Positive Train Control Systems, 52918-52929 [2011-21454]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
52918
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality
Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by
e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final
action, with the same title, ‘‘Approval
and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania;
Adoption of Control Techniques
Guidelines for Large Appliance and
Metal Furniture Coatings,’’ that is
located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this Federal Register
publication.
Dated: August 3, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011–21363 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 236
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
[Docket No. FRA–2011–0028, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130–AC27
Positive Train Control Systems
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
FRA proposes amendments to
the regulations implementing a
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
provision of the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 that requires
certain passenger and freight railroads
to install positive train control (PTC)
systems. This notice proposes the
removal of various regulatory
requirements that require railroads to
either conduct further analyses or meet
certain risk-based criteria in order to
avoid PTC system implementation on
track segments that do not transport
poison- or toxic-by-inhalation (PIH)
hazardous materials traffic and are not
used for intercity or commuter rail
passenger transportation as of December
31, 2015.
DATES: (1) Written comments must be
received by October 24, 2011.
Comments received after that date will
be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expenses
or delays.
(2) FRA anticipates being able to
resolve this rulemaking without a
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA
receives a specific request for a public,
oral hearing prior to September 23,
2011, one will be scheduled, and FRA
will publish a supplemental notice in
the Federal Register to inform
interested parties of the date, time, and
location of any such hearing.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Comments related to
Docket No. FRA–2011–0028, may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Web Site: Comments should be filed
at the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on
the Ground level of the West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note
that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information. Please see the
Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted
comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12–140 on the Ground level of
the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas McFarlin, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Staff
Director, Signal & Train Control
Division, Federal Railroad
Administration, Mail Stop 25, West
Building 3rd Floor West, Room W35–
332, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–
493–6203); or Jason Schlosberg, Trial
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, RCC–
10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd
Floor, Room W31–207, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone: 202–493–6032).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA is
issuing this proposed rule to amend the
regulatory requirements contained in 49
CFR part 236, subpart I, related to a
railroad’s ability to remove track
segments from the necessity of
implementing PTC as mandated by
Section 104 of the Railroad Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law
110–432, 122 Stat. 4854 (Oct. 16, 2008)
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 20157)
(hereinafter ‘‘RSIA’’) based on the track
segments not carrying PIH traffic as of
December 31, 2015.
Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Regulatory History
B. Litigation, Executive Order 13563, and
Congressional Hearings
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. Environmental Impact
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Energy Impact
H. Privacy Act
I. Executive Summary
For years, FRA has supported the
nationwide proliferation and
implementation of positive train control
(PTC) systems, forecasting substantial
benefits of advanced train control
technology in supporting a variety of
business and safety purposes. However,
FRA repetitively noted that an
immediate regulatory mandate for PTC
system implementation could not be
justified based upon normal cost-benefit
principals relying on direct safety
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
benefits. In 2005, FRA promulgated
regulations providing for the voluntary
implementation of processor-based train
control systems. See 70 FR 11,052 (Mar.
7, 2005) (codified at 49 CFR part 236,
subpart H).
As a consequence of the number and
severity of certain very public accidents,
coupled with a series of other less
publicized accidents, Congress passed
RSIA mandating the implementation of
PTC systems on lines meeting certain
thresholds. RSIA requires PTC system
implementation on all Class I railroad
lines that carry PIH materials and 5
million gross tons or more of annual
traffic, and on any railroad’s main line
tracks over which intercity or commuter
rail passenger train service is regularly
provided. In addition, RSIA provided
FRA with the authority to require PTC
system implementation on any other
line.
In accordance with its statutory
authority, FRA’s subsequent final rule,
issued January 15, 2010, and amended
on September 27, 2010, potentially
required PTC system implementation on
certain track segments that carried PIH
traffic and 5 million gross tons or more
of annual traffic in 2008 but that will
not carry PIH traffic, and will not be
used for intercity or commuter rail
passenger transportation, as of
December 31, 2015. Per the regulation,
the determination would be based upon
whether the subject track segment
would pass what has been called the
alternative route analysis and the
residual risk analysis (the ‘‘two
qualifying tests’’).
Upon issuance of the PTC final rule,
the Association of American Railroads
(AAR) filed suit in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit challenging the two qualifying
tests provisions of the final rule. After
the parties filed their briefs, they
executed a settlement agreement
(Settlement Agreement). In the
Settlement Agreement, FRA agreed to
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing to amend the PTC
rule to eliminate the two qualifying
tests; this NPRM fulfills this
requirement. The Settlement Agreement
52919
further provided that FRA would
consider public comments on the NPRM
in determining whether to amend the
PTC rule.
For the first 20 years of the proposed
rule, the estimated quantified benefits to
the industry due to the proposed
regulatory relief total approximately
$620 million discounted at 7 percent
and $818 million discounted at 3
percent. Substantial cost savings would
accrue largely from not installing PTC
system wayside components along
approximately 10,000 miles of track.
Although these rail lines would forego
some risk reduction, the reductions
would likely be small since these lines
pose a much lower risk of accidents
because they generally do not carry
passenger trains or PIH materials and
generally have lower accident exposure.
The analysis shows that if the
assumptions are correct, the savings of
the proposed action far outweigh the
cost. The following table presents the
quantified benefits:
BENEFITS
[20-year, discounted]
Costs avoided
7% Discount
3% Discount
Reduced Mitigation Costs, Including Maintenance .....................................................................................
Reduced Wayside Costs, Including Maintenance .......................................................................................
Reduced Locomotive Costs, Including Maintenance ..................................................................................
$91,793,822
515,695,631
12,479,834
$121,119,324
680,445,643
16,466,785
Total Benefits ........................................................................................................................................
619,969,287
818,031,752
For the same 20-year period, the
estimated quantified cost totals $26.7
million discounted at 7 percent and
$39.3 million discounted at 3 percent.
The costs associated with the proposed
regulatory relief result from the
reduction of safety benefits in the form
of accident reduction due to the affected
track segments not being equipped with
a PTC system. A substantial part of the
accident reduction that FRA expects
from PTC systems currently required
comes from reducing high-consequence
accidents involving passenger trains or
the release of PIH materials. FRA
believes that the lines impacted by this
proposal pose significantly less risk
because they generally do not carry
passenger trains or PIH materials and
generally have lower accident exposure.
The following tables present the total
costs of the proposed rule as well as the
breakdown of the costs by element:
COSTS
[20-year, discounted]
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Foregone reductions in
7% Discount
3% Discount
Fatality Prevention .......................................................................................................................................
Injury Prevention ..........................................................................................................................................
Train Delay ..................................................................................................................................................
Property Damage .........................................................................................................................................
Equipment Cleanup .....................................................................................................................................
Environmental Cleanup ...............................................................................................................................
Evacuations .................................................................................................................................................
$11,453,106
4,254,484
117,793
10,163,835
143,273
430,995
138,780
$16,860,327
6,263,104
173,406
14,962,367
210,915
634,475
204,301
Total Costs ...........................................................................................................................................
26,702,267
39,308,896
FRA has also performed a sensitivity
analysis for a high case (14,000 miles),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
expected case (10,000 miles), and low
case (7,000 miles).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The net amounts for each case,
subtracting the costs from the benefits,
provide the following results:
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
52920
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Net societal benefits
7% Discount
Expected Case (10,000 miles) ....................................................................................................................
High Case (14,000 miles) ............................................................................................................................
Low Case (7,000 miles) ...............................................................................................................................
Consistent with this statutory
mandate, FRA published a final rule
with a request for further comments on
January 15, 2010, which established
7%
3%
new regulations codified primarily in
Benefit-cost ratio
Discount
Discount subpart I to 49 CFR part 236 (the ‘‘PTC
rule’’). Subsequently, FRA received a
Expected Case .........
23.22
20.81
High Case .................
22.24
19.93 number of petitions for reconsideration
Low Case ..................
24.69
22.13 to the final rule and a number of
comments responding to the request for
further comments. In a letter dated July
II. Background
8, 2010, FRA denied all of the petitions
A. Regulatory History
for reconsideration. On September 27,
2010, FRA issued a new final rule with
As a consequence of the number and
clarifying amendments to the PTC rule.
severity of certain widely publicized
Under the current regulations
accidents, coupled with a series of other
accidents receiving less media attention, applicable to the existing railroads, each
PTCIP must have included the sequence
Congress passed RSIA, mandating
and schedule in which track segments
implementation of PTC systems by
December 31, 2015. 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, required to be equipped with PTC will
be so equipped and the basis for those
2010). Under RSIA, such PTC
decisions. See 49 CFR 236.1011. This
implementation must be completed by
list of track segments must have
each Class I railroad carrier and each
included all track segments that fit the
entity providing regularly scheduled
statutory criteria in calendar year 2008.
intercity or commuter rail passenger
See 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(1) and (b)(2).
transportation on:
While the statutory PTC
(A) Its main line over which intercity
implementation deadline is December
rail passenger transportation or
commuter rail passenger transportation, 31, 2015, FRA recognized a need for a
as defined in section 24102, is regularly starting point in time to determine
where such implementation must occur.
provided;
The final rule indicates that such a
(B) its main line over which PIH or
starting baseline should be based on the
TIH hazardous materials, as defined in
parts 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132 of title facts and data known in calendar year
(CY) 2008 (the ‘‘2008 baseline’’). FRA
49, Code of Federal Regulations, are
determined that using CY 2009 data
transported; and
would have been difficult given the
(C) such other tracks as the Secretary
proximity to the PTCIP submission
may prescribe by regulation or order.
deadline and the notably atypical traffic
49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(1). The statute
levels caused by the down turn in the
further defined ‘‘main line’’ to mean:
economy. Although each railroad’s
A segment or route of railroad tracks
initial PTCIP includes a future PTC
over which 5,000,000 or more gross tons implementation route map reflecting
of railroad traffic is transported
2008 data, FRA recognized that traffic
annually, except that—
levels and PIH routings could change in
(A) The Secretary may, through
the period between the end of 2008 and
regulations under subsection (g),
the start of 2016. Accordingly, in the
designate additional tracks as main line event of changed circumstances, the
as appropriate for this section; and
PTC rule provides railroads with the
(B) for intercity rail passenger
option to file a request for amendment
transportation or commuter rail
(RFA) of its PTCIP to not equip a track
passenger transportation routes or
segment that the railroad was initially,
segments over which limited or no
but may no longer be, required to
freight railroad operations occur, the
implement a PTC system. If a particular
Secretary shall define the term ‘‘main
track segment included in a PTCIP will
line’’ by regulation.
no longer carry PIH traffic by the
49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(2). To effectuate this
statutory implementation deadline, and
goal, RSIA required the railroads to
its PTC system implementation is
submit for FRA approval a PTC
scheduled, but not yet effectuated, then
Implementation Plan (PTCIP) within 18 the host railroad might avoid actual PTC
months (i.e., by April 16, 2010).
system implementation by filing a
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Further, the benefit-cost ratios under
the scenarios analyzed range between
20:1 and 25:1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$593,267,020
793,856,299
442,825,061
3% Discount
$778,722,856
1,041,764,269
581,441,797
supported RFA for FRA approval. Each
such RFA must be supported with the
data defined under § 236.1005(b)(2) and
(b)(4)(i), and satisfy the two qualifying
tests that were promulgated under
FRA’s statutory authority to require PTC
to be installed on lines in addition to
those required to be equipped by RSIA.
If a track segment fails either of these
tests, FRA would deny the request, thus
requiring PTC system implementation
on the track segment.
The first test, proverbially known as
the ‘‘alternative route analysis test,’’ was
initially codified at
§ 236.1005(b)(4)(i)(A) and subsequently
moved to a new § 236.1020. Under this
test, the railroad must establish that
current or prospective rerouting of PIH
materials traffic to one or more
alternative track segments is justified. If
a railroad reroutes all PIH materials off
of a track segment requiring PTC system
implementation under the 2008
baseline, and onto a new line, PTC
system implementation on the initial
line may not be required if the new line
would have substantially the same
overall safety and security risk as the
initial line, assuming PTC
implementation on both lines. If the
initial track segment, despite the
elimination of all PIH materials traffic,
is determined to pose higher overall
safety and security risks under this
analysis, then a PTC system must still
be installed on that initial track
segment. PTC system implementation
may also be required on the new line if
it meets the 5 million gross ton of
annual traffic threshold and does not
qualify under the de minimis exception
of the rule.
