“The Risk Reduction Program will improve safety in the nation’s freight rail system,” said U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao.
The final rule requires the nation’s largest freight railroads, known as Class I, to each develop and implement an FRA-approved RRP Plan. These comprehensive, system-oriented safety plans are required to identify and analyze hazards and their associated risks, and develop and implement plans to eliminate or mitigate those risks. An RRP is designed to improve operational safety, complementing a railroad’s adherence to all other applicable FRA regulations. Each railroad must tailor an RRP for its individual operations, and the RRP must reflect the substantive facts on any hazards associated with each railroads’ operations.
“Railroads’ ongoing evaluation of their asset base and employee performance associated with operations and maintenance, under FRA regulations, can now follow a more uniform path of standardization, towards further reducing risks and enhancing safety,” FRA Administrator Ronald L. Batory said.
In addition to Class I railroads, the rule also applies to smaller Class II and III freight railroads with inadequate safety performance. Other railroads may proactively submit RRP Plans to FRA for approval. Railroads must involve employees in implementation of the RRP including identification of risks and hazards.
This rule implements a mandate required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. FRA issued a final rule establishing the Risk Reduction Program which has been published in the Federal Register and can be accessed online.
— From a Federal Railroad Administration news release. Feb. 18, 2020.
Gerald, there is a preliminary risk assessment on literally every singly part in an airplane. That’s millions of parts. It does not require an in-depth assessment of every tie, rail, siding, car, etc. as you seem to be implying, only those items with a high potential for risk or failure. Risk assessment can be (and is) applied to any industry or process. I’m not about to go into the details on it in this forum. Now, listening to the data and implementing appropriate actions to reduce or eliminate risk is another story. Just ask Boeing as a recent example.
Douglas Scott,
Railroads aren’t automotive and aerospace industries, they’re not even equivalent to the airline industry(which has the same type of programs). Have you ever followed a railroads mainline? Yard, branch line, industrial spur, etc., etc.,? That’s just the underlying route component, now throw in rail cars, locomotives, engine crews, dispatchers, public grade crossings., etc., etc., Do you see were I’m going with this, it’ll be years before the railroads even submit these plans to the FRA, especially since they have to include employees in the development of them…I don’t foresee them being done before I retire from working.
As someone who actively participated in and managed formal risk reduction programs in the automotive and aerospace industries, I must ask; why aren’t railroads doing this already? It is ridiculous that an industry that operates in the public domain transporting all manner of hazardous material has to be told to do something that should be inherently obvious.
What problem do you have with Ron Batory?
Jim Norton, they are all trump appointees at the FRA. I thought trump and company knew what is best for EVERYBODY! One thing you are correct on though…do nothing…trump in a nutshell.
More do nothing government red tape.