Overview
Title
State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans; Correction
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The train safety people made a mistake in their book of rules and wrote down the wrong number. They've now fixed it so everybody knows which states need to send reports about keeping train crossings safe.
Summary AI
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), part of the Department of Transportation, issued a correction to a previous rule about highway-rail grade crossing safety standards. Initially, an error was made in the final rule published on December 14, 2020, where a reference was incorrectly linked to a non-existent paragraph. This correction fixes the mistake by correctly referring to the paragraph that lists the 10 states needing to submit updated reports electronically. This amendment is effective from February 23, 2021, and does not require public notice or comment due to the minor nature of the error.
Abstract
On December 14, 2020, FRA published a final rule amending FRA's grade crossing safety standards. In preparing the final rule for publication, an error was made that resulted in a cross-reference to the wrong paragraph. FRA is correcting that inadvertent error.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), a division of the Department of Transportation (DOT), issued a correction to a rule originally published on December 14, 2020. This rule pertains to safety standards at highway-rail grade crossings. An error was discovered where a reference was mistakenly linked to a non-existent paragraph. The correction effectively redirects the reference to the correct section that lists the 10 states required to submit updated action plans and implementation reports electronically. This amendment takes effect on February 23, 2021, and does not require public consultation due to its minor nature.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the primary concerns is the technical nature of the document, which could be challenging for those not familiar with regulatory or legal language. Terms like "§ 234.11(c)(3)" and "PDF" might be confusing for some readers. Additionally, the phrase "good cause exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)" references a specific legal exemption that might not be familiar to those outside legal or governmental circles. While these terms are standard in regulatory documents, they could hinder the understanding of the general public.
Another concern is the absence of detailed financial implications within the document. Without financial details, it's difficult to evaluate any potential costs or savings resulting from this correction. Moreover, the document doesn't specify any particular organizations or individuals who might be impacted, focusing solely on correcting the regulatory language.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document primarily ensures that specific administrative processes are accurately defined and references correctly point to the intended content. While this correction might not have a direct impact on everyday life, it ensures that the process of updating and reviewing safety plans at railway crossings is clear and unambiguous, which contributes to public safety.
Impact on Stakeholders
For government entities, especially those within the 10 states required to submit updated plans, this correction clarifies procedural requirements, eliminating confusion and preventing possible submission errors. This streamlined process is beneficial for states as it simplifies compliance with federal safety standards.
For those working in transportation safety and regulatory fields, the correction helps avoid misinterpretations that could arise from referring to an incorrect paragraph. By ensuring these safety plans are accurately documented and submitted, the FRA aids in maintaining a high standard of railroad safety.
In conclusion, while this document's corrections might seem trivial on the surface, they support a broader framework of safety and regulation, ensuring clarity and precision in government processes and aiding in the ongoing efforts to enhance transportation safety.
Issues
• The document does not contain detailed financial information, so it is not possible to assess any potential wasteful spending.
• The document does not specify any particular organizations or individuals that might be favored, focusing instead on correcting regulatory text.
• Some technical terms such as '§ 234.11(c)(3)' and 'PDF' may not be immediately clear to all readers who are unfamiliar with regulatory language or technical formats.
• The phrase 'good cause exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)' may require additional context for readers unfamiliar with the legal framework of federal rulemaking.
• The overall legal and regulatory language might be complex for individuals not versed in legal or regulatory discourse, though it is appropriate for the document's intended audience.