The second test that the railroad must
satisfy in order to avoid having to install
a PTC system on a track segment
requiring implementation under the
2008 baseline is the so-called ‘‘residual
risk test.’’ Under this test, the railroad
must show that, without a PTC system,
the remaining risk on the track
segment—pertaining to events that can
be prevented or mitigated in severity by
a PTC system—is less than the national
average equivalent risk per route mile
on track segments required to be
equipped with PTC systems due to
statutory reasons other than passenger
traffic presence. When FRA issued its
PTC rule amendments on September 27,
2010, FRA indicated that it was
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
delaying the effective date of 49 CFR
236.1005(b)(4)(i)(A)(2)(iii), as revised
under § 236.1020, pending the
completion of a separate rulemaking to
establish how residual risk is to be
determined.
B. Litigation, Executive Order 13563,
and Congressional Hearings
After FRA issued its PTC final rule on
January 15, 2010, and denied
reconsideration on July 8, 2010, the
AAR filed a petition for review of the
rule with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia. Once FRA
issued its PTC final rule amendments,
AAR filed another petition for review of
those amendments on October 5, 2010.
The court consolidated those two
petitions on October 22, 2010
(collectively, ‘‘Petition for Review’’).
In its brief, AAR challenged FRA’s
determination to use 2008 as the
baseline year, arguing that it rests on a
fundamental legal error and was
arbitrary and capricious. After the
parties fully briefed the issues,
President Obama issued Executive
Order 13563 on January 18, 2011 (76 FR
3821 (Jan. 21, 2011)), which outlined a
plan to improve regulations and
regulatory review. According to the
Order, it is intended to reaffirm and
build upon governing principles of
contemporary regulatory review,
including Executive Order 12866 (Sept.
30, 1993), by requiring federal agencies
when issuing safety regulations to
design the regulations so that they are
cost-effective, evidence-based, and
compatible with economic growth, job
creation, and competitiveness. The
President’s plan recognizes that these
principles apply to both new and
existing regulations. To that end,
Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to review existing significant regulations
to determine if they are outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome. FRA recognizes that the
costs associated with PTC rule
compliance outweigh the safety benefits
by 20-to-1 and, therefore, it is
appropriate to reexamine whether FRA
should be requiring the installation of
PTC on lines that will not be carrying
PIH traffic or regularly scheduled
passenger service as of December 31,
2015.
FRA and AAR entered into the
Settlement Agreement on March 2,
2011. The terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement included the
joint filing of a motion to hold the
Petition for Review in abeyance pending
the completion of this rulemaking. That
motion was filed on March 2, 2011, and
was granted by the court on March 3,
2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
The Settlement Agreement provides
that FRA will issue two NPRMs. The
first NPRM is to address whether the
PTC rule should be amended by
eliminating the two aforementioned
tests that would potentially require PTC
to be installed on track segments not
specifically required to be equipped by
Congress. This NPRM meets that
requirement. The Settlement Agreement
provides that upon the completion of
this rulemaking proceeding, the parties
will determine whether to file a joint
motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its
entirety. The Settlement Agreement also
states that FRA is to issue a separate
NPRM that will address the issues of
how to handle en-route failures of PTCequipped trains, circumstances under
which a signal system may be removed
after PTC installation, and whether yard
movements and certain other train
movements should qualify for a de
minimis risk exception to the PTC rule.
The second NPRM will also address any
other issues that might be raised by
interested parties in a properly filed
petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR
part 211. The Settlement Agreement
notes that FRA will consider all
comments submitted during the
rulemaking comment periods on each of
those NPRMs in determining whether to
issue amendments to the PTC rule and,
if so, the contents of those amendments.
Although this NPRM and its associated
regulatory impact analysis seek
comments relating to the two qualifying
tests, it does not seek comments on the
issues that will be reserved for the other
forthcoming NPRM.
On March 17, 2011, FRA and AAR
testified before the Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives. In addition to reporting
on the Settlement Agreement, FRA’s
testimony discussed PTC system
implementation planning and progress
made thus far and highlighted the
various ways that FRA has assisted the
industry in meeting the statutory and
regulatory goals. In particular, FRA has
supported PTC implementation by
developing and approving certain
implementation exceptions, providing
technical assistance, and granting
financial assistance.
During its testimony, made jointly
with Norfolk Southern Railway (NS),
AAR asserted that, ‘‘If unchanged, the
2008 base-year provision means
railroads would have to spend more
than $500 million in the next few years
to deploy PTC on more than 10,000
miles of rail lines on which neither
passenger nor TIH materials will be
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52921
moving in 2015.’’ 1 FRA understands
AAR to assume that these 10,000 miles
would still require PTC implementation
because they would not be able to pass
the alternative route analysis and
residual risk analysis tests. If this is not
correct, FRA seeks AAR’s clarification.
However, upon its own analysis, FRA
assumes that 50 percent of the 10,000
miles would be able to pass both tests
with the implementation of mitigation
measures. FRA seeks comment on this
assumption.
Under the regulatory impact analysis
(RIA) that accompanied the PTC final
rule, FRA estimated that the railroads
would need to implement PTC systems
on approximately 70,000 miles of track.
However, PTC system implementation
could be avoided on 3,204 miles of
those 70,000 miles of track because PIH
materials traffic will have ceased by
2015 and the subject track segments
would pass the residual risk analysis
and alternative route analysis tests.
During the earlier rulemakings, no
entity, including AAR and NS,
challenged or otherwise commented on
these conclusions.
FRA also estimated that PTC system
implementation could be avoided on
304 miles of track because gross tonnage
will fall below 5 million gross tons per
year, or passenger service would end so
that neither of the two tests above
would apply. Between the two
categories, FRA estimated that railroads
could exclude more than 3,500 miles.
Assuming that the 3,500 miles
represents about 50% of those tracks
where PIH materials traffic will have
ceased, FRA was implicitly estimating
that there would be about 7,000 miles of
track where PIH materials traffic will
have ceased. The AAR and its members
appear to have been more effective in
the future reduction of PIH materials
traffic than FRA had initially estimated
based on AAR’s congressional testimony
and subsequent submissions to FRA. In
its analysis of this NPRM, FRA
estimates that PIH traffic will cease on
10,000 miles of track on which PTC
systems would have been required had
the traffic not ceased. FRA considers
cases where 7,000 miles, 10,000 miles
and, for sensitivity, 14,000 miles of
track might be excluded from PTC
requirements because of changes in PIH
traffic. As FRA was completing its
1 Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S.
House of Representatives, 112th Cong. (2011) (Joint
statement of Edward R. Hamberger, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the AAR, and Mark D.
Manion, Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer of the Norfolk Southern Railway,
on behalf of the AAR’s member railroads)
[hereinafter AAR Congressional Testimony].
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
52922
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
analysis of this proposal, AAR
submitted data that indicates its
member railroads believe that they can
cease PIH traffic on 11,128 miles of
track, of which 9,566 miles have no
passenger traffic. Some of the passenger
traffic miles may later qualify for
exclusion from the system on which
PTC is required. For more discussion of
those miles from which PIH traffic is
removed, but on which passenger traffic
remains, see FRA’s Regulatory Impact
Assessment, in this rulemaking docket.
FRA seeks comments and information
on the accuracy and likelihood of
estimated changes in PIH traffic.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
Unless otherwise noted, all section
references below refer to sections in title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). FRA seeks comments on all
proposals made in this NPRM.
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part
236
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 236.1003 Definitions
FRA currently defines PIH materials
within the rule text at
§ 236.1005(b)(1)(i), which some may
find difficult to locate. Accordingly, for
the purposes of clarity, FRA proposes to
add the definition for PIH materials to
the definitions section of subpart I. The
inclusion of this definition in
§ 236.1003 would not change the
meaning of the term as understood
under § 236.1005(b)(1)(i) or its crossreferenced §§ 171.8, 173.115, and
173.132.
Section 236.1005 Requirements for
Positive Train Control Systems
In this NPRM, FRA is proposing the
elimination of the alternative route
analysis and the residual risk analysis
tests. When initially published in the
PTC rule on January 15, 2010, these
provisions were included in
§ 236.1005(b). On September 27, 2010,
FRA issued amendments to the PTC
rule, moving the text to a new
§ 236.1020 and providing more
clarifying language. To ensure
continuity and understanding, however,
§ 236.1005 contained various crossreferences to § 236.1020. As indicated
below, FRA is proposing to eliminate
§ 236.1020. Accordingly, FRA also
proposes rule text changes to § 236.1005
by removing those cross-references.
Section 236.1020 Exclusion of Track
Segments for Implementation Due to
Cessation of PIH Materials Traffic
As previously noted, the current PTC
rule requires that, for each RFA seeking
to exclude a track segment from PTC
system implementation due to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
cessation of PIH materials traffic, a
railroad must satisfy both an alternative
route analysis, and eventually a residual
risk analysis test, in order to secure
FRA’s approval. FRA’s cost benefit
analysis of the PTC rule indicates that
the railroads will incur approximately
$20 in PTC costs for each $1 in PTC
safety benefits. In its congressional
testimony, AAR testified that 2010 was
the safest year for America’s railroads,
that railroads have lower employee
injury rates than most other major
industries, that only around 4 percent of
all train accidents on Class I main lines
are likely to be prevented by PTC
systems, and that there are many far less
costly ways to provide greater
improvements in rail safety than
through the implementation of PTC
systems on lines not required by
Congress to be equipped.2 According to
the testimony, if the PTC rule remains
unchanged, railroads may be required to
spend more than $500 million in the
next few years to deploy PTC systems
on more than 10,000 miles of rail lines
on which neither passengers nor PIH
materials will be transported as of
December 31, 2015.
While FRA believes that the
alternative route analysis and residual
risk tests are legally sustainable, it
recognizes that these tests could
potentially require the installation of
PTC systems at a great cost to the
railroads. FRA also recognizes that the
railroads have much work to do to have
interoperable PTC systems installed in
accordance with the congressional
mandate. FRA is, therefore, proposing to
eliminate the tests that would
potentially require the installation of
PTC systems on lines not specifically
mandated by Congress.
FRA seeks comments from interested
parties on the proposed removal of the
alternative route analysis from the PTC
rule. FRA also seeks comments on the
proposed removal of the residual risk
analysis. If FRA were to remove these
requirements, it proposes doing so by
eliminating § 236.1020 as it currently
exists. While FRA is proposing the
removal of these analyses from the PTC
rule, FRA reserves its statutory and
regulatory authority to require PTC
system implementation on additional
track segments in the future based on
risk levels or other rational bases.
2 See
PO 00000
AAR Congressional Testimony, at 8–9.
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This proposed rule has been
evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures, and
determined to be significant under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order
13563 and DOT policies and
procedures. 44 FR 11,034 (Feb. 26,
1979). We have prepared and placed in
the docket a regulatory impact analysis
(RIA) addressing the economic impact
of this NPRM. FRA is proposing the
removal of various regulatory
requirements that require railroads to
meet two tests in order to avoid PTC
system implementation on track
segments that were used to transport
PIH traffic and carried five million gross
tons of annual traffic in 2008, but that
will not transport PIH materials traffic
and the applicable passenger traffic as of
December 31, 2015. Substantial cost
savings would accrue largely from not
installing PTC system wayside
components or other mitigations along
approximately 10,000 miles of track.
Although these rail lines would forego
some risk reduction, the reductions
would likely be small since these lines
pose a much lower risk of accidents
because they generally do not carry
passenger trains or PIH materials and
generally have lower accident frequency
and severity, because the lines have
relatively lower traffic volumes than the
average segment on which PTC systems
will be required, based on FRA’s review
of the data submitted by AAR. The
analysis shows that if the assumptions
are correct, the savings to the industry
in the form of regulatory relief as
proposed far outweigh the cost
associated with increased accident
exposure.
The largest part of the cost savings
benefit comes from reducing the extent
of wayside that must be equipped with
PTC. Some of these lines would have
qualified for exemption by passing the
two tests contained in the 2010 PTC
final rule, while others may not have. In
addition, benefits would come from
reducing the number of locomotives
belonging to Class II and Class III (small)
railroads that must be equipped with
PTC systems, because they run on Class
I railroads’ track that will no longer
need to be equipped with PTC systems.
