the factual
basis of the recommendations
2. Responds to any questions regarding the options
reviewed
3. Responds to any questions regarding specific
considerations bearing on those options
Having received the full consensus recommendations
of the working group, the RSAC has the following three
options:
1. By full consensus (unanimous vote), accept the working
group’s recommendations and forward them to the
Administrator without change
2. By majority consensus, accept the working group’s
recommendations and forward them, without change, to
the Administrator along with any non-consensus views
offered by any non-concurring voting members of RSAC
that were not represented on the working group
Committee Consideration of Recommendations (cont)
Committee Consideration of Recommendations (cont)
3. By full consensus (unanimous vote) return the working
group’s recommendations to the working group for
further consideration of specific issues
With regard to a particular task, the third option is
available only once
In event that there is no majority consensus to send
the working group’s recommendations to the
Administrator, but also no unanimous consensus to
return the task to the working group, the Chairperson
shall;
Formally report to the Administrator that no RSAC
recommendations will be made on that particular task
Task is normally withdrawn
Committee Consideration of Recommendations (cont)
The same is true where, on the second time before the
RSAC, there is no majority consensus to send the
working group’s recommendations to the Administrator
(In this case return to the working group no longer being
an option)
The RSAC considers the working group’s
recommendations in their entirety, seeking consensus for
approval of the recommendations as a whole
Committee Consideration of Recommendations (cont)
For the recommendation to be submitted to FRA, the
voting members of RSAC must approve the working
group’s recommendation without change
The full RSAC is not the appropriate level at which to
write or rewrite detailed recommendations. That is the
job of the working groups
Committee Consideration of Recommendations (cont)
Members of the RSAC consider whether they can live
with and support the recommendations embodied in the
working group report, taken as a whole. FRA employs
its full resources and energy to encourage and facilitate
the achievement of consensus
Committee Consideration of Recommendations (cont)
Recommendations to the Administrator
Once the RSAC reaches consensus, the Chairperson
transmits the RSAC’s recommendations to the
Administrator
If, with regard to a particular task, there was no full
consensus at the task force or working group level, or no
majority consensus at the RSAC level, the RSAC reports
the absence of consensus to the Administrator
In the absence of consensus recommendations, FRA will
simply determine the best course of action on a
particular issue without benefit of the RSAC’s advice
FRA may withdraw a task from RSAC at any time, and
will provide the RSAC an explanation when it does so
Recommendations to the Administrator
Proposed and Final Actions
To the maximum extent practicable, FRA utilizes the RSAC
to provide consensus recommendations with respect both
to proposed and final agency action
Except for those limited circumstances where an
opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary, FRA
provides to the general public in the Federal Register
notice of its regulatory proposals, an opportunity to
comment in writing, and an opportunity for an oral
presentation (hearing)
Proposed and Final Actions
Following issuance of a proposed rule, FRA may
request RSAC assist the FRA in considering
comments received.
With respect to either a proposed or final rule,
FRA may schedule one or more meetings of the
RSAC during which information and views are
received from other interested persons
Regulations
Any rules resulting from the RSAC process must be:
1. Reasonable, clear, effective, and enforceable
2. Impose as small a burden as is practicable
3. Specify performance objectives (to the extent
feasible), rather than specifying the behavior or
manner of compliance
Historical Accomplishments
Task 96-2: Track Safety Standards, general revision; final rule published June 22, 1998.
Task 96-3: Railroad Communications; final rule published September 4, 1998.
Task 96-5: Steam Powered Locomotives, revision of inspection standards; final rule published November 17, 1999.
Task 96-6: Locomotive Engineer Qualification and Certification; final rule published November 8, 1999.
Task 96-7: Roadway Maintenance Machines; final rule published July 28, 2003.
Historical Accomplishments
Task 97-2: Locomotive Cab Working Conditions, sanitation; final rule published April 4, 2002.
Task 97-3: Event Recorders, data survivability; final rule published June 30, 2005.
Tasks 97-4, -5, -6: Performance Standards for Processor-Based Signal and Train Control Systems; final rule published March 7, 2005.
Task 01-1: Accident/Incident Reporting Conformity with OSHA; final rule published March 3, 2003.
Task 03-01: Passenger Safety-Mechanical; final rule published October 19, 2006.
Task 03-01: Passenger Safety-Passenger Train Emergency Systems; final rule published February 1, 2008.
Task 03-01: Passenger Safety-Crashworthiness; final rule published January 8, 2009.
Task 05-02: Reduce Human Factor-Caused Train Accident/Incidents; final rule published February 13, 2008.
Task 06-02: Track Safety Standards and Continuous Welded Rail; final rule published August 25, 2009.
Historical Accomplishments
Task 08-01: Report on the Nation's Railroad Bridges; report submitted December 10, 2008.
Task 08-04: Positive Train Control; final rule published January 15, 2010.
Task 08-06: Hours of Service Recordkeeping and Reporting; final rule published May 27, 2009, with an effective date of July 16, 2009.
Task 07-01 Track Safety Standards- Concrete Crossties; final rule published April 1, 2011.
Task 09-01: Passenger Hours of Service; final rule published August 12, 2011.
Historical Accomplishments
Task 08-07: Conductor Certification; final rule published November 9, 2011.
Task 03-01 Passenger Train Emergency Systems II NPRM - Jan. 3, 2012
Task 10-01: Training Standards for Safety-Related Railroad Employees NPRM – Feb. 7, 2012
Task 03-01 Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness NPRM – June 27, 2012
Task 05-01 Railroad Workplace Safety – Adjacent Track On track Safety for Roadway Workers Final Rule – Nov. 30, 2011
Historical Accomplishments
Process Recipe for Success
A recognition by all parties that an issue needs to be addressed
Participation by an FRA interdisciplinary team Agreement on procedures before the negotiation Clear focus on the details of the proposed remedy Flexibility to incorporate industry rules and standards into
the Federal regime Appropriate consideration of costs and benefits Follow-through by FRA to apply the results of the
negotiations
Wrap Up
Federal Advisory Committees Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC) History Interest Based Bargaining General RSAC Structure RSAC Process Current RSAC Efforts
Federal Railroad Administration
Questions?Cindy Gross [email protected] or (314) 378-3807
Larry Woolverton [email protected] or (202)493-6212