HF4051

Purpose

• Update and clarify rules for utilities that want to cross or run alongside railroad rights-of-way in Minnesota. The bill sets a formal process for getting permission, defines key terms, and establishes safety, cost, and timing requirements to govern crossing and paralleling of utilities with rail lines.

Key terms and definitions

• Crossing: a utility facility that goes over, under, or across a railroad right-of-way (not including longitudinal occupancy along the railway).
• Facility or utility facility: any item placed for storage or conveyance of water, sewage, electronic/telecommunications, fiber optics, cable, electric energy, oil, natural gas, or hazardous liquids (including pipes, sewers, conduits, cables, valves, lines, wires, manholes, attachments, etc.).
• Parallel or paralleling: a utility facility that runs adjacent to and alongside railroad lines for up to one mile (or another distance agreed to by the parties) before crossing or exiting the right-of-way.
• Public right-of-way: as defined in another Minnesota statute (237.162, subdivision 3).
• Railroad: any entity operating as a common carrier by rail, plus its managers, agents, or assigns.
• Utility: a wide range of electric, gas, water, telecommunications, cable/fiber, and related entities (including contractors or agents).

Main provisions

• Crossing application for permission (procedural requirements)

  • Any utility planning to place a facility across or upon a railroad right-of-way must request permission from the railroad before proceeding.
  • Applications must include an engineering design showing the proposed crossing location and the railroad’s property tracks and wires to be crossed.
  • The engineering design must follow established guidelines: the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) or the Manual for Railway Engineering (AREMA’s MRER).
  • Applications should be submitted on a form provided or approved by the railroad, if available.
  • Applications must include the standard crossing fee and evidence of insurance as required by the statute.
  • Submissions must be sent to the railroad by certified mail with return receipt.

• Processing timelines and information updates

  • If an application is not complete, the railroad must inform the applicant of any additional information needed within 15 calendar days of receipt.
  • The railroad must keep the information required in the application current and update its website within 30 days of any changes to contact information, application procedures, or submission addresses.
  • If an application is incomplete, the railroad must inform the applicant again within 15 calendar days of receipt of the incomplete submission about any additional necessary information or submittals.

• Safety, flagging, and cost considerations

  • A railroad may require flagging services for utility crossings only when flagging is demonstrably necessary to ensure the safety of railroad operations during construction or maintenance.
  • The railroad must provide written justification for any flagging requirement, including identifying the specific safety risks and operational concerns.
  • Flagging fees must be reasonable and reflect the actual expenses paid for flagging personnel, and such fees may not be used to delay or obstruct utility access.

Changes to existing law (highlights)

• Defines key concepts—crossing, facility, parallel, public right-of-way, railroad, and utility—within Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 237.045, to clarify what counts as a crossing and how parallel utility work is treated.
• Establishes a formal, standardized process for obtaining permission to cross railroad rights-of-way, including required engineering design standards (NESC or AREMA MRER), documentation, and incorporation of insurance and fees.
• Introduces specific timing requirements for handling submitted applications and for updating railroad information online.
• Adds explicit safety-related controls for when flagging may be used and requires justification and cost-based fee structures.

Potential impacts

• Utilities will need to prepare more formal, design-based crossing applications and coordinate closely with railroads.
• Railroads gain clearer authority to require safety-related flagging with documented justification.
• Cost and administrative timelines for crossing approvals may affect project schedules and budgets.
• Overall, the process aims to improve safety and consistency in how utility crossings and paralleling are handled near railroad rights-of-way.

Practical implications

• Utilities should plan for compliance with NESC or AREMA MRER guidelines when designing crossings.
• Expect standardized application forms and required insurance evidence; use certified mail to submit.
• Be prepared for a defined review window and potential requests for additional information within 15 days.
• Flagging costs should be predictable and tied to demonstrated safety needs, not used to block access.

Relevant Terms crossing, utility facility, parallel/paralleling, railroad right-of-way, public right-of-way, railroad, utility, National Electric Safety Code, NESC, Manual for Railway Engineering, AREMA, MRER, crossing application, engineering design, certified mail, crossing fee, insurance, flagging, safety justification, operational concerns, incomplete application, submission timelines, site approval.