Standards for Development and Use of Processor-Based Signal and Train Control Systems; Clarification and Correcting Amendments, 72382-72385 [05-23571]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72382
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
State
Notification-based relief (less than
1,000 BOE per year)
Request-based relief (less than 15
BOE per well per day)
Louisiana .................................................................................................
Michigan ..................................................................................................
Montana ...................................................................................................
Nevada ....................................................................................................
New Mexico .............................................................................................
North Dakota ...........................................................................................
Oklahoma ................................................................................................
South Dakota ...........................................................................................
Utah .........................................................................................................
Wyoming ..................................................................................................
Yes .................................................
Yes .................................................
Yes .................................................
No ..................................................
No ..................................................
No ..................................................
No ..................................................
No ..................................................
No ..................................................
Yes .................................................
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Federal oil and gas properties located
in all other states are eligible for relief
if they qualify as marginal properties
under the rule and if no portion of the
royalties derived from the property is
shared with the state.
For information on how to obtain
relief, please refer to the rule, which can
be viewed on the MMS Web site at
https://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/
FRNotices/AC30.htm.
All correspondence, records, or
information received in response to this
Notice are subject to disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act. All
information provided will be made
public unless the respondent identifies
which portions are proprietary. Please
highlight the proprietary portions,
including any supporting
documentation, or mark the page(s) that
contain proprietary data. Proprietary
information is protected by the Federal
Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of
1982 (30 U.S.C. 1733), the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), the
Indian Mineral Development Act of
1982 (25 U.S.C. 2103), and Department
regulations (43 CFR part 2).
Dated: November 16, 2005.
Lucy Querques Denett,
Associate Director for Minerals Revenue
Management.
[FR Doc. 05–23621 Filed 12–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 234 and 236
[Docket No. FRA–2001–10160]
RIN 2130–AA94
Standards for Development and Use of
Processor-Based Signal and Train
Control Systems; Clarification and
Correcting Amendments
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:02 Dec 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
Final rule; clarification and
correcting amendments.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: FRA is clarifying preamble
language and correcting rule text
language in FRA’s Standards for
Development and Use of ProcessorBased Signal and Train Control
Systems, a final rule published on
March 7, 2005 (PTC Rule). First, some
language in the section-by-section
analysis portion of the preamble to the
PTC Rule inadvertently differs from the
actual regulatory language, and FRA is
noting the unintended variation to avoid
confusion. Second, FRA is clarifying
language regarding the applicability of
new 49 CFR part 236, subpart H (the
Processor-Based Standards) to highwayrail grade crossing warning systems
(HGCWS). FRA wants to ensure that the
rule language conforms with FRA’s
initial intent that the regulation apply to
only certain HGCWS. Therefore, FRA is
adding a provision to clarify which
HGCWS products may be excluded from
the requirements of the PTC Rule. FRA
is also adding a provision to clarify that
certain HGCWS products excluded from
the requirements of the Processor-Based
Standards may, at the option of the
railroad, be made subject to the
Processor-Based Standards. Third, FRA
is adding a provision to clarify which
HGCWS products shall be included in
the software management control plans
pursuant to 49 CFR 236.18. Finally, FRA
is correcting a minor error in which a
provision of the Processor-Based
Standards was incorrectly cited.
DATES: This rule is effective January 4,
2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom
McFarlin, Staff Director, Signal and
Train Control Division, Office of Safety,
FRA 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail
Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone: 202–493–6203); or Melissa
Porter, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief
Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont, NW., Mail
Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone: 202–493–6034).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
7, 2005, FRA published the PTC Rule,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
which establishes performance-based
standards for the development and use
of processor-based signal and train
control systems. 70 FR 11052. Since the
publication of the PTC Rule, FRA has
determined that certain provisions need
clarification or correction. First, FRA
notes that some incorrect terms and an
incorrect date were included in the
section-by-section analysis portion of
the preamble, all of which differ from
the actual regulatory text. FRA is
correcting the errors to prevent
misinterpretations. Second, in 49 CFR
234.275, ‘‘Processor-Based Systems,’’
FRA is clarifying the category of
HGCWS to which it intended portions
of the PTC Rule to apply. (All references
in this final rule to a section or other
provision are references to a section or
other provision in title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, unless otherwise
noted). FRA is correcting that section to
include a provision to exclude certain
HGCWS products from the requirements
of the PTC Rule, as the agency similarly
did for signal and train control system
products in § 236.911. FRA is further
correcting § 234.275 to make it explicit
that a railroad has the right to qualify an
excluded product and make it subject to
the Processor-Based Standards. Third,
FRA is clarifying what HGCWS should
be included in a railroad’s software
management control plan, pursuant to
§ 236.18. Finally, FRA is correcting an
erroneous section reference in
§ 236.913(c)(1). The section referenced
does not exist. FRA more specifically
discusses these issues in the ‘‘Sectionby-Section Analysis’’ below.