Although these benefits would be small
relative to the wayside equipment
savings, they would be large relative to
the size of the railroads being impacted.
The tables below present the total
estimated cost savings benefits of the
proposed rule, assuming installation or
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
additional mitigation measures would
no longer be required along 10,000
miles of track. The analysis assumes
that 5,000 miles of track would have
passed both tests with some mitigation
measures being taken, and the
remaining 5,000 miles would not have
passed both tests and would have
52923
required PTC system implementation
under the current rules.
BENEFITS
[20-year, discounted]
Costs avoided
7% Discount
3% Discount
Reduced Mitigation Costs, Including Maintenance .....................................................................................
Reduced Wayside Costs, Including Maintenance .......................................................................................
Reduced Locomotive Costs, Including Maintenance ..................................................................................
$91,793,822
515,695,631
12,479,834
$121,119,324
680,445,643
16,466,785
Total Benefits ........................................................................................................................................
619,969,287
818,031,752
Total costs may also be broken down
into initial investment and maintenance
costs. Although railroads may already
have spent money to install and
maintain PTC systems, FRA assumes
here that those funds have not been
spent on the lines considered here, as
they tend to be lower volume, lower
priority lines, and FRA assumes that the
railroads would not install PTC systems
on those lines until 2014, at the earliest,
in the absence of this rulemaking. FRA
seeks comment on this assumption. FRA
estimates that avoiding installation on
10,000 miles would let railroads avoid
$300.5 million in initial installation
costs (not discounted). Maintenance
cost savings would total $366.0 million
(discounted at 7%) or $538.9 million
(discounted at 3%). Maintenance
includes all of the activities and
subsequent purchases needed to operate
the PTC system over its life-cycle, and
to maintain its proper functioning,
reliability, and availability.
Maintenance includes training, system
inspection, testing, adjustments, repair,
and replacement of components.
Replacement components can be very
expensive in processor-based systems
with relatively small installed bases,
such as PTC. PTC systems are not
installed in great enough numbers to
justify a processor manufacturer making
a processor just for PTC. PTC systems
developers must use standard
processors, and over time those
processors usually become obsolete and
are no longer supported or
manufactured. Then the PTC system
developer must redesign and re-test the
PTC system to ensure it will continue to
operate safely and reliably with the new
processor.
Costs associated with the proposed
regulatory relief will come from
reducing the potential for accident
reduction. A substantial part of the
accident reduction that FRA expects
from PTC systems currently required
comes from reducing high-consequence
accidents involving passenger trains or
the release of PIH materials. FRA
believes that the track segments
impacted by this proposal pose
significantly less risk because they
generally do not carry passenger trains
or PIH materials and generally have
lower accident frequency and severity,
as discussed above, because the lines
have relatively lower traffic volumes
and track speeds than the average
segment on which PTC systems will be
required, based on FRA’s review of the
data submitted by AAR. The following
tables present the total costs of the
proposed rule as well as the breakdown
of the costs by element.
COSTS
[20-year, discounted]
Foregone reductions in
7% Discount
3% Discount
$11,453,106
4,254,484
117,793
10,163,835
143,273
430,995
138,780
$16,860,327
6,263,104
173,406
14,962,367
210,915
634,475
204,301
Total Costs ...........................................................................................................................................
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fatality Prevention .......................................................................................................................................
Injury Prevention ..........................................................................................................................................
Train Delay ..................................................................................................................................................
Property Damage .........................................................................................................................................
Equipment Cleanup .....................................................................................................................................
Environmental Cleanup ...............................................................................................................................
Evacuations .................................................................................................................................................
26,702,267
39,308,896
The 20-year discounted net benefits
(subtracting the costs from the benefits)
are expected to be $590 million over 20
years, discounted at 7 percent per year;
and $780 million over 20 years,
discounted at 3 percent per year. The
timing of benefits and costs are such
that a large benefit in terms of capital
investment is avoided in early years,
while the benefit of avoided
maintenance and the disbenefit (costs)
of accidents not avoided would be
realized annually in later years. FRA
also assessed the sensitivity of the
analysis with respect to scenarios in
which railroads may only be able to get
relief for 7,000 miles of track and in
which railroads may get relief on as
many as 14,000 miles of track. Each of
these assumes that 50% of the track
miles would have passed both tests with
some mitigation measures being taken,
and that the remaining 50% of the track
miles would not have passed both tests
and would have required PTC system
implementation under the current rules.
Such scenarios also show net benefits.
Net societal benefits
7% Discount
Expected Case (10,000 miles) ....................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
$593,267,020
24AUP1
3% Discount
$778,722,856
52924
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Net societal benefits
7% Discount
High Case (14,000 miles) ............................................................................................................................
Low Case (7,000 miles) ...............................................................................................................................
1. Description of Regulated Entities and
Impacts
The ‘‘universe’’ of the entities under
consideration includes only those small
7%
3%
entities that can reasonably be expected
Benefit-cost ratio
Discount
Discount to be directly affected by the provisions
Expected Case .........
23.22
20.81 of this rule. In this case, the ‘‘universe’’
High Case .................
22.24
19.93 would be Class III freight railroads that
Low Case ..................
24.69
22.13 operate on rail lines that are currently
required to have PTC systems installed.
Such lines are owned by railroads not
The FRA invites comments on all
considered to be small.
aspects of this analysis, including any
The U.S. Small Business
costs and benefits regarding this NPRM
Administration (SBA) stipulates in its
that may not have been considered in
‘‘Size Standards’’ that the largest a
this analysis, and particularly seeks
railroad business firm that is ‘‘forcomments on the time frame for
profit’’ may be, and still be classified as
installation, maintenance, and
a ‘‘small entity,’’ is 1,500 employees for
realization of costs and benefits.
‘‘Line Haul Operating Railroads’’ and
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
500 employees for ‘‘Switching and
Executive Order 13272
Terminal Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small
To ensure that the potential impact of entity’’ is defined in the Act as a small
business that is independently owned
this rulemaking on small entities is
and operated, and is not dominant in its
properly considered, FRA developed
field of operation. Additionally, section
this proposed rule in accordance with
601(5) defines ‘‘small entities’’ as
Executive Order 13272 (‘‘Proper
governments of cities, counties, towns,
Consideration of Small Entities in
townships, villages, school districts, or
Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s
special districts with populations less
policies and procedures to promote
than 50,000.
compliance with the Regulatory
Federal agencies may adopt their own
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
size standards for small entities in
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires an agency to review regulations consultation with SBA and in
conjunction with public comment.
to assess their impact on small entities.
Pursuant to that authority, FRA has
An agency must conduct a regulatory
published a final policy that formally
flexibility analysis unless it determines
establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as railroads
and certifies that a rule is not expected
which meet the line haulage revenue
to have a significant economic impact
requirements of a Class III railroad.3 The
on a substantial number of small
revenue requirements are currently $20
entities.
As discussed in earlier sections of this million or less in annual operating
revenue. The $20 million limit (which
preamble, FRA is proposing to amend
is adjusted by applying the railroad
the regulations implementing a
revenue deflator adjustment) 4 is based
provision of RSIA that requires certain
passenger and freight railroads to install on the Surface Transportation Board’s
(STB) threshold for a Class III railroad
PTC systems. Specifically, FRA is
carrier. FRA is using the STB’s
proposing the removal of various
threshold in its definition of ‘‘small
regulatory requirements that require
entities’’ for this rule.
railroads to either conduct further
The proposed regulation would
analyses or meet certain risk-based
impact Class III railroads that operate on
criteria in order to avoid PTC system
lines of other railroads currently
implementation on track segments that
carried PIH traffic and 5 million or more required to have PTC systems installed.
gross tons of traffic in 2008 but that will To the extent that such host railroads
not carry PIH hazardous materials traffic receive relief from such a requirement
along certain lines as proposed in this
as of December 31, 2015.
NPRM, Class III railroads that operate
FRA is certifying that this proposed
over those lines would not have to
rule will result in ‘‘no significant
economic impact on a substantial
3 See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003); 49 CFR part 209,
number of small entities.’’ The
app. C.
following section explains the reasons
4 For further information on the calculation of the
for this certification.
specific dollar limit, please see 49 CFR part 1201.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Further, the benefit-cost ratios under
the scenarios analyzed range between
20:1 and 25:1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
793,856,299
442,825,061
3% Discount
1,041,764,269
581,441,797
equip their locomotives with PTC
system components. FRA believes that
elimination of the two tests for relief
from the requirement to install PTC
systems as proposed would in effect
result in PTC systems not being
installed on track segments totaling over
10,000 miles in length. Approximately
five small railroads operate locomotives
on lines currently required to be
equipped with PTC systems, but that
would receive relief under the proposed
rule. In addition, two Class III railroads
operate over railroad crossings
(diamonds) that intersect tracks required
to be equipped with PTC systems in the
absence of changes proposed in this
notice. The total of seven affected Class
III railroads is not a substantial number
of small entities, given that there are 674
small railroads. If this FRA proposal
becomes effective, Class III railroads
would avoid equipping 28 locomotives
with PTC onboard apparatuses at a cost
savings of $55,000 per locomotive
initially plus maintenance of the PTC
equipment. In addition, a Class III
railroad would avoid paying for PTC
system installation at one railroad-torailroad crossing, at an initial cost of
$80,000 plus annual maintenance.
Finally, Class III railroads would avoid
operational costs associated with having
to reduce operating speeds to cross over
two railroad-to-railroad crossings at an
annual cost of $43,800. The unit costs
presented above for installing PTC
systems on locomotives, and at railroadto-railroad crossings, and the
operational costs of operating over a
crossing at reduced speed are the values
used in the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis of the PTC final rule issued
January 15, 2010, and can be found in
the docket for that rulemaking. The
changes FRA is proposing would benefit
the small entities impacted. FRA
requests comment on whether the
impacts on them would be significant
and whether the number of small
railroads affected is substantial. The
seven railroads affected do not represent
a substantial number of railroads out of
more than approximately 600 Class III
railroads.
2. Certification
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FRA
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
substantial number of small entities.
FRA requests comment on both this
analysis and this certification, and its
estimates of the impacts on small
railroads.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule are
being submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
52925
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
sections that contain the current
information collection requirements and
the estimated time to fulfill each
proposed requirement are summarized
as follows:
CFR Section
Respondent universe
Total annual responses
Average time per
response
234.275—Processor-Based
Systems—Deviations from Product Safety Plan (PSP)—Letters.
236.18—Software Mgmt Control Plan .................
—Updates to Software Mgmt. Control Plan ........
236.905—Updates to RSPP ................................
—Response to Request For Additional Info ........
—Request for FRA Approval of RSPP Modification.
236.907—Product Safety Plan (PSP)—Dev .......
236.909—Minimum Performance Standard.
—Petitions For Review and Approval .................
—Supporting Sensitivity Analysis ........................
236.913—Notification/Submission to FRA of
Joint Product Safety Plan (PSP).
—Petitions For Approval/Informational Filings ....
—Responses to FRA Request For Further Info.
After Informational Filing.
—Responses to FRA Request For Further Info.
After Agency Receipt of Notice of Product Development.
—Consultations ....................................................
—Petitions for Final Approval ..............................
—Comments to FRA by Interested Parties .........
—Third Party Assessments of PSP ....................
—Amendments to PSP ........................................
—Field Testing of Product—Info. Filings .............
236.917—Retention of Records ..........................
—Results of tests/inspections specified in PSP ..
20 Railroads .................
25 letters ......................
4 hours .........................
100
184 Railroads ...............
90 Railroads .................
78 Railroads .................
78 Railroads .................
78 Railroads .................
2,150 hours ..................
1.50 hours ....................
135 hours .....................
400 hours .....................
400 hours .....................
395,600
30
810
400
400
5 Railroads ...................
184 plans .....................
20 updates ...................
6 plans .........................
1 updated doc ..............
1 request/modified
RSPP.
5 plans .........................
6,400 hours ..................
32,000
5 Railroads ...................
5 Railroads ...................
6 Railroads ...................
2 petitions/PSP ............
5 analyses ....................
1 joint plan ...................
19,200 hours ................
160 hours .....................
