| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Part 243 New Regulation regarding training https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39079 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Mike Tillger [ Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:11 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Part 243 New Regulation regarding training | ||
FRA has posted a compliance guide on their website https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L16342#p1_z5_gD_ktraining_lCM A pdf file of the guide is attached. Mike Tillger
|
|||
| Author: | sousakerry [ Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
So a tourist railroad that is not connected to the outside system and has no employees is exempt from this? |
|
| Author: | tomgears [ Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
Thanks for sharing this Mike. |
|
| Author: | PCook [ Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
The training matrix is on numbered page 78 of 101 (79 on the download). Everyone who is going to be performing any work or providing technical assistance on a railroad property that is subject to these training requirements needs to read and understand them. There are severe fines for noncompliance as well as for failure to keep accurate records. If you are subject to these regulations, don't wait until the last minute and then expect help to be immediately available. A lot of people are going to be busy preparing and presenting training programs. PC |
|
| Author: | PCook [ Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
From attending a couple meetings recently of groups that own, operate and maintain their own equipment, there seems to be very little awareness of the approaching deadlines for these regulations in the preservation community. PC |
|
| Author: | Robert Opal [ Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:07 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training | ||
There's been a summary of this rule on the ATRRM website since December, 2014. The most recent update of this summary (8/18/2015) is attached. Briefly: 1. The rule only applies to "general system" tourist railroads (typically, tourist roads which haul freight or operate over another railroad which hauls freight). Non-general system tourist roads are not subject to the rule. 2. The rule technically became "effective" 1/6/2015. But the compliance deadline for railroads which less than 400,000 annual employee work hours (which probably includes all tourist railroads which are subject to the rule) is January 1, 2019
|
|||
| Author: | Mike Tillger [ Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
Latest issue, May 2016, Part 243 Compliance Guide for those of us affected by this rule can be found here: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17469#p1_z5_gD_lCM. I was hoping ATTRRM would be a leader and perhaps establish a model program for those who are affected by this regulation, much the way ASLRRA did with the engineer's and conductor's certification and the environmental compliance issues a few years back. Mike Tillger |
|
| Author: | S. Weaver [ Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
Short Line (ASLRRA) and a number of others of us are fighting this. Once we lose, ASLRRA will establish a model program. |
|
| Author: | robertmacdowell [ Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
PCook wrote: From attending a couple meetings recently of groups that own, operate and maintain their own equipment, there seems to be very little awareness of the approaching deadlines for these regulations in the preservation community. That can be a tough sell. It's true the industry has careful experts who read the rules, confer with other experts, and consider all the angles. Unfortunately it also has rulebook-waving jackasses with an opinion on everything and no research to back it up, because facts are not his thing, bullying his way into being respected is. It can be hard for decision-makers to tell these two apart. Where FRA is concerned, it's pretty much a cliche that the rulebook-waver assumes the entire FRA rulebook applies to a tourist railway, which is wrong. Managers with experience have heard it all before, and they also tend to have a convivial working relationship with their FRA man, and confuse "FRA man turning a blind eye" with "actually exempt" - which leads to a belief that they can convince their FRA man to turn his head. So it's hard for the expert to get traction when something actually is required. And then there's the E.O. authority which means even when you're exempt, you're not quite. It's very confusing. |
|
| Author: | Robert Opal [ Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:35 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training | ||
S. Weaver wrote: Short Line (ASLRRA) and a number of others of us are fighting this. Once we lose, ASLRRA will establish a model program. ASLRRA already "lost". See FRA's June 2015 decison denying ASLRRA's petition for reconsideration (attached).
|
|||
| Author: | S. Weaver [ Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
Robert Opal wrote: S. Weaver wrote: Short Line (ASLRRA) and a number of others of us are fighting this. Once we lose, ASLRRA will establish a model program. ASLRRA already "lost". See FRA's June 2015 decison denying ASLRRA's petition for reconsideration (attached). It's on appeal in district court. |
|
| Author: | Trainlawyer [ Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
S. Weaver wrote: Robert Opal wrote: S. Weaver wrote: Short Line (ASLRRA) and a number of others of us are fighting this. Once we lose, ASLRRA will establish a model program. ASLRRA already "lost". See FRA's June 2015 decison denying ASLRRA's petition for reconsideration (attached).Citation? Status? By 'district court' I am assuming that you mean the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia? Why would it be heard there instead of the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit which is the normal appellate panel for such matters and where it is in fact docketed? American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, Petitioner v. Federal Railroad Administration; United States Department of Transportation, Respondents 07/27/2015 PETITION FOR REVIEW CASE docketed. [15-1240] It has been in abeyance for settlement discussions since October. The most recent filing dated April 11th simply states that discussions are on going. My advice to anyone covered by the regulation in question is not to sit around waiting for a decision but to start thinking now about how you are going to comply with some form of the reg. GME |
|
| Author: | S. Weaver [ Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
Trainlawyer wrote: Citation? Status? By 'district court' I am assuming that you mean the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia? Why would it be heard there instead of the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit which is the normal appellate panel for such matters and where it is in fact docketed? American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, Petitioner v. Federal Railroad Administration; United States Department of Transportation, Respondents 07/27/2015 PETITION FOR REVIEW CASE docketed. [15-1240] It has been in abeyance for settlement discussions since October. The most recent filing dated April 11th simply states that discussions are on going. Whatever. It's on appeal. |
|
| Author: | filmteknik [ Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
http://www.fuzzymemories.tv/?c=3003 America's getting into training Training the Amtrak way! |
|
| Author: | Trainlawyer [ Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Part 243 New Regulation regarding training |
The fact that it has been in abeyance for over eight months suggests that neither party really wants the judge to make a decision and it will be settled. If that is the case major portions will probably stand. This is not a winner take all game. What the Court is reviewing is Ms Feinberg's Denial on Reconsideration, not the regulation itself. Ill say it again. Be prepared to comply. GME |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