Section-by-Section Analysis
1a. Preamble Language for § 236.18,
‘‘Software Management Control [Plan]’’
In the section-by-section analysis of
§ 236.18, FRA referred to the correct
term ‘‘software management control
plan’’ variously as ‘‘software
management control’’ and ‘‘software
management plan.’’ FRA notes that
‘‘software management control’’ and
‘‘software management plan’’ are
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
intended to refer to ‘‘software
management control plan.’’
1b. Preamble Language for § 236.911,
‘‘Exclusions’’
In the section-by-section analysis of
§ 236.911, FRA erroneously stated that
‘‘[p]aragraph (a) provides that the
subpart does not apply to products in
service as of May 6, 2005.’’ The
referenced date should have read ‘‘June
6, 2005’’ rather than ‘‘May 6, 2005.’’
FRA does not believe that this error has
created significant confusion because
the date is correct in the regulatory text
itself, but in an effort to eliminate any
possible confusion, we are pointing out
that the date cited in the analysis should
have been June 6, 2005.
Corrections to Regulatory Text
2. Section 234.275, ‘‘Processor-Based
Systems’’
As issued in the PTC Rule,
§ 234.275(b) requires that HGCWS
containing ‘‘new or novel technology or
that provide safety-critical data to a
railroad signal [sic] system’’ comply
with part 236, subpart H, the ProcessorBased Standards. Section 236.911,
‘‘Exclusions,’’ provides that products
designed in accordance with subparts A
through G of part 236, that were in
development as of March 7, 2005, may
be excluded from the requirements of
the Processor-Based Standards, but FRA
inadvertently did not provide a similar
exclusion for products designed in
accordance with 49 CFR part 234,
‘‘Grade Crossing Signal System Safety,’’
subparts A through D. Several railroads
and suppliers submitted notifications to
FRA by June 6, 2005, of various
products that were in development,
some of which contain processor-based
highway-rail grade crossing warning
systems, subsystems, or components
(i.e., products that were designed in
accordance with 49 CFR part 234,
subparts A through D).
In order to clarify that the exclusion
from the Processor-Based Standards also
applies to HGCWS products under
development as of March 7, 2005, FRA
is amending § 234.275(c) accordingly.
The reasons for this decision are similar
to those provided for excluding certain
products pursuant to § 236.911,
‘‘Exclusions’’: (1) it would be too costly
for the railroads and suppliers to re-do
work and analysis for a product on
which development efforts have already
begun, and (2) it would be unfair to
subject later implementation of such
technology to the requirements of the
Processor-Based Standards. In addition,
FRA will provide railroads and
suppliers with the option to later elect
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:02 Dec 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
to qualify an excluded product under
the Processor-Based Standards.
Therefore, in this technical amendment,
FRA is adding a provision in
§ 234.275(b) to exclude from the
requirements of the Processor-Based
Standards, those processor-based
highway-rail grade crossing warning
systems, subsystems, or components
that meet all of the following criteria: (1)
Currently under development, (2)
designed in accordance with 49 CFR
part 234, subparts A through D, and (3)
not in service as of December 5, 2005,
but will be placed in service as of
December 5, 2008. Railroads and
suppliers will, however, be required to
submit a notification to FRA regarding
the product under development by
March 6, 2006 and the product must be
placed in service as of December 5,
2008. Any railroad or supplier that
previously submitted a notification
letter to FRA pursuant to § 236.911
regarding a HGCWS need not submit a
new notification letter. FRA will
consider the previously submitted letter
when determining whether a product
should be excluded.
If read literally, the last sentence of
§ 234.275(c) as issued in the PTC Rule
requires more HGCWS to be subject to
the software management control plan
requirement of § 236.18 than FRA
intended. In particular, the rule
language currently indicates that any
existing products that both are used at
HGCWS and provide safety-critical data
to, or receive safety-critical data from, a
railroad signal or train control system,
are required to be included in the
software management control plan, even
if they are not processor-based, pursuant
to § 236.18. The intent of requiring a
software management control plan
under § 236.18 is to ensure that the
proper and intended version of software
not required to be included in a Product
Safety Plan pursuant to § 236.907 of this
chapter, is documented and maintained
throughout the life-cycle of the system.