25,600 hours ................
38,400
800
25,600
6 Railroads ...................
6 Railroads ...................
6 petitions .....................
2 documents ................
1,928 hours ..................
800 hours .....................
11,568
1,600
6 Railroads ...................
6 documents ................
16 hours .......................
96
6 Railroads ...................
6 Railroads ...................
Public/RRs ...................
6 Railroads ...................
6 Railroads ...................
6 Railroads ...................
......................................
6 Railroads ...................
6 consults .....................
6 petitions .....................
7 comments .................
1 assessment ...............
15 amendments ...........
6 documents ................
......................................
3 documents/records ...
720
96
1,680
104,000
2,400
19,200
6 Railroads ...................
1 report .........................
120 hours .....................
16 hours .......................
240 hours .....................
104,000 hours ..............
160 hours .....................
3,200 hours ..................
160,000 hrs ..................
160,000 hrs.; 40,000
hrs.
104 hours .....................
6 Railroads ...................
6 Railroads ...................
6 updated docs ............
6 plans .........................
40 hours .......................
53,335 hours ................
240
320,010
6 Railroads ...................
6 Railroads ...................
6 Railroads ...................
6,440 hours ..................
400 hours .....................
40 hours .......................
20 hours .......................
720 hours .....................
38,640
2,400
12,400
6 railroads ....................
6 revisions ....................
6 Tr. Programs .............
300 signalmen; 20 dispatchers.
6 documents ................
6 railroads ....................
350 records ..................
10 minutes ...................
58
46 railroads ..................
3 rules ..........................
80 hours .......................
240
46 railroads ..................
46 railroads ..................
50 requests ..................
50 notifications .............
8 hours .........................
2 hours .........................
400
100
46 railroads ..................
760 requests ................
8 hours .........................
6,080
46 railroads ..................
380 requests ................
8 hours .........................
3,040
46 railroads ..................
45 reports + 45 reports
8 hours + 170 ..............
8,010
46 railroads ..................
35 reports .....................
16 hours .......................
560
46 railroads ..................
3 documents ................
3,200 hours ..................
9,600
46 railroads ..................
2 requests ....................
8,000 hours ..................
6,000
—Report to FRA of Inconsistencies with frequency of safety-relevant hazards in PSP.
236.919—Operations & Maintenance Man.
—Updates to O & M Manual ...............................
—Plans For Proper Maintenance, Repair, Inspection of Safety-Critical Products.
—Hardware/Software/Firmware Revisions ..........
236.921—Training Programs: Development .......
—Training of Signalmen & Dispatchers ..............
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
236.923—Task Analysis/Basic Requirements:
Necessary Documents.
—Records ............................................................
SUBPART I—NEW REQUIREMENTS
—236.1001—RR Development of More Stringent Rules Re: PTC Performance Stds.
—236.1005—Requirements for PTC Systems.
—Temporary Rerouting: Emergency Requests ..
—Written/Telephonic Notification to FRA Regional Administrator.
—Temporary Rerouting Requests Due to Track
Maintenance.
—Temporary Rerouting Requests That Exceed
30 Days.
—236.1006—Requirements for Equipping Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory.
—Reports of Movements in Excess of 20 Miles/
RR Progress on PTC Locomotives.
—PTC Progress Reports .....................................
—236.1007—Additional Requirements for High
Speed Service.
—Required HSR–125 Documents with approved
PTCSP.
—Requests to Use Foreign Service Data ...........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Total annual
burden hours
360,000
104
4,320
52926
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
CFR Section
Respondent universe
Total annual responses
Average time per
response
—PTC Railroads Conducting Operations at
More than 150 MPH with HSR–125 Documents.
—Requests for PTC Waiver ................................
236.1009–Procedural Requirements.
—Host Railroads Filing PTCIP or Request for
Amendment (RFAs).
—Jointly Submitted PTCIPs ................................
—Notification of Failure to File Joint PTCIP .......
—Comprehensive List of Issues Causing NonAgreement.
—Conferences to Develop Mutually Acceptable
PCTIP.
—Type Approval ..................................................
—PTC Development Plans Requesting Type Approval.
—Notice of Product Intent w/PTCIPs (IPs) .........
—PTCDPs with PTCIPs (DPs + IPs) ..................
—Updated PTCIPs w/PTCDPs (IPs + DPs) .......
—Disapproved/Resubmitted PTCIPs/NPIs ..........
—Revoked Approvals—Provisional IPs/DP ........
—PTC IPs/PTCDPs Still Needing Rework ..........
—PTCIP/PTCDP/PTCSP Plan Contents—Documents Translated into English.
—Requests for Confidentiality .............................
—Field Test Plans/Independent Assessments—
Req. by FRA.
—FRA Access: Interviews with PTC Wrkrs ........
—FRA Requests for Further Information ............
236.1011—PTCIP Requirements—Comment .....
236.1015—PTCSP Content Requirements &
PTC System Certification.
—Non-Vital Overlay .............................................
—Vital Overlay .....................................................
—Stand Alone ......................................................
—Mixed Systems—Conference with FRA regarding Case/Analysis.
—Mixed Sys. PTCSPs (incl. safety case) ...........
—FRA Request for Additional PTCSP Data .......
—PTCSPs Applying to Replace Existing Certified PTC Systems.
—Non-Quantitative Risk Assessments Supplied
to FRA.
236.1017—PTCSP Supported by Independent
Third Party Assessment.
—Written Requests to FRA to Confirm Entity
Independence.
—Provision of Additional Information After FRA
Request.
—Independent Third Party Assessment: Waiver
Requests.
—RR Request for FRA to Accept Foreign Railroad Regulator Certified Info.
236.1019—Main Line Track Exceptions.
—Submission of Main Line Track Exclusion
Addendums (MTEAs).
—Passenger Terminal Exception—MTEAs .........
—Limited Operation Exception—Risk Mit ...........
—Ltd. Exception—Collision Hazard Anal ............
—Temporal Separation Procedures ....................
236.1021—Discontinuances, Material Modifications, Amendments—Requests to Amend
(RFA) PTCIP, PTCDP or PTCSP.
—Review and Public Comment on RFA .............
46 railroads ..................
3 documents ................
3,200 hours ..................
9,600
46 railroads ..................
1 request ......................
1,000 hours ..................
1,000
46 Railroads .................
1 PCTIP; 20 RFAs .......
535 hours; 320 hours ...
6,935
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
5 PTCIPs ......................
1 notification .................
1 list ..............................
267 hours .....................
32 hours .......................
80 hours .......................
1,335
32
80
46 Railroads .................
1 conf. calls ..................
60 minutes ...................
1 hour
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
2 Type Appr. ................
20 Ltr. + 20 App; 2
Plans.
3 NPI; 1 IP ...................
1 DP .............................
1 IP; 1 DP ....................
1 IP + 1 NPI .................
IP + 1 DP .....................
1 IP + 1 DP ..................
1 document ..................
8 hours .........................
8 hrs/1600 hrs.; 6,400
hours.
1,070 + 535 hrs ...........
2,135 hours ..................
535 + 2,135 hrs ...........
135 + 270 hrs ..............
135 + 535 hrs ..............
135 + 535 hrs ..............
8,000 hours ..................
16
44,960
8 hrs.; 800 hrs ..............
800 hours .....................
37,168
185,600
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
7 Interested Groups .....
46 ltrs; 46 docs ............
230 field tests; 2 assessments.
92 interviews ................
8 documents ................
1 rev.; 40 com ..............
30 minutes ...................
400 hours .....................
143 + 8 hrs ..................
46
3,200
463
46
46
46
46
.................
.................
.................
.................
3 PTCSPs ....................
28 PTCSPs ..................
14 PTCSPs ..................
3 conferences ..............
16,000 hours ................
22,400 hours ................
32,000 hours ................
32 hours .......................
48,000
627,200
448,000
96
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
1 PTCSP ......................
23 documents ..............
23 PTCSPs ..................
28,800 hours ................
3,200 hours ..................
3,200 hours ..................
28,800
73,600
73,600
46 Railroads .................
23 assessments ...........
3,200 hours ..................
73,600
46 Railroads .................
1 assessment ...............
8,000 hours ..................
8,000
46 Railroads .................
1 request ......................
8 hours .........................
8
46 Railroads .................
1 document ..................
160 hours .....................
160
46 Railroads .................
1 request ......................
160 hours .....................
160
46 Railroads .................
1 request ......................
32 hours .......................
32
46 Railroads .................
46 MTEAs ....................
160 hours .....................
7,360
46
46
46
46
46
23
23
12
11
23
MTEAs ....................
plans .......................
analyses ..................
procedures ..............
RFAs .......................
160 hours .....................
160 hours .....................
1,600 hours ..................
160 hours .....................
160 hours .....................
3,680
3,680
19,200
1,760
3,680
3 hours; 16 hours .........
341
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
7 reviews + 20 comments.
46 lists ..........................
46 procedures ..............
8 hours .........................
16 hours .......................
368
736
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
5 System Suppliers ......
150 notification .............
150 updates .................
5 reports .......................
16 hours .......................
16 hours .......................
400 hours .....................
2,400
2,400
2,000
236.1023—PTC Product Vendor Lists ................
—RR Procedures Upon Notification of PTC System Safety-Critical Upgrades, Rev., Etc.
—RR Notifications of PTC Safety Hazards .........
—RR Notification Updates ...................................
—Manufacturer’s Report of Investigation of PTC
Defect.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
Railroads
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
7 Interested Groups .....
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Total annual
burden hours
3,745
2,135
2,670
405
670
670
8,000
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
52927
Respondent universe
Total annual responses
Average time per
response
—PTC Supplier Reports of Safety Relevant Failures or Defective Conditions.
236.1029—Report of On-Board Lead Locomotive PTC Device Failure.
236.1031—Previously Approved PTC Systems.
—Request for Expedited Certification (REC) for
PTC System.
—Requests for Grandfathering on PTCSPs .......
236.1035—Field Testing Requirements ..............
—Relief Requests from Regulations Necessary
to Support Field Testing.
236.1037—Records Retention.
—Results of Tests in PTCSP and PTCDP .........
—PTC Service Contractors Training Records ....
—Reports of Safety Relevant Hazards Exceeding Those in PTCSP and PTCDP.
—Final Report of Resolution of Inconsistency ....
—236.1039—Operations & Maintenance Manual
(OMM): Development.
—Positive Identification of Safety-critical components.
—Designated RR Officers in OMM. regarding
PTC issues.
—236.1041—PTC Training Programs .................
—236.1043—Task
Analysis/Basic
Requirements: Training Evaluations.
—Training Records ..............................................
—236.1045—Training Specific to Office Control
Personnel.
—236.1047—Training Specific to Loc. Engineers
& Other Operating Personnel.
—PTC Conductor Training ..................................
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
CFR Section
5 System Suppliers ......
16 hours + 8 hours ......
3,600
46 Railroads .................
150 reports + 150 rpt.
copies.
1,012 reports ................
96 hours .......................
97,152
46 Railroads .................
3 REC Letters ..............
160 hours .....................
480
46 Railroads .................
46 railroads ..................
46 Railroads .................
3 requests ....................
230 field test plans .......
46 requests ..................
1,600 hours ..................
800 hours .....................
320 hours .....................
4,800
184,000
14,720
46 railroads ..................
46 Railroads .................
46 Railroads .................
1,012 records ...............
22,080 records .............
4 reports .......................
4 hours .........................
30 minutes ...................
8 hours .........................
4,048
11,040
32
46 Railroads .................
46 railroads ..................
4 final reports ...............
46 manuals ..................
160 hours .....................
250 hours .....................
640
11,500
46 railroads ..................
1 hour ...........................
120,000
46 railroads ..................
120,000 i.d. components.
92 designations ............
2 hours .........................
184
46 Railroads .................
46 railroads ..................
46 programs .................
46 evaluations ..............
400 hours .....................
720 hours .....................
18,400
33,120
46 railroads ..................
46 railroads ..................
560 records ..................
32 trained employees ..
10 minutes ...................
20 hours .......................
93
640
30 railroads ..................
8,000 trained conductors.
3 hours .........................
