A railroad petitioning to operate with a one-person train crew in accordance with § 218.133 must prepare a risk-based hazard analysis that quantitatively and/or qualitatively demonstrates that the proposed operation using a one-person train crew will be as safe or safer than an operation using a two-person train crew under normal operation and in a degraded or failed state. This appendix provides one approach that may be used by a railroad to prepare a risk-based hazard analysis and compare the risks to determine if a proposed one-person train crew operation will be as safe or safer than a two-person minimum train crew operation, when all mitigations are in place. A railroad is not restricted to this approach and may use another formal safety methodology that fulfills the requirements of § 218.133.
Quantitative Risk-Based Hazard Analysis
(a) Identify new hazards, changes to existing hazards or changes to the risk of existing hazards of the one-person train crew operation, as compared to a two-person minimum train crew operation, as provided in § 218.133(a)(3)(i).
(b) Calculate and/or update each risk of the one-person train crew operation, as compared to a two-person minimum train crew operation, by assessing each new hazard, change to an existing hazard and/or change to the risk of an existing hazard, in terms of the severity and likelihood of potential events using the following framework:
(1) The assessment of the severity is measured as the worst-credible mishap resulting from the hazard and categorized in accordance with Table 1 of this paragraph (b)(1):
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(1)
| Category
| Severity
ranking
(1 being the most severe)
| Definition
|
|---|
| SEVERITY CATEGORIES
|
| Catastrophic | 1 | Results in one or more of the following: fatality, irreversible significant environmental damage, or significant monetary loss. Accidents/incidents that must be reported to FRA telephonically under § 225.9 of this chapter are considered catastrophic.
|
| Critical | 2 | Results in one or more of the following: significant injury (as defined in § 225.5 of this chapter), reversible significant environmental damage, or reportable monetary loss. Accidents/incidents that are not telephonically reported under § 225.9 of this chapter but are still FRA-reportable under § 225.19 of this chapter, are considered critical.
|
| Marginal | 3 | Results in one or more of the following: minor injuries (i.e., injuries that are not significant as defined in § 225.5 of this chapter), reversible non-significant environmental damage, or monetary loss. Mishaps that are not FRA-reportable accidents/incidents but are considered accountable rail equipment accidents/incidents as defined in § 225.5 of this chapter, are considered marginal.
|
| Negligible | 4 | Results in one or more of the following: no injuries, no environmental damage, or equipment or railroad structure damage(s) that do not require repair. |
(2) The assessment of probability of occurrence as defined in Table 2 of this paragraph (b)(2):
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)(2)
| Description
| Level
| Qualitative characterization of probability
| Quantitative characterization of probability
1
|
|---|
| PROBABILITY LEVELS
|
| FREQUENT | A | Likely to occur frequently | Greater than once every 1,000 operating hours.
|
| PROBABLE | B | Likely to occur several times | Between once every 1,000 hours and once every 100,000 hours.
|
| OCCASIONAL | C | Likely to occur once, but not several times | Between once every 100,000 hours and once every 10,000,000 hours.
|
| REMOTE | D | Unlikely but possible to occur | Between once every 10,000,000 hours and once every 1,000,000,000 hours.
|
| IMPROBABLE | E | So unlikely that it can be assumed the occurrence may not be experienced | Less than once every 1,000,000,000 hours.
|
(c) Applying the sustained mitigation strategies designed and implemented in accordance with § 218.133(a)(4), recalculate the risk using the framework documented in paragraph (b) of this appendix.
(d) Prepare a risk matrix in the format of Table 3 of this paragraph (d) that classifies the risks calculated in paragraph (c) of this appendix in terms of severity and likelihood of each new hazard, change to an existing hazard, or change to the risk of an existing hazard as follows:
| Probability
| Severity
|
|---|
(1)
Catastrophic
| (2)
Critical
| (3)
Marginal
| (4)
Negligible
|
|---|
| Risk Matrix
|
| (A) FREQUENT | 1A | 2A | 3A | 4A
|
| (B) PROBABLE | 1B | 2B | 3B
| |
| (C) OCCASIONAL | 1C | 2C | 3C | 4C
|
| (D) REMOTE | 1D | 2D | 4D
| |
| (E) IMPROBABLE | 1E | 3E | 4E | |
(e) Prepare a risk report of the train operation staffed with a one-person train crew, as compared to a two-person minimum train crew operation, documenting the basis for acceptability of all new hazards, changes to existing hazards and/or changes to the risk of existing hazards identified in the matrix required by paragraph (d) of this appendix. The risk report should categorize the risk of each new hazard, change to existing hazard and/or change to the risk of an existing hazard as follows:
(1) Unacceptable. Categories 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4A are unacceptable. A railroad should not file a petition for special approval with a new hazard, change to existing hazard and/or change to the risk of an existing hazard in this category as FRA will not approve an operation with a partially mitigated or unmitigated hazard that is categorized as unacceptable;
(2) Acceptable under specific conditions. Categories 1E, 2D, 3C, 3D, 4B, and 4C are acceptable under specific conditions. A railroad's risk report should describe why the railroad finds the conditions acceptable. A new hazard, change to existing hazard and/or change to the risk of an existing hazard will be acceptable under specific conditions if FRA finds that the one-person operation is as safe or safer than a two or more-person operation; and
(3) Acceptable. Categories 2E, 3E, 4D, and 4E are acceptable. FRA will not deny a petition for special approval solely on the basis an appropriately categorized acceptable new hazard, change to existing hazard and/or change to the risk of an existing hazard if the one-person operation is as safe or safer than a two-person minimum operation.
(f) Provide a statement with supporting evidence, that the one-person operation with a fully implemented mitigation plan, is as safe or safer than a two-person minimum operation.
[89 FR 25114, Apr. 9, 2024]