Only processor-based systems involve
software, and thus the inclusion of a
non-processor-based HGCWS in a
software management control plan
would provide no benefit, but would
only add unnecessarily to the cost of
implementation of the PTC Rule. In
addition, FRA did not intend for
HGCWS that receive information from a
signal or train control system to be
subject to the requirements of § 236.18.
FRA is therefore restructuring § 234.275
to correct these errors and to clarify the
intended requirements of the regulation.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72383
3. Section 236.913, ‘‘Filing and
Approval of PSPs’’
FRA is amending § 236.913(c)(1) as
issued in the PTC Rule to correct an
incorrect regulatory reference. The
reference to non-existent § 236.917(e)(1)
should be changed to § 236.917(a)(1).
Accordingly, the regulatory text is
changed to reflect the correct regulatory
cite.
Notice and Comment Procedures
Because these corrections and
clarifications do no more than revise the
PTC Rule to meet FRA’s original intent
when issuing the rule, notice and
comment procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest within the
meaning of section 553 (b)(3)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act. Public
comment is unnecessary because in
making these technical amendments,
FRA is not exercising discretion in any
way that would be informed by public
comment. In addition, this revised rule
poses no addition burden on any
person, but rather provides a benefit to
those who were inadvertently made
subject to the PTC Rule, who are now
no longer subject to the PTC Rule’s
requirements. Therefore, FRA is
proceeding directly to this final rule.
Regulatory Impact
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule has been evaluated in
accordance with existing policies and
procedures and is not considered
significant under Executive Order 12866
or under DOT policies and procedures.
The technical changes made in this rule
will not increase the costs or alter the
benefits associated with this regulation
beyond what was originally measured in
the cost benefit analysis completed for
the PTC Rule. The technical changes
will, in fact, reduce the cost of
complying with the rule back to the
level contemplated when FRA
completed its initial cost-benefit
analysis. However, this cost reduction
has not been specifically calculated.
Because these technical amendments
and corrections will bring the rule into
compliance with FRA’s original costbenefit analysis, FRA does not believe it
necessary to re-calculate the costs and
benefits.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires a review
of rules to assess their impact on small
entities. This final rule amends and
clarifies existing requirements. Because
the technical amendments contained in
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
72384
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
the document generally clarify
requirements currently contained in the
PTC Rule or allow for greater flexibility
in complying with the PTC Rule, FRA
certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no paperwork requirements
associated with this final rule.
Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this rule in
accordance with its procedures for
ensuring full consideration of the
environmental impact of FRA actions,
as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), other environmental
statutes, Executive Orders, and DOT
Order 5610.1c. The rule meets the
criteria establishing this as a non-major
action for environmental purposes.
Federalism Implications
This final rule will not have a
substantial effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. State and local
officials were involved in developing
the PTC Rule through the Railroad
Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). The
RSAC has as permanent members two
organizations representing State and
local interests: The American
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials and the
Association of State Rail Safety
Managers. RSAC regularly provides
recommendations to the FRA
Administrator for solutions to regulatory
issues that reflect significant input from
its State members. Thus, in accordance
with Executive Order 13132,
preparation of a Federalism Assessment
was not warranted in the PTC Rule and
is not warranted for this final rule
either.
Compliance With the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) each
Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of
Federal Regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector (other than to the extent
that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in
law).’’ Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act
further requires that ‘‘before
promulgating any general notice of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:02 Dec 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
proposed rulemaking that is likely to
result in promulgation of any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $120,700,000
or more in any 1 year, and before
promulgating any final rule for which a
general notice of proposed rulemaking
was published, the agency shall prepare
a written statement * * *’’ detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. The
rule issued today does not include any
mandates, which will result in the
expenditure, in the aggregate, of
$120,700,000 or more in any one year,
and thus preparation of a statement is
not required.
Need for Correction
As published, the PTC Rule contains
errors that need to be corrected.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 234
Highway safety, Railroad safety.
49 CFR Part 236
Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Final Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA
corrects chapter II, subtitle B, of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
I
PART 234—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 234
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28
U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
I
2. Revise § 234.275 to read as follows:
§ 234.275
Processor-based systems.
(a) Applicable definitions. The
definitions in § 236.903 of this chapter
shall apply to this section, where
applicable.
(b) Use of performance standard
authorized or required.
(1) In lieu of compliance with the
requirements of this subpart, a railroad
may elect to qualify an existing
processor-based product under part 236,
subpart H of this chapter.
(2) Highway-rail grade crossing
warning systems, subsystems, or
components that are processor-based
and that are first placed in service after
June 6, 2005, which contain new or
novel technology, or which provide
safety-critical data to a railroad signal or
train control system that is governed by
part 236, subpart H of this chapter, shall
also comply with those requirements.