24,000
All estimates include the time for
reviewing instructions; searching
existing data sources; gathering or
maintaining the needed data; and
reviewing the information. Pursuant to
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits
comments concerning: whether these
information collection requirements are
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of FRA, including whether
the information has practical utility; the
accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology, may be minimized. For
information or a copy of the paperwork
package submitted to OMB, contact Mr.
Robert Brogan, Information Clearance
Officer, at 202–493–6292, or Ms. Nakia
Jackson at 202–493–6073.
Organizations and individuals
desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements
should direct them to Mr. Robert Brogan
or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., 3rd Floor,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
Washington, DC 20590. Comments may
also be submitted via e-mail to Mr.
Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following
address: Robert.Brogan@dot.gov;
Kimberly.Toone@dot.gov.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule between 30 and 60 days after its
publication in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of
publication. The final rule will respond
to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
FRA is not authorized to impose a
penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements
which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA
intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information
collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the
effective date of the final rule. The OMB
control number, when assigned, will be
announced by separate notice in the
Federal Register.
D. Federalism Implications
This proposed rule has been analyzed
in accordance with the principles and
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Total annual
burden hours
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ See 64 FR 43,255
(Aug. 4, 1999). As discussed earlier in
the preamble, this proposed rule would
provide regulatory relief from the
mandated implementation of PTC
systems.
Executive Order 13132 requires FRA
to develop a process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by state
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ Policies that have
‘‘federalism implications’’ are defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects 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.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may
not issue a regulation with federalism
implications that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs and that is not
required by statute, unless the federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or the agency consults
with State and local government
officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. Where a
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
52928
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
regulation has federalism implications
and preempts state law, the agency
seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
FRA has determined that this
proposed rule would not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, nor on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. In addition, FRA
has determined that this proposed rule
would not impose any direct
compliance costs on State and local
governments. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
However, this proposed rule will have
preemptive effect. Section 20106 of Title
49 of the United States Code provides
that States may not adopt or continue in
effect any law, regulation, or order
related to railroad safety or security that
covers the subject matter of a regulation
prescribed or order issued by the
Secretary of Transportation (with
respect to railroad safety matters) or the
Secretary of Homeland Security (with
respect to railroad security matters),
except when the State law, regulation,
or order qualifies under the local safety
or security exception to § 20106.
Furthermore, the Locomotive Boiler
Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. 20701–20703)
has been held by the U.S. Supreme
Court to preempt the entire field of
locomotive safety.
In sum, FRA has analyzed this
proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in
Executive Order 13132. As explained
above, FRA has determined that this
proposed rule has no federalism
implications, other than the possible
preemption of State laws. Accordingly,
FRA has determined that preparation of
a federalism summary impact statement
for this proposed rule is not required.
accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of
FRA’s Procedures, the agency has
further concluded that no extraordinary
circumstances exist with respect to this
regulation that might trigger the need for
a more detailed environmental review.
As a result, FRA finds that this
proposed rule is not a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
E. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule
in accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts’’
(‘‘FRA’s Procedures’’) (64 FR 28545,
May 26, 1999) as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other
environmental statutes, Executive
Orders, and related regulatory
requirements. FRA has determined that
this proposed rule is not a major FRA
action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment) because it is
categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to
section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. In
G. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires
federal agencies to prepare a Statement
of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001). Under the Executive Order, a
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry,
advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed
rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531)
(UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits,
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditures by
state, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million (adjusted annually for
inflation with base year of 1995) or more
in any one year. The value equivalent of
$100 million in CY 1995, adjusted
annual for inflation to CY 2008 levels by
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI–U) is $141.3 million.
The assessment may be included in
conjunction with other assessments, as
it is in this rulemaking.
FRA is publishing this NPRM to
provide additional flexibility in
standards for the development, testing,
implementation, and use of PTC
systems for railroads mandated by RSIA
to implement PTC systems. The RIA
provides a detailed analysis of the costs
and benefits of the NPRM. This analysis
is the basis for determining that this rule
will not result in total expenditures by
State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$141.3 million or more in any one year.
The costs associated with this NPRM are
reduced accident reduction from an
existing rule. The aforementioned costs
borne by all parties will not exceed $3.3
million in any one year.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. FRA has
evaluated this proposed rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13211.
FRA has determined that this proposed
rule is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
Consequently, FRA has determined that
this regulatory action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within
the meaning of Executive Order 13211.
H. Privacy Act
FRA wishes to inform all interested
parties that anyone is able to search the
electronic form of any written
communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Interested
parties may also review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477) or visit https://
www.regulations.gov.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 236
Penalties, Positive train control,
Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
V. The Proposed Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA
proposes to amend chapter II, subtitle B
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:
PART 236—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 236
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107,
20133, 20141, 20157, 20301–20303, 20306,
21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note;
and 49 CFR 1.49.
2. Amend § 236.1003 by adding the
definition ‘‘PIH Materials’’ to paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
§ 236.1003
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
PIH Materials means materials
poisonous by inhalation, as defined in
§§ 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132 of this
title.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 236.1005 by redesignating
paragraph (b)(4)(ii) as paragraph
(b)(4)(iii); revise paragraph (b)(4)(i) and
add a new paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
§ 236.1005 Requirements for Positive Train
Control systems.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Routing changes. In a PTCIP or an
RFA, a railroad may request review of
the requirement to install PTC on a track
segment where a PTC system is
otherwise required by this section, but
has not yet been installed, based upon
changes in rail traffic such as reductions
in total traffic volume to a level below
5 million gross tons annually or
cessation of passenger service or PIH
materials traffic. Any such request shall
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
be accompanied by estimated traffic
projections for the next 5 years (e.g., as
a result of planned rerouting,
coordinations, or location of new
business on the line).
(ii) FRA will approve the exclusion
requested pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(i)
of this section if the railroad establishes
the following:
(A) The cessation of passenger service
on the involved track segment prior to
January 1, 2016;
(B) A decline in gross tonnage below
5 million gross tons annually as
computed over a 2-year period on the
involved track segment; or
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
52929
(C) The cessation or expected
cessation of PIH traffic over the
involved track segment prior to January
1, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 236.1020
[Removed and reserved]
4. Remove and reserve § 236.1020.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17,
2011.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–21454 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52918-52929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21454]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 236
[Docket No. FRA-2011-0028, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC27
Positive Train Control Systems
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA proposes amendments to the regulations implementing a
provision of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 that requires
certain passenger and freight railroads to install positive train
control (PTC) systems. This notice proposes the removal of various
regulatory requirements that require railroads to either conduct
further analyses or meet certain risk-based criteria in order to avoid
PTC system implementation on track segments that do not transport
poison- or toxic-by-inhalation (PIH) hazardous materials traffic and
are not used for intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation as
of December 31, 2015.
DATES: (1) Written comments must be received by October 24, 2011.
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent
possible without incurring additional expenses or delays.
(2) FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a
public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a
public, oral hearing prior to September 23, 2011, one will be
scheduled, and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the Federal
Register to inform interested parties of the date, time, and location
of any such hearing.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2011-0028, may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Web Site: Comments should be filed at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McFarlin, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Staff Director, Signal & Train Control
Division, Federal Railroad Administration, Mail Stop 25, West Building
3rd Floor West, Room W35-332, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6203); or Jason Schlosberg, Trial
Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10, West Building
3rd Floor, Room W31-207, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590 (telephone: 202-493-6032).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA is issuing this proposed rule to amend
the regulatory requirements contained in 49 CFR part 236, subpart I,
related to a railroad's ability to remove track segments from the
necessity of implementing PTC as mandated by Section 104 of the
Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat.
4854 (Oct. 16, 2008) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 20157) (hereinafter
``RSIA'') based on the track segments not carrying PIH traffic as of
December 31, 2015.
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Regulatory History
B. Litigation, Executive Order 13563, and Congressional Hearings
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. Environmental Impact
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Energy Impact
H. Privacy Act
I. Executive Summary
For years, FRA has supported the nationwide proliferation and
implementation of positive train control (PTC) systems, forecasting
substantial benefits of advanced train control technology in supporting
a variety of business and safety purposes. However, FRA repetitively
noted that an immediate regulatory mandate for PTC system
implementation could not be justified based upon normal cost-benefit
principals relying on direct safety
[[Page 52919]]
benefits. In 2005, FRA promulgated regulations providing for the
voluntary implementation of processor-based train control systems. See
70 FR 11,052 (Mar. 7, 2005) (codified at 49 CFR part 236, subpart H).
As a consequence of the number and severity of certain very public
accidents, coupled with a series of other less publicized accidents,
Congress passed RSIA mandating the implementation of PTC systems on
lines meeting certain thresholds. RSIA requires PTC system
implementation on all Class I railroad lines that carry PIH materials
and 5 million gross tons or more of annual traffic, and on any
railroad's main line tracks over which intercity or commuter rail
passenger train service is regularly provided. In addition, RSIA
provided FRA with the authority to require PTC system implementation on
any other line.
In accordance with its statutory authority, FRA's subsequent final
rule, issued January 15, 2010, and amended on September 27, 2010,
potentially required PTC system implementation on certain track
segments that carried PIH traffic and 5 million gross tons or more of
annual traffic in 2008 but that will not carry PIH traffic, and will
not be used for intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, as
of December 31, 2015. Per the regulation, the determination would be
based upon whether the subject track segment would pass what has been
called the alternative route analysis and the residual risk analysis
(the ``two qualifying tests'').
Upon issuance of the PTC final rule, the Association of American
Railroads (AAR) filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit challenging the two qualifying tests
provisions of the final rule. After the parties filed their briefs,
they executed a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement). In the
Settlement Agreement, FRA agreed to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend the PTC rule to eliminate the two
qualifying tests; this NPRM fulfills this requirement. The Settlement
Agreement further provided that FRA would consider public comments on
the NPRM in determining whether to amend the PTC rule.
For the first 20 years of the proposed rule, the estimated
quantified benefits to the industry due to the proposed regulatory
relief total approximately $620 million discounted at 7 percent and
$818 million discounted at 3 percent. Substantial cost savings would
accrue largely from not installing PTC system wayside components along
approximately 10,000 miles of track. Although these rail lines would
forego some risk reduction, the reductions would likely be small since
these lines pose a much lower risk of accidents because they generally
do not carry passenger trains or PIH materials and generally have lower
accident exposure. The analysis shows that if the assumptions are
correct, the savings of the proposed action far outweigh the cost. The
following table presents the quantified benefits:
Benefits
[20-year, discounted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs avoided 7% Discount 3% Discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Mitigation Costs, $91,793,822 $121,119,324
Including Maintenance............
Reduced Wayside Costs, Including 515,695,631 680,445,643
Maintenance......................
Reduced Locomotive Costs, 12,479,834 16,466,785
Including Maintenance............
-------------------------------------
Total Benefits................ 619,969,287 818,031,752
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the same 20-year period, the estimated quantified cost totals
$26.7 million discounted at 7 percent and $39.3 million discounted at 3
percent. The costs associated with the proposed regulatory relief
result from the reduction of safety benefits in the form of accident
reduction due to the affected track segments not being equipped with a
PTC system. A substantial part of the accident reduction that FRA
expects from PTC systems currently required comes from reducing high-
consequence accidents involving passenger trains or the release of PIH
materials. FRA believes that the lines impacted by this proposal pose
significantly less risk because they generally do not carry passenger
trains or PIH materials and generally have lower accident exposure. The
following tables present the total costs of the proposed rule as well
as the breakdown of the costs by element:
Costs
[20-year, discounted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foregone reductions in 7% Discount 3% Discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality Prevention............... $11,453,106 $16,860,327
Injury Prevention................. 4,254,484 6,263,104
Train Delay....................... 117,793 173,406
Property Damage................... 10,163,835 14,962,367
Equipment Cleanup................. 143,273 210,915
Environmental Cleanup............. 430,995 634,475
Evacuations....................... 138,780 204,301
-------------------------------------
Total Costs................... 26,702,267 39,308,896
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA has also performed a sensitivity analysis for a high case
(14,000 miles), expected case (10,000 miles), and low case (7,000
miles).
The net amounts for each case, subtracting the costs from the
benefits, provide the following results:
[[Page 52920]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net societal benefits 7% Discount 3% Discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Case (10,000 miles)...... $593,267,020 $778,722,856
High Case (14,000 miles).......... 793,856,299 1,041,764,269
Low Case (7,000 miles)............ 442,825,061 581,441,797
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the benefit-cost ratios under the scenarios analyzed range
between 20:1 and 25:1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% 3%
Benefit-cost ratio Discount Discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Case..................................... 23.22 20.81
High Case......................................... 22.24 19.93
Low Case.......................................... 24.69 22.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Regulatory History
As a consequence of the number and severity of certain widely
publicized accidents, coupled with a series of other accidents
receiving less media attention, Congress passed RSIA, mandating
implementation of PTC systems by December 31, 2015. 75 FR 2598 (Jan.
15, 2010). Under RSIA, such PTC implementation must be completed by
each Class I railroad carrier and each entity providing regularly
scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation on:
(A) Its main line over which intercity rail passenger
transportation or commuter rail passenger transportation, as defined in
section 24102, is regularly provided;
(B) its main line over which PIH or TIH hazardous materials, as
defined in parts 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, are transported; and
(C) such other tracks as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation
or order.
49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(1). The statute further defined ``main line'' to
mean:
A segment or route of railroad tracks over which 5,000,000 or more
gross tons of railroad traffic is transported annually, except that--
(A) The Secretary may, through regulations under subsection (g),
designate additional tracks as main line as appropriate for this
section; and
(B) for intercity rail passenger transportation or commuter rail
passenger transportation routes or segments over which limited or no
freight railroad operations occur, the Secretary shall define the term
``main line'' by regulation.
49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(2). To effectuate this goal, RSIA required the
railroads to submit for FRA approval a PTC Implementation Plan (PTCIP)
within 18 months (i.e., by April 16, 2010).
Consistent with this statutory mandate, FRA published a final rule
with a request for further comments on January 15, 2010, which
established new regulations codified primarily in subpart I to 49 CFR
part 236 (the ``PTC rule''). Subsequently, FRA received a number of
petitions for reconsideration to the final rule and a number of
comments responding to the request for further comments. In a letter
dated July 8, 2010, FRA denied all of the petitions for
reconsideration. On September 27, 2010, FRA issued a new final rule
with clarifying amendments to the PTC rule.
Under the current regulations applicable to the existing railroads,
each PTCIP must have included the sequence and schedule in which track
segments required to be equipped with PTC will be so equipped and the
basis for those decisions. See 49 CFR 236.1011. This list of track
segments must have included all track segments that fit the statutory
criteria in calendar year 2008. See 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(1) and (b)(2).
While the statutory PTC implementation deadline is December 31,
2015, FRA recognized a need for a starting point in time to determine
where such implementation must occur. The final rule indicates that
such a starting baseline should be based on the facts and data known in
calendar year (CY) 2008 (the ``2008 baseline''). FRA determined that
using CY 2009 data would have been difficult given the proximity to the
PTCIP submission deadline and the notably atypical traffic levels
caused by the down turn in the economy. Although each railroad's
initial PTCIP includes a future PTC implementation route map reflecting
2008 data, FRA recognized that traffic levels and PIH routings could
change in the period between the end of 2008 and the start of 2016.
Accordingly, in the event of changed circumstances, the PTC rule
provides railroads with the option to file a request for amendment
(RFA) of its PTCIP to not equip a track segment that the railroad was
initially, but may no longer be, required to implement a PTC system. If
a particular track segment included in a PTCIP will no longer carry PIH
traffic by the statutory implementation deadline, and its PTC system
implementation is scheduled, but not yet effectuated, then the host
railroad might avoid actual PTC system implementation by filing a
supported RFA for FRA approval. Each such RFA must be supported with
the data defined under Sec. 236.1005(b)(2) and (b)(4)(i), and satisfy
the two qualifying tests that were promulgated under FRA's statutory
authority to require PTC to be installed on lines in addition to those
required to be equipped by RSIA. If a track segment fails either of
these tests, FRA would deny the request, thus requiring PTC system
implementation on the track segment.
The first test, proverbially known as the ``alternative route
analysis test,'' was initially codified at Sec. 236.1005(b)(4)(i)(A)
and subsequently moved to a new Sec. 236.1020. Under this test, the
railroad must establish that current or prospective rerouting of PIH
materials traffic to one or more alternative track segments is
justified. If a railroad reroutes all PIH materials off of a track
segment requiring PTC system implementation under the 2008 baseline,
and onto a new line, PTC system implementation on the initial line may
not be required if the new line would have substantially the same
overall safety and security risk as the initial line, assuming PTC
implementation on both lines. If the initial track segment, despite the
elimination of all PIH materials traffic, is determined to pose higher
overall safety and security risks under this analysis, then a PTC
system must still be installed on that initial track segment. PTC
system implementation may also be required on the new line if it meets
the 5 million gross ton of annual traffic threshold and does not
qualify under the de minimis exception of the rule.
The second test that the railroad must satisfy in order to avoid
having to install a PTC system on a track segment requiring
implementation under the 2008 baseline is the so-called ``residual risk
test.'' Under this test, the railroad must show that, without a PTC
system, the remaining risk on the track segment--pertaining to events
that can be prevented or mitigated in severity by a PTC system--is less
than the national average equivalent risk per route mile on track
segments required to be equipped with PTC systems due to statutory
reasons other than passenger traffic presence. When FRA issued its PTC
rule amendments on September 27, 2010, FRA indicated that it was
[[Page 52921]]
delaying the effective date of 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(4)(i)(A)(2)(iii), as
revised under Sec. 236.1020, pending the completion of a separate
rulemaking to establish how residual risk is to be determined.
B. Litigation, Executive Order 13563, and Congressional Hearings
After FRA issued its PTC final rule on January 15, 2010, and denied
reconsideration on July 8, 2010, the AAR filed a petition for review of
the rule with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Once FRA issued its PTC final rule amendments, AAR filed another
petition for review of those amendments on October 5, 2010. The court
consolidated those two petitions on October 22, 2010 (collectively,
``Petition for Review'').
In its brief, AAR challenged FRA's determination to use 2008 as the
baseline year, arguing that it rests on a fundamental legal error and
was arbitrary and capricious. After the parties fully briefed the
issues, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563 on January 18,
2011 (76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011)), which outlined a plan to improve
regulations and regulatory review. According to the Order, it is
intended to reaffirm and build upon governing principles of
contemporary regulatory review, including Executive Order 12866 (Sept.
30, 1993), by requiring federal agencies when issuing safety
regulations to design the regulations so that they are cost-effective,
evidence-based, and compatible with economic growth, job creation, and
competitiveness. The President's plan recognizes that these principles
apply to both new and existing regulations. To that end, Executive
Order 13563 requires agencies to review existing significant
regulations to determine if they are outmoded, ineffective,
insufficient, or excessively burdensome. FRA recognizes that the costs
associated with PTC rule compliance outweigh the safety benefits by 20-
to-1 and, therefore, it is appropriate to reexamine whether FRA should
be requiring the installation of PTC on lines that will not be carrying
PIH traffic or regularly scheduled passenger service as of December 31,
2015.
FRA and AAR entered into the Settlement Agreement on March 2, 2011.
The terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement included the joint
filing of a motion to hold the Petition for Review in abeyance pending
the completion of this rulemaking. That motion was filed on March 2,
2011, and was granted by the court on March 3, 2011.
The Settlement Agreement provides that FRA will issue two NPRMs.
The first NPRM is to address whether the PTC rule should be amended by
eliminating the two aforementioned tests that would potentially require
PTC to be installed on track segments not specifically required to be
equipped by Congress. This NPRM meets that requirement. The Settlement
Agreement provides that upon the completion of this rulemaking
proceeding, the parties will determine whether to file a joint motion
to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The Settlement Agreement also
states that FRA is to issue a separate NPRM that will address the
issues of how to handle en-route failures of PTC-equipped trains,
circumstances under which a signal system may be removed after PTC
installation, and whether yard movements and certain other train
movements should qualify for a de minimis risk exception to the PTC
rule. The second NPRM will also address any other issues that might be
raised by interested parties in a properly filed petition for
rulemaking under 49 CFR part 211. The Settlement Agreement notes that
FRA will consider all comments submitted during the rulemaking comment
periods on each of those NPRMs in determining whether to issue
amendments to the PTC rule and, if so, the contents of those
amendments. Although this NPRM and its associated regulatory impact
analysis seek comments relating to the two qualifying tests, it does
not seek comments on the issues that will be reserved for the other
forthcoming NPRM.
On March 17, 2011, FRA and AAR testified before the Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives. In
addition to reporting on the Settlement Agreement, FRA's testimony
discussed PTC system implementation planning and progress made thus far
and highlighted the various ways that FRA has assisted the industry in
meeting the statutory and regulatory goals. In particular, FRA has
supported PTC implementation by developing and approving certain
implementation exceptions, providing technical assistance, and granting
financial assistance.
During its testimony, made jointly with Norfolk Southern Railway
(NS), AAR asserted that, ``If unchanged, the 2008 base-year provision
means railroads would have to spend more than $500 million in the next
few years to deploy PTC on more than 10,000 miles of rail lines on
which neither passenger nor TIH materials will be moving in 2015.'' \1\
FRA understands AAR to assume that these 10,000 miles would still
require PTC implementation because they would not be able to pass the
alternative route analysis and residual risk analysis tests. If this is
not correct, FRA seeks AAR's clarification. However, upon its own
analysis, FRA assumes that 50 percent of the 10,000 miles would be able
to pass both tests with the implementation of mitigation measures. FRA
seeks comment on this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Cong. (2011) (Joint
statement of Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the AAR, and Mark D. Manion, Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer of the Norfolk Southern Railway, on behalf
of the AAR's member railroads) [hereinafter AAR Congressional
Testimony].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that accompanied the PTC
final rule, FRA estimated that the railroads would need to implement
PTC systems on approximately 70,000 miles of track. However, PTC system
implementation could be avoided on 3,204 miles of those 70,000 miles of
track because PIH materials traffic will have ceased by 2015 and the
subject track segments would pass the residual risk analysis and
alternative route analysis tests. During the earlier rulemakings, no
entity, including AAR and NS, challenged or otherwise commented on
these conclusions.
FRA also estimated that PTC system implementation could be avoided
on 304 miles of track because gross tonnage will fall below 5 million
gross tons per year, or passenger service would end so that neither of
the two tests above would apply. Between the two categories, FRA
estimated that railroads could exclude more than 3,500 miles. Assuming
that the 3,500 miles represents about 50% of those tracks where PIH
materials traffic will have ceased, FRA was implicitly estimating that
there would be about 7,000 miles of track where PIH materials traffic
will have ceased. The AAR and its members appear to have been more
effective in the future reduction of PIH materials traffic than FRA had
initially estimated based on AAR's congressional testimony and
subsequent submissions to FRA. In its analysis of this NPRM, FRA
estimates that PIH traffic will cease on 10,000 miles of track on which
PTC systems would have been required had the traffic not ceased. FRA
considers cases where 7,000 miles, 10,000 miles and, for sensitivity,
14,000 miles of track might be excluded from PTC requirements because
of changes in PIH traffic. As FRA was completing its
[[Page 52922]]
analysis of this proposal, AAR submitted data that indicates its member
railroads believe that they can cease PIH traffic on 11,128 miles of
track, of which 9,566 miles have no passenger traffic. Some of the
passenger traffic miles may later qualify for exclusion from the system
on which PTC is required. For more discussion of those miles from which
PIH traffic is removed, but on which passenger traffic remains, see
FRA's Regulatory Impact Assessment, in this rulemaking docket. FRA
seeks comments and information on the accuracy and likelihood of
estimated changes in PIH traffic.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
Unless otherwise noted, all section references below refer to
sections in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). FRA
seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 236
Section 236.1003 Definitions
FRA currently defines PIH materials within the rule text at Sec.
236.1005(b)(1)(i), which some may find difficult to locate.
Accordingly, for the purposes of clarity, FRA proposes to add the
definition for PIH materials to the definitions section of subpart I.
The inclusion of this definition in Sec. 236.1003 would not change the
meaning of the term as understood under Sec. 236.1005(b)(1)(i) or its
cross-referenced Sec. Sec. 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132.