New or novel technology refers to a
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
technology not previously recognized
for use as of March 7, 2005.
(3) Products designed in accordance
with subparts A through D of this part,
which are not in service but are in the
developmental stage prior to December
5, 2005 (or for which a request for
exclusion was submitted prior to June 6,
2005 pursuant to § 236.911 of this
chapter), may be excluded from the
requirements of part 236, subpart H of
this chapter upon notification to FRA by
March 6, 2006, if placed in service by
December 5, 2008 (or March 7, 2008 for
those products for which a request for
exclusion was submitted to FRA prior to
June 6, 2005). Railroads may continue to
implement and use these products and
components from these existing
products. A railroad may at any time
elect to have products that are excluded
made subject to 49 CFR part 236,
subpart H, by submitting a Product
Safety Plan as prescribed in § 236.913 of
this chapter and otherwise complying
with part 236, subpart H of this chapter.
(c) Product safety plan justifications.
The Product Safety Plan (see § 236.903
of this chapter) must explain how the
performance objective sought to be
addressed by each of the particular
requirements of this subpart is met by
the product, why the objective is not
relevant to the product’s design, or how
safety requirements are satisfied using
alternative means. Deviation from those
particular requirements is authorized if
an adequate explanation is provided,
making reference to relevant elements of
the Product Safety Plan, and if the
product satisfies the performance
standard set forth in § 236.909 of this
chapter. (See § 236.907(a)(14) of this
chapter.)
(d) Specific requirements. The
following exclusions from the latitude
provided by this section apply:
(1) Nothing in this section authorizes
deviation from applicable design
requirements for automated warning
devices at highway-rail grade crossings
in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD), 2000
Millennium Edition, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), dated
December 18, 2000, including Errata #1
to MUTCD 2000 Millennium Edition
dated June 14, 2001 (https://
mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/).
(2) Nothing in this section authorizes
deviation from the following
requirements of this subpart:
(i) § 234.207(b) (Adjustment, repair, or
replacement of a component);
(ii) § 234.209(b) (Interference with
normal functioning of system);
(iii) § 234.211 (Security of warning
system apparatus);
(iv) § 234.217 (Flashing light units);
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(v) § 234.219 (Gate arm lights and
light cable);
(vi) § 234.221 (Lamp voltage);
(vii) § 234.223 (Gate arm);
(viii) § 234.225 (Activation of warning
system);
(ix) § 234.227 (Train detection
apparatus)—if a train detection circuit is
employed to determine the train’s
presence;
(x) § 234.229 (Shunting sensitivity)—
if a conventional track circuit is
employed;
(xi) § 234.231 (Fouling wires)—if a
conventional train detection circuit is
employed;
(xii) § 234.233 (Rail joints)—if a track
circuit is employed;
(xiii) § 234.235 (Insulated rail
joints)—if a track circuit is employed;
(xiv) § 234.237 (Reverse switch cutout circuit); or
(xv) § 234.245 (Signs).
(e) Separate justification for other
than fail-safe design. Deviation from the
requirement of § 234.203 (Control
circuits) that circuits be designed on a
fail-safe principle must be separately
justified at the component, subsystem,
and system level using the criteria of
§ 236.909 of this chapter.
(f) Software management control for
certain systems not subject to a
performance standard. Any processorbased system, subsystem, or component
subject to this part, which is not subject
to the requirements of part 236, subpart
H of this chapter but which provides
safety-critical data to a signal or train
control system shall be included in the
software management control plan
requirements as specified in § 236.18 of
this chapter.
PART 236—[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 236
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20501–
20505; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR
1.49.
4. Amend § 236.913 by revising
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
I
§ 236.913
Filing and approval of PSPs.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Not less than 180 days prior to
planned use of the product in revenue
service as described in the PSP or PSP
amendment, the railroad shall submit an
informational filing to the Associate
Administrator for Safety, FRA, 1120
Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 25,
Washington, DC 20590. The
informational filing must provide a
summary description of the PSP or PSP
amendment, including the intended use
of the product, and specify the location
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:02 Dec 02, 2005
Jkt 208001
72385
where the documentation as described
in § 236.917(a)(1) is maintained.
*
*
*
*
*
NMFS), phone: 206–526–6144; fax: 206–
526–6736; and e-mail:
carrie.nordeen@noaa.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC on November 17,
2005.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–23571 Filed 12–2–05; 8:45 am]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is
available on the Government Printing
Office’s website at: www.gpoaccess.gov/
fr/.
Background information and
documents are available at the NMFS
Northwest Region website at:
www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/
gdfsh01.htm and at the Pacific Fishery
Management Council’s website at:
www.pcouncil.org.
50 CFR Part 660
Background
[Docket No. 040830250–5062–03; I.D.
112305B]
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) and its
implementing regulations at title 50 in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
part 660, subpart G, regulate fishing for
over 80 species of groundfish off the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California. Groundfish specifications
and management measures are
developed by the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Pacific Council),
and are implemented by NMFS. The
specifications and management
measures for 2005 - 2006 were codified
in the CFR (50 CFR part 660, subpart G).
They were published in the Federal
Register as a proposed rule on
September 21, 2004 (69 FR 56550), and
as a final rule on December 23, 2004 (69
FR 77012). The final rule was
subsequently amended on March 18,
2005 (70 FR 13118); March 30, 2005 (70
FR 16145); April 19, 2005 (70 FR
20304); May 3, 2005 (70 FR 22808); May
4, 2005 (70 FR 23040); May 5, 2005 (70
FR 23804); May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25789);
May 19, 2005 (70 FR 28852); July 5,
2005 (70 FR 38596); August 22, 2005 (70
FR 48897); August 31, 2005 (70 FR
51682); October 5, 2005 (70 FR 58066);
October 20, 2005 (70 FR 61063); October
24, 2005 (70 FR 61393); and November
1, 2005 (70 FR 65861).
Acceptable biological catches (ABCs)
and optimum yields (OYs) are
established for each year. Management
measures are established at the start of
the biennial period, and adjusted
throughout the biennial management
period, to keep harvest within the OYs.
At the Pacific Council’s October 30 November 4, 2005, meeting in San
Diego, California, the Pacific Council’s
Groundfish Management Team (GMT)
considered 2005 catch data and new
West Coast Groundfish Observer
Program (WCGOP) data and made
recommendations to adjust groundfish
management measures for December
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in
the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery; Specifications and
Management Measures; Inseason
Adjustments
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Inseason adjustments to
management measures; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces changes to
management measures in the
commercial and recreational Pacific
Coast groundfish fisheries. These
actions, which are authorized by the
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP), will allow
fisheries to access more abundant
groundfish stocks while protecting
overfished and depleted stocks.
DATES: Effective 0001 hours (local time)
December 1, 2005. Comments on this
rule will be accepted through January 4,
2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by I.D. number 112305 by any
of the following methods:
• E-mail:
GroundfishInseason5.nwr@noaa.gov.
Include I.D. number 112305B in the
subject line of the message.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Carrie
Nordeen.
• Mail: D. Robert Lohn,
Administrator, Northwest
Region,NMFS, Attn: Carrie Nordeen,
7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA
98115–0070.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carrie Nordeen (Northwest Region,
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05DER1.SGM
05DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72382-72385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23571]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 234 and 236
[Docket No. FRA-2001-10160]
RIN 2130-AA94
Standards for Development and Use of Processor-Based Signal and
Train Control Systems; Clarification and Correcting Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; clarification and correcting amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is clarifying preamble language and correcting rule text
language in FRA's Standards for Development and Use of Processor-Based
Signal and Train Control Systems, a final rule published on March 7,
2005 (PTC Rule). First, some language in the section-by-section
analysis portion of the preamble to the PTC Rule inadvertently differs
from the actual regulatory language, and FRA is noting the unintended
variation to avoid confusion. Second, FRA is clarifying language
regarding the applicability of new 49 CFR part 236, subpart H (the
Processor-Based Standards) to highway-rail grade crossing warning
systems (HGCWS). FRA wants to ensure that the rule language conforms
with FRA's initial intent that the regulation apply to only certain
HGCWS. Therefore, FRA is adding a provision to clarify which HGCWS
products may be excluded from the requirements of the PTC Rule. FRA is
also adding a provision to clarify that certain HGCWS products excluded
from the requirements of the Processor-Based Standards may, at the
option of the railroad, be made subject to the Processor-Based
Standards. Third, FRA is adding a provision to clarify which HGCWS
products shall be included in the software management control plans
pursuant to 49 CFR 236.18. Finally, FRA is correcting a minor error in
which a provision of the Processor-Based Standards was incorrectly
cited.