Section 236.1005 Requirements for Positive Train Control Systems
In this NPRM, FRA is proposing the elimination of the alternative
route analysis and the residual risk analysis tests. When initially
published in the PTC rule on January 15, 2010, these provisions were
included in Sec. 236.1005(b). On September 27, 2010, FRA issued
amendments to the PTC rule, moving the text to a new Sec. 236.1020 and
providing more clarifying language. To ensure continuity and
understanding, however, Sec. 236.1005 contained various cross-
references to Sec. 236.1020. As indicated below, FRA is proposing to
eliminate Sec. 236.1020. Accordingly, FRA also proposes rule text
changes to Sec. 236.1005 by removing those cross-references.
Section 236.1020 Exclusion of Track Segments for Implementation Due to
Cessation of PIH Materials Traffic
As previously noted, the current PTC rule requires that, for each
RFA seeking to exclude a track segment from PTC system implementation
due to the cessation of PIH materials traffic, a railroad must satisfy
both an alternative route analysis, and eventually a residual risk
analysis test, in order to secure FRA's approval. FRA's cost benefit
analysis of the PTC rule indicates that the railroads will incur
approximately $20 in PTC costs for each $1 in PTC safety benefits. In
its congressional testimony, AAR testified that 2010 was the safest
year for America's railroads, that railroads have lower employee injury
rates than most other major industries, that only around 4 percent of
all train accidents on Class I main lines are likely to be prevented by
PTC systems, and that there are many far less costly ways to provide
greater improvements in rail safety than through the implementation of
PTC systems on lines not required by Congress to be equipped.\2\
According to the testimony, if the PTC rule remains unchanged,
railroads may be required to spend more than $500 million in the next
few years to deploy PTC systems on more than 10,000 miles of rail lines
on which neither passengers nor PIH materials will be transported as of
December 31, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See AAR Congressional Testimony, at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While FRA believes that the alternative route analysis and residual
risk tests are legally sustainable, it recognizes that these tests
could potentially require the installation of PTC systems at a great
cost to the railroads. FRA also recognizes that the railroads have much
work to do to have interoperable PTC systems installed in accordance
with the congressional mandate. FRA is, therefore, proposing to
eliminate the tests that would potentially require the installation of
PTC systems on lines not specifically mandated by Congress.
FRA seeks comments from interested parties on the proposed removal
of the alternative route analysis from the PTC rule. FRA also seeks
comments on the proposed removal of the residual risk analysis. If FRA
were to remove these requirements, it proposes doing so by eliminating
Sec. 236.1020 as it currently exists. While FRA is proposing the
removal of these analyses from the PTC rule, FRA reserves its statutory
and regulatory authority to require PTC system implementation on
additional track segments in the future based on risk levels or other
rational bases.
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures, and determined to be significant under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563 and DOT policies and
procedures. 44 FR 11,034 (Feb. 26, 1979). We have prepared and placed
in the docket a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) addressing the
economic impact of this NPRM. FRA is proposing the removal of various
regulatory requirements that require railroads to meet two tests in
order to avoid PTC system implementation on track segments that were
used to transport PIH traffic and carried five million gross tons of
annual traffic in 2008, but that will not transport PIH materials
traffic and the applicable passenger traffic as of December 31, 2015.
Substantial cost savings would accrue largely from not installing PTC
system wayside components or other mitigations along approximately
10,000 miles of track. Although these rail lines would forego some risk
reduction, the reductions would likely be small since these lines pose
a much lower risk of accidents because they generally do not carry
passenger trains or PIH materials and generally have lower accident
frequency and severity, because the lines have relatively lower traffic
volumes than the average segment on which PTC systems will be required,
based on FRA's review of the data submitted by AAR. The analysis shows
that if the assumptions are correct, the savings to the industry in the
form of regulatory relief as proposed far outweigh the cost associated
with increased accident exposure.
The largest part of the cost savings benefit comes from reducing
the extent of wayside that must be equipped with PTC. Some of these
lines would have qualified for exemption by passing the two tests
contained in the 2010 PTC final rule, while others may not have. In
addition, benefits would come from reducing the number of locomotives
belonging to Class II and Class III (small) railroads that must be
equipped with PTC systems, because they run on Class I railroads' track
that will no longer need to be equipped with PTC systems. Although
these benefits would be small relative to the wayside equipment
savings, they would be large relative to the size of the railroads
being impacted. The tables below present the total estimated cost
savings benefits of the proposed rule, assuming installation or
[[Page 52923]]
additional mitigation measures would no longer be required along 10,000
miles of track. The analysis assumes that 5,000 miles of track would
have passed both tests with some mitigation measures being taken, and
the remaining 5,000 miles would not have passed both tests and would
have required PTC system implementation under the current rules.
Benefits
[20-year, discounted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs avoided 7% Discount 3% Discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Mitigation Costs, $91,793,822 $121,119,324
Including Maintenance............
Reduced Wayside Costs, Including 515,695,631 680,445,643
Maintenance......................
Reduced Locomotive Costs, 12,479,834 16,466,785
Including Maintenance............
-------------------------------------
Total Benefits................ 619,969,287 818,031,752
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs may also be broken down into initial investment and
maintenance costs. Although railroads may already have spent money to
install and maintain PTC systems, FRA assumes here that those funds
have not been spent on the lines considered here, as they tend to be
lower volume, lower priority lines, and FRA assumes that the railroads
would not install PTC systems on those lines until 2014, at the
earliest, in the absence of this rulemaking. FRA seeks comment on this
assumption. FRA estimates that avoiding installation on 10,000 miles
would let railroads avoid $300.5 million in initial installation costs
(not discounted). Maintenance cost savings would total $366.0 million
(discounted at 7%) or $538.9 million (discounted at 3%). Maintenance
includes all of the activities and subsequent purchases needed to
operate the PTC system over its life-cycle, and to maintain its proper
functioning, reliability, and availability. Maintenance includes
training, system inspection, testing, adjustments, repair, and
replacement of components. Replacement components can be very expensive
in processor-based systems with relatively small installed bases, such
as PTC. PTC systems are not installed in great enough numbers to
justify a processor manufacturer making a processor just for PTC. PTC
systems developers must use standard processors, and over time those
processors usually become obsolete and are no longer supported or
manufactured. Then the PTC system developer must redesign and re-test
the PTC system to ensure it will continue to operate safely and
reliably with the new processor.
Costs associated with the proposed regulatory relief will come from
reducing the potential for accident reduction. A substantial part of
the accident reduction that FRA expects from PTC systems currently
required comes from reducing high-consequence accidents involving
passenger trains or the release of PIH materials. FRA believes that the
track segments impacted by this proposal pose significantly less risk
because they generally do not carry passenger trains or PIH materials
and generally have lower accident frequency and severity, as discussed
above, because the lines have relatively lower traffic volumes and
track speeds than the average segment on which PTC systems will be
required, based on FRA's review of the data submitted by AAR. The
following tables present the total costs of the proposed rule as well
as the breakdown of the costs by element.
Costs
[20-year, discounted]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foregone reductions in 7% Discount 3% Discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality Prevention............... $11,453,106 $16,860,327
Injury Prevention................. 4,254,484 6,263,104
Train Delay....................... 117,793 173,406
Property Damage................... 10,163,835 14,962,367
Equipment Cleanup................. 143,273 210,915
Environmental Cleanup............. 430,995 634,475
Evacuations....................... 138,780 204,301
-------------------------------------
Total Costs................... 26,702,267 39,308,896
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 20-year discounted net benefits (subtracting the costs from the
benefits) are expected to be $590 million over 20 years, discounted at
7 percent per year; and $780 million over 20 years, discounted at 3
percent per year. The timing of benefits and costs are such that a
large benefit in terms of capital investment is avoided in early years,
while the benefit of avoided maintenance and the disbenefit (costs) of
accidents not avoided would be realized annually in later years. FRA
also assessed the sensitivity of the analysis with respect to scenarios
in which railroads may only be able to get relief for 7,000 miles of
track and in which railroads may get relief on as many as 14,000 miles
of track. Each of these assumes that 50% of the track miles would have
passed both tests with some mitigation measures being taken, and that
the remaining 50% of the track miles would not have passed both tests
and would have required PTC system implementation under the current
rules. Such scenarios also show net benefits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net societal benefits 7% Discount 3% Discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Case (10,000 miles)...... $593,267,020 $778,722,856
[[Page 52924]]
High Case (14,000 miles).......... 793,856,299 1,041,764,269
Low Case (7,000 miles)............ 442,825,061 581,441,797
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the benefit-cost ratios under the scenarios analyzed range
between 20:1 and 25:1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% 3%
Benefit-cost ratio Discount Discount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Case..................................... 23.22 20.81
High Case......................................... 22.24 19.93
Low Case.......................................... 24.69 22.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FRA invites comments on all aspects of this analysis, including
any costs and benefits regarding this NPRM that may not have been
considered in this analysis, and particularly seeks comments on the
time frame for installation, maintenance, and realization of costs and
benefits.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
To ensure that the potential impact of this rulemaking on small
entities is properly considered, FRA developed this proposed rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's policies and procedures to
promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to review
regulations to assess their impact on small entities. An agency must
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and
certifies that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed in earlier sections of this preamble, FRA is proposing
to amend the regulations implementing a provision of RSIA that requires
certain passenger and freight railroads to install PTC systems.
Specifically, FRA is proposing the removal of various regulatory
requirements that require railroads to either conduct further analyses
or meet certain risk-based criteria in order to avoid PTC system
implementation on track segments that carried PIH traffic and 5 million
or more gross tons of traffic in 2008 but that will not carry PIH
hazardous materials traffic as of December 31, 2015.
FRA is certifying that this proposed rule will result in ``no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' The following section explains the reasons for this
certification.
1. Description of Regulated Entities and Impacts
The ``universe'' of the entities under consideration includes only
those small entities that can reasonably be expected to be directly
affected by the provisions of this rule. In this case, the ``universe''
would be Class III freight railroads that operate on rail lines that
are currently required to have PTC systems installed. Such lines are
owned by railroads not considered to be small.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates in its
``Size Standards'' that the largest a railroad business firm that is
``for-profit'' may be, and still be classified as a ``small entity,''
is 1,500 employees for ``Line Haul Operating Railroads'' and 500
employees for ``Switching and Terminal Establishments.'' ``Small
entity'' is defined in the Act as a small business that is
independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of
operation. Additionally, section 601(5) defines ``small entities'' as
governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations less than 50,000.
Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small
entities in consultation with SBA and in conjunction with public
comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA has published a final policy
that formally establishes ``small entities'' as railroads which meet
the line haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad.\3\ The
revenue requirements are currently $20 million or less in annual
operating revenue. The $20 million limit (which is adjusted by applying
the railroad revenue deflator adjustment) \4\ is based on the Surface
Transportation Board's (STB) threshold for a Class III railroad
carrier. FRA is using the STB's threshold in its definition of ``small
entities'' for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003); 49 CFR part 209, app. C.
\4\ For further information on the calculation of the specific
dollar limit, please see 49 CFR part 1201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulation would impact Class III railroads that
operate on lines of other railroads currently required to have PTC
systems installed. To the extent that such host railroads receive
relief from such a requirement along certain lines as proposed in this
NPRM, Class III railroads that operate over those lines would not have
to equip their locomotives with PTC system components. FRA believes
that elimination of the two tests for relief from the requirement to
install PTC systems as proposed would in effect result in PTC systems
not being installed on track segments totaling over 10,000 miles in
length. Approximately five small railroads operate locomotives on lines
currently required to be equipped with PTC systems, but that would
receive relief under the proposed rule. In addition, two Class III
railroads operate over railroad crossings (diamonds) that intersect
tracks required to be equipped with PTC systems in the absence of
changes proposed in this notice. The total of seven affected Class III
railroads is not a substantial number of small entities, given that
there are 674 small railroads. If this FRA proposal becomes effective,
Class III railroads would avoid equipping 28 locomotives with PTC
onboard apparatuses at a cost savings of $55,000 per locomotive
initially plus maintenance of the PTC equipment. In addition, a Class
III railroad would avoid paying for PTC system installation at one
railroad-to-railroad crossing, at an initial cost of $80,000 plus
annual maintenance. Finally, Class III railroads would avoid
operational costs associated with having to reduce operating speeds to
cross over two railroad-to-railroad crossings at an annual cost of
$43,800. The unit costs presented above for installing PTC systems on
locomotives, and at railroad-to-railroad crossings, and the operational
costs of operating over a crossing at reduced speed are the values used
in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the PTC final rule issued
January 15, 2010, and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking.