DATES: This rule is effective January 4, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom McFarlin, Staff Director, Signal
and Train Control Division, Office of Safety, FRA 1120 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6203); or
Melissa Porter, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120
Vermont, NW., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-
6034).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 7, 2005, FRA published the PTC
Rule, which establishes performance-based standards for the development
and use of processor-based signal and train control systems. 70 FR
11052. Since the publication of the PTC Rule, FRA has determined that
certain provisions need clarification or correction. First, FRA notes
that some incorrect terms and an incorrect date were included in the
section-by-section analysis portion of the preamble, all of which
differ from the actual regulatory text. FRA is correcting the errors to
prevent misinterpretations. Second, in 49 CFR 234.275, ``Processor-
Based Systems,'' FRA is clarifying the category of HGCWS to which it
intended portions of the PTC Rule to apply. (All references in this
final rule to a section or other provision are references to a section
or other provision in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
unless otherwise noted). FRA is correcting that section to include a
provision to exclude certain HGCWS products from the requirements of
the PTC Rule, as the agency similarly did for signal and train control
system products in Sec. 236.911. FRA is further correcting Sec.
234.275 to make it explicit that a railroad has the right to qualify an
excluded product and make it subject to the Processor-Based Standards.
Third, FRA is clarifying what HGCWS should be included in a railroad's
software management control plan, pursuant to Sec. 236.18. Finally,
FRA is correcting an erroneous section reference in Sec.
236.913(c)(1). The section referenced does not exist. FRA more
specifically discusses these issues in the ``Section-by-Section
Analysis'' below.
Section-by-Section Analysis
1a. Preamble Language for Sec. 236.18, ``Software Management Control
[Plan]''
In the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 236.18, FRA referred to
the correct term ``software management control plan'' variously as
``software management control'' and ``software management plan.'' FRA
notes that ``software management control'' and ``software management
plan'' are
[[Page 72383]]
intended to refer to ``software management control plan.''
1b. Preamble Language for Sec. 236.911, ``Exclusions''
In the section-by-section analysis of Sec. 236.911, FRA
erroneously stated that ``[p]aragraph (a) provides that the subpart
does not apply to products in service as of May 6, 2005.'' The
referenced date should have read ``June 6, 2005'' rather than ``May 6,
2005.'' FRA does not believe that this error has created significant
confusion because the date is correct in the regulatory text itself,
but in an effort to eliminate any possible confusion, we are pointing
out that the date cited in the analysis should have been June 6, 2005.
Corrections to Regulatory Text
2. Section 234.275, ``Processor-Based Systems''
As issued in the PTC Rule, Sec. 234.275(b) requires that HGCWS
containing ``new or novel technology or that provide safety-critical
data to a railroad signal [sic] system'' comply with part 236, subpart
H, the Processor-Based Standards. Section 236.911, ``Exclusions,''
provides that products designed in accordance with subparts A through G
of part 236, that were in development as of March 7, 2005, may be
excluded from the requirements of the Processor-Based Standards, but
FRA inadvertently did not provide a similar exclusion for products
designed in accordance with 49 CFR part 234, ``Grade Crossing Signal
System Safety,'' subparts A through D. Several railroads and suppliers
submitted notifications to FRA by June 6, 2005, of various products
that were in development, some of which contain processor-based
highway-rail grade crossing warning systems, subsystems, or components
(i.e., products that were designed in accordance with 49 CFR part 234,
subparts A through D).
In order to clarify that the exclusion from the Processor-Based
Standards also applies to HGCWS products under development as of March
7, 2005, FRA is amending Sec. 234.275(c) accordingly. The reasons for
this decision are similar to those provided for excluding certain
products pursuant to Sec. 236.911, ``Exclusions'': (1) it would be too
costly for the railroads and suppliers to re-do work and analysis for a
product on which development efforts have already begun, and (2) it
would be unfair to subject later implementation of such technology to
the requirements of the Processor-Based Standards. In addition, FRA
will provide railroads and suppliers with the option to later elect to
qualify an excluded product under the Processor-Based Standards.
Therefore, in this technical amendment, FRA is adding a provision in
Sec. 234.275(b) to exclude from the requirements of the Processor-
Based Standards, those processor-based highway-rail grade crossing
warning systems, subsystems, or components that meet all of the
following criteria: (1) Currently under development, (2) designed in
accordance with 49 CFR part 234, subparts A through D, and (3) not in
service as of December 5, 2005, but will be placed in service as of
December 5, 2008. Railroads and suppliers will, however, be required to
submit a notification to FRA regarding the product under development by
March 6, 2006 and the product must be placed in service as of December
5, 2008. Any railroad or supplier that previously submitted a
notification letter to FRA pursuant to Sec. 236.911 regarding a HGCWS
need not submit a new notification letter. FRA will consider the
previously submitted letter when determining whether a product should
be excluded.
If read literally, the last sentence of Sec. 234.275(c) as issued
in the PTC Rule requires more HGCWS to be subject to the software
management control plan requirement of Sec. 236.18 than FRA intended.
In particular, the rule language currently indicates that any existing
products that both are used at HGCWS and provide safety-critical data
to, or receive safety-critical data from, a railroad signal or train
control system, are required to be included in the software management
control plan, even if they are not processor-based, pursuant to Sec.
236.18. The intent of requiring a software management control plan
under Sec. 236.18 is to ensure that the proper and intended version of
software not required to be included in a Product Safety Plan pursuant
to Sec. 236.907 of this chapter, is documented and maintained
throughout the life-cycle of the system. Only processor-based systems
involve software, and thus the inclusion of a non-processor-based HGCWS
in a software management control plan would provide no benefit, but
would only add unnecessarily to the cost of implementation of the PTC
Rule. In addition, FRA did not intend for HGCWS that receive
information from a signal or train control system to be subject to the
requirements of Sec. 236.18. FRA is therefore restructuring Sec.
234.275 to correct these errors and to clarify the intended
requirements of the regulation.
3. Section 236.913, ``Filing and Approval of PSPs''
FRA is amending Sec. 236.913(c)(1) as issued in the PTC Rule to
correct an incorrect regulatory reference. The reference to non-
existent Sec. 236.917(e)(1) should be changed to Sec. 236.917(a)(1).
Accordingly, the regulatory text is changed to reflect the correct
regulatory cite.
Notice and Comment Procedures
Because these corrections and clarifications do no more than revise
the PTC Rule to meet FRA's original intent when issuing the rule,
notice and comment procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest within the meaning of section 553
(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Public comment is
unnecessary because in making these technical amendments, FRA is not
exercising discretion in any way that would be informed by public
comment. In addition, this revised rule poses no addition burden on any
person, but rather provides a benefit to those who were inadvertently
made subject to the PTC Rule, who are now no longer subject to the PTC
Rule's requirements. Therefore, FRA is proceeding directly to this
final rule.
Regulatory Impact
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures and is not considered significant under
Executive Order 12866 or under DOT policies and procedures. The
technical changes made in this rule will not increase the costs or
alter the benefits associated with this regulation beyond what was
originally measured in the cost benefit analysis completed for the PTC
Rule. The technical changes will, in fact, reduce the cost of complying
with the rule back to the level contemplated when FRA completed its
initial cost-benefit analysis. However, this cost reduction has not
been specifically calculated. Because these technical amendments and
corrections will bring the rule into compliance with FRA's original
cost-benefit analysis, FRA does not believe it necessary to re-
calculate the costs and benefits.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires a review of rules to assess their impact on small entities.
This final rule amends and clarifies existing requirements. Because the
technical amendments contained in
[[Page 72384]]
the document generally clarify requirements currently contained in the
PTC Rule or allow for greater flexibility in complying with the PTC
Rule, FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no paperwork requirements associated with this final
rule.
Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with its procedures for
ensuring full consideration of the environmental impact of FRA actions,
as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders, and DOT Order
5610.1c. The rule meets the criteria establishing this as a non-major
action for environmental purposes.
Federalism Implications
This final rule will not have a substantial effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. State and local officials were involved in
developing the PTC Rule through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC). The RSAC has as permanent members two organizations
representing State and local interests: The American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials and the Association of State
Rail Safety Managers. RSAC regularly provides recommendations to the
FRA Administrator for solutions to regulatory issues that reflect
significant input from its State members. Thus, in accordance with
Executive Order 13132, preparation of a Federalism Assessment was not
warranted in the PTC Rule and is not warranted for this final rule
either.
Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law,
assess the effects of Federal Regulatory actions on State, local, and
tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent
that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth
in law).'' Sec. 201. Section 202 of the Act further requires that
``before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is
likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal
mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$120,700,000 or more in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published,
the agency shall prepare a written statement * * *'' detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
The rule issued today does not include any mandates, which will result
in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $120,700,000 or more in any
one year, and thus preparation of a statement is not required.
Need for Correction
As published, the PTC Rule contains errors that need to be
corrected.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 234
Highway safety, Railroad safety.
49 CFR Part 236
Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Final Rule
0
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA corrects chapter II, subtitle B,
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 234--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49
CFR 1.49.
0
2. Revise Sec. 234.275 to read as follows:
Sec. 234.275 Processor-based systems.
(a) Applicable definitions. The definitions in Sec. 236.903 of
this chapter shall apply to this section, where applicable.
(b) Use of performance standard authorized or required.