The changes FRA is proposing would benefit the small entities impacted.
FRA requests comment on whether the impacts on them would be
significant and whether the number of small railroads affected is
substantial. The seven railroads affected do not represent a
substantial number of railroads out of more than approximately 600
Class III railroads.
2. Certification
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
FRA Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
[[Page 52925]]
substantial number of small entities. FRA requests comment on both this
analysis and this certification, and its estimates of the impacts on
small railroads.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are
being submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The sections that contain the current information collection
requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each proposed
requirement are summarized as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual Average time per Total annual
CFR Section Respondent universe responses response burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
234.275--Processor-Based Systems-- 20 Railroads....... 25 letters......... 4 hours............ 100
Deviations from Product Safety
Plan (PSP)--Letters.
236.18--Software Mgmt Control 184 Railroads...... 184 plans.......... 2,150 hours........ 395,600
Plan.
--Updates to Software Mgmt. 90 Railroads....... 20 updates......... 1.50 hours......... 30
Control Plan.
236.905--Updates to RSPP......... 78 Railroads....... 6 plans............ 135 hours.......... 810
--Response to Request For 78 Railroads....... 1 updated doc...... 400 hours.......... 400
Additional Info.
--Request for FRA Approval of 78 Railroads....... 1 request/modified 400 hours.......... 400
RSPP Modification. RSPP.
236.907--Product Safety Plan 5 Railroads........ 5 plans............ 6,400 hours........ 32,000
(PSP)--Dev.
236.909--Minimum Performance
Standard.
--Petitions For Review and 5 Railroads........ 2 petitions/PSP.... 19,200 hours....... 38,400
Approval.
--Supporting Sensitivity Analysis 5 Railroads........ 5 analyses......... 160 hours.......... 800
236.913--Notification/Submission 6 Railroads........ 1 joint plan....... 25,600 hours....... 25,600
to FRA of Joint Product Safety
Plan (PSP).
--Petitions For Approval/ 6 Railroads........ 6 petitions........ 1,928 hours........ 11,568
Informational Filings.
--Responses to FRA Request For 6 Railroads........ 2 documents........ 800 hours.......... 1,600
Further Info. After
Informational Filing.
--Responses to FRA Request For 6 Railroads........ 6 documents........ 16 hours........... 96
Further Info. After Agency
Receipt of Notice of Product
Development.
--Consultations.................. 6 Railroads........ 6 consults......... 120 hours.......... 720
--Petitions for Final Approval... 6 Railroads........ 6 petitions........ 16 hours........... 96
--Comments to FRA by Interested Public/RRs......... 7 comments......... 240 hours.......... 1,680
Parties.
--Third Party Assessments of PSP. 6 Railroads........ 1 assessment....... 104,000 hours...... 104,000
--Amendments to PSP.............. 6 Railroads........ 15 amendments...... 160 hours.......... 2,400
--Field Testing of Product--Info. 6 Railroads........ 6 documents........ 3,200 hours........ 19,200
Filings.
236.917--Retention of Records.... ................... ................... 160,000 hrs........
--Results of tests/inspections 6 Railroads........ 3 documents/records 160,000 hrs.; 360,000
specified in PSP. 40,000 hrs.
--Report to FRA of 6 Railroads........ 1 report........... 104 hours.......... 104
Inconsistencies with frequency
of safety-relevant hazards in
PSP.
236.919--Operations & Maintenance
Man.
--Updates to O & M Manual........ 6 Railroads........ 6 updated docs..... 40 hours........... 240
--Plans For Proper Maintenance, 6 Railroads........ 6 plans............ 53,335 hours....... 320,010
Repair, Inspection of Safety-
Critical Products.
--Hardware/Software/Firmware 6 Railroads........ 6 revisions........ 6,440 hours........ 38,640
Revisions.
236.921--Training Programs: 6 Railroads........ 6 Tr. Programs..... 400 hours.......... 2,400
Development.
--Training of Signalmen & 6 Railroads........ 300 signalmen; 20 40 hours........... 12,400
Dispatchers. dispatchers. 20 hours...........
236.923--Task Analysis/Basic 6 railroads........ 6 documents........ 720 hours.......... 4,320
Requirements: Necessary
Documents.
--Records........................ 6 railroads........ 350 records........ 10 minutes......... 58
SUBPART I--NEW REQUIREMENTS
--236.1001--RR Development of 46 railroads....... 3 rules............ 80 hours........... 240
More Stringent Rules Re: PTC
Performance Stds.
--236.1005--Requirements for PTC
Systems.
--Temporary Rerouting: Emergency 46 railroads....... 50 requests........ 8 hours............ 400
Requests.
--Written/Telephonic Notification 46 railroads....... 50 notifications... 2 hours............ 100
to FRA Regional Administrator.
--Temporary Rerouting Requests 46 railroads....... 760 requests....... 8 hours............ 6,080
Due to Track Maintenance.
--Temporary Rerouting Requests 46 railroads....... 380 requests....... 8 hours............ 3,040
That Exceed 30 Days.
--236.1006--Requirements for
Equipping Locomotives Operating
in PTC Territory.
--Reports of Movements in Excess 46 railroads....... 45 reports + 45 8 hours + 170...... 8,010
of 20 Miles/RR Progress on PTC reports.
Locomotives.
--PTC Progress Reports........... 46 railroads....... 35 reports......... 16 hours........... 560
--236.1007--Additional
Requirements for High Speed
Service.
--Required HSR-125 Documents with 46 railroads....... 3 documents........ 3,200 hours........ 9,600
approved PTCSP.
--Requests to Use Foreign Service 46 railroads....... 2 requests......... 8,000 hours........ 6,000
Data.
[[Page 52926]]
--PTC Railroads Conducting 46 railroads....... 3 documents........ 3,200 hours........ 9,600
Operations at More than 150 MPH
with HSR-125 Documents.
--Requests for PTC Waiver........ 46 railroads....... 1 request.......... 1,000 hours........ 1,000
236.1009-Procedural Requirements.
--Host Railroads Filing PTCIP or 46 Railroads....... 1 PCTIP; 20 RFAs... 535 hours; 320 6,935
Request for Amendment (RFAs). hours.
--Jointly Submitted PTCIPs....... 46 Railroads....... 5 PTCIPs........... 267 hours.......... 1,335
--Notification of Failure to File 46 Railroads....... 1 notification..... 32 hours........... 32
Joint PTCIP.
--Comprehensive List of Issues 46 Railroads....... 1 list............. 80 hours........... 80
Causing Non-Agreement.
--Conferences to Develop Mutually 46 Railroads....... 1 conf. calls...... 60 minutes......... 1 hour
Acceptable PCTIP.
--Type Approval.................. 46 Railroads....... 2 Type Appr........ 8 hours............ 16
--PTC Development Plans 46 Railroads....... 20 Ltr. + 20 App; 2 8 hrs/1600 hrs.; 44,960
Requesting Type Approval. Plans. 6,400 hours.
--Notice of Product Intent w/ 46 Railroads....... 3 NPI; 1 IP........ 1,070 + 535 hrs.... 3,745
PTCIPs (IPs).
--PTCDPs with PTCIPs (DPs + IPs). 46 Railroads....... 1 DP............... 2,135 hours........ 2,135
--Updated PTCIPs w/PTCDPs (IPs + 46 Railroads....... 1 IP; 1 DP......... 535 + 2,135 hrs.... 2,670
DPs).
--Disapproved/Resubmitted PTCIPs/ 46 Railroads....... 1 IP + 1 NPI....... 135 + 270 hrs...... 405
NPIs.
--Revoked Approvals--Provisional 46 Railroads....... IP + 1 DP.......... 135 + 535 hrs...... 670
IPs/DP.
--PTC IPs/PTCDPs Still Needing 46 Railroads....... 1 IP + 1 DP........ 135 + 535 hrs...... 670
Rework.
--PTCIP/PTCDP/PTCSP Plan 46 Railroads....... 1 document......... 8,000 hours........ 8,000
Contents--Documents Translated
into English.
--Requests for Confidentiality... 46 Railroads....... 46 ltrs; 46 docs... 8 hrs.; 800 hrs.... 37,168
--Field Test Plans/Independent 46 Railroads....... 230 field tests; 2 800 hours.......... 185,600
Assessments--Req. by FRA. assessments.
--FRA Access: Interviews with PTC 46 Railroads....... 92 interviews...... 30 minutes......... 46
Wrkrs.
--FRA Requests for Further 46 Railroads....... 8 documents........ 400 hours.......... 3,200
Information.
236.1011--PTCIP Requirements-- 7 Interested Groups 1 rev.; 40 com..... 143 + 8 hrs........ 463
Comment.
236.1015--PTCSP Content
Requirements & PTC System
Certification.
--Non-Vital Overlay.............. 46 Railroads....... 3 PTCSPs........... 16,000 hours....... 48,000
--Vital Overlay.................. 46 Railroads....... 28 PTCSPs.......... 22,400 hours....... 627,200
--Stand Alone.................... 46 Railroads....... 14 PTCSPs.......... 32,000 hours....... 448,000
--Mixed Systems--Conference with 46 Railroads....... 3 conferences...... 32 hours........... 96
FRA regarding Case/Analysis.
--Mixed Sys. PTCSPs (incl. safety 46 Railroads....... 1 PTCSP............ 28,800 hours....... 28,800
case).
--FRA Request for Additional 46 Railroads....... 23 documents....... 3,200 hours........ 73,600
PTCSP Data.
--PTCSPs Applying to Replace 46 Railroads....... 23 PTCSPs.......... 3,200 hours........ 73,600
Existing Certified PTC Systems.
--Non-Quantitative Risk 46 Railroads....... 23 assessments..... 3,200 hours........ 73,600
Assessments Supplied to FRA.
236.1017--PTCSP Supported by 46 Railroads....... 1 assessment....... 8,000 hours........ 8,000
Independent Third Party
Assessment.
--Written Requests to FRA to 46 Railroads....... 1 request.......... 8 hours............ 8
Confirm Entity Independence.
--Provision of Additional 46 Railroads....... 1 document......... 160 hours.......... 160
Information After FRA Request.
--Independent Third Party 46 Railroads....... 1 request.......... 160 hours.......... 160
Assessment: Waiver Requests.
--RR Request for FRA to Accept 46 Railroads....... 1 request.......... 32 hours........... 32
Foreign Railroad Regulator
Certified Info.
236.1019--Main Line Track
Exceptions.
--Submission of Main Line Track 46 Railroads....... 46 MTEAs........... 160 hours.......... 7,360
Exclusion Addendums (MTEAs).
--Passenger Terminal Exception-- 46 Railroads....... 23 MTEAs........... 160 hours.......... 3,680
MTEAs.
--Limited Operation Exception-- 46 Railroads....... 23 plans........... 160 hours.......... 3,680
Risk Mit.
--Ltd. Exception--Collision 46 Railroads....... 12 analyses........ 1,600 hours........ 19,200
Hazard Anal.
--Temporal Separation Procedures. 46 Railroads....... 11 procedures...... 160 hours.......... 1,760
236.1021--Discontinuances, 46 Railroads....... 23 RFAs............ 160 hours.......... 3,680
Material Modifications,
Amendments--Requests to Amend
(RFA) PTCIP, PTCDP or PTCSP.
--Review and Public Comment on 7 Interested Groups 7 reviews + 20 3 hours; 16 hours.. 341
RFA. comments.
236.1023--PTC Product Vendor 46 Railroads....... 46 lists........... 8 hours............ 368
Lists.
--RR Procedures Upon Notification 46 Railroads....... 46 procedures...... 16 hours........... 736
of PTC System Safety-Critical
Upgrades, Rev., Etc.
--RR Notifications of PTC Safety 46 Railroads....... 150 notification... 16 hours........... 2,400
Hazards.
--RR Notification Updates........ 46 Railroads....... 150 updates........ 16 hours........... 2,400
--Manufacturer's Report of 5 System Suppliers. 5 reports.......... 400