(1) In lieu of compliance with the requirements of this subpart, a
railroad may elect to qualify an existing processor-based product under
part 236, subpart H of this chapter.
(2) Highway-rail grade crossing warning systems, subsystems, or
components that are processor-based and that are first placed in
service after June 6, 2005, which contain new or novel technology, or
which provide safety-critical data to a railroad signal or train
control system that is governed by part 236, subpart H of this chapter,
shall also comply with those requirements. New or novel technology
refers to a technology not previously recognized for use as of March 7,
2005.
(3) Products designed in accordance with subparts A through D of
this part, which are not in service but are in the developmental stage
prior to December 5, 2005 (or for which a request for exclusion was
submitted prior to June 6, 2005 pursuant to Sec. 236.911 of this
chapter), may be excluded from the requirements of part 236, subpart H
of this chapter upon notification to FRA by March 6, 2006, if placed in
service by December 5, 2008 (or March 7, 2008 for those products for
which a request for exclusion was submitted to FRA prior to June 6,
2005). Railroads may continue to implement and use these products and
components from these existing products. A railroad may at any time
elect to have products that are excluded made subject to 49 CFR part
236, subpart H, by submitting a Product Safety Plan as prescribed in
Sec. 236.913 of this chapter and otherwise complying with part 236,
subpart H of this chapter.
(c) Product safety plan justifications. The Product Safety Plan
(see Sec. 236.903 of this chapter) must explain how the performance
objective sought to be addressed by each of the particular requirements
of this subpart is met by the product, why the objective is not
relevant to the product's design, or how safety requirements are
satisfied using alternative means. Deviation from those particular
requirements is authorized if an adequate explanation is provided,
making reference to relevant elements of the Product Safety Plan, and
if the product satisfies the performance standard set forth in Sec.
236.909 of this chapter. (See Sec. 236.907(a)(14) of this chapter.)
(d) Specific requirements. The following exclusions from the
latitude provided by this section apply:
(1) Nothing in this section authorizes deviation from applicable
design requirements for automated warning devices at highway-rail grade
crossings in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
2000 Millennium Edition, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), dated
December 18, 2000, including Errata 1 to MUTCD 2000 Millennium
Edition dated June 14, 2001 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/).
(2) Nothing in this section authorizes deviation from the following
requirements of this subpart:
(i) Sec. 234.207(b) (Adjustment, repair, or replacement of a
component);
(ii) Sec. 234.209(b) (Interference with normal functioning of
system);
(iii) Sec. 234.211 (Security of warning system apparatus);
(iv) Sec. 234.217 (Flashing light units);
[[Page 72385]]
(v) Sec. 234.219 (Gate arm lights and light cable);
(vi) Sec. 234.221 (Lamp voltage);
(vii) Sec. 234.223 (Gate arm);
(viii) Sec. 234.225 (Activation of warning system);
(ix) Sec. 234.227 (Train detection apparatus)--if a train
detection circuit is employed to determine the train's presence;
(x) Sec. 234.229 (Shunting sensitivity)--if a conventional track
circuit is employed;
(xi) Sec. 234.231 (Fouling wires)--if a conventional train
detection circuit is employed;
(xii) Sec. 234.233 (Rail joints)--if a track circuit is employed;
(xiii) Sec. 234.235 (Insulated rail joints)--if a track circuit is
employed;
(xiv) Sec. 234.237 (Reverse switch cut-out circuit); or
(xv) Sec. 234.245 (Signs).
(e) Separate justification for other than fail-safe design.
Deviation from the requirement of Sec. 234.203 (Control circuits) that
circuits be designed on a fail-safe principle must be separately
justified at the component, subsystem, and system level using the
criteria of Sec. 236.909 of this chapter.
(f) Software management control for certain systems not subject to
a performance standard. Any processor-based system, subsystem, or
component subject to this part, which is not subject to the
requirements of part 236, subpart H of this chapter but which provides
safety-critical data to a signal or train control system shall be
included in the software management control plan requirements as
specified in Sec. 236.18 of this chapter.
PART 236--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20501-20505; 28 U.S.C. 2461,
note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
0
4. Amend Sec. 236.913 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 236.913 Filing and approval of PSPs.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Not less than 180 days prior to planned use of the product in
revenue service as described in the PSP or PSP amendment, the railroad
shall submit an informational filing to the Associate Administrator for
Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC
20590. The informational filing must provide a summary description of
the PSP or PSP amendment, including the intended use of the product,
and specify the location where the documentation as described in Sec.
236.917(a)(1) is maintained.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on November 17, 2005.
Joseph H. Boardman,
Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-23571 Filed 12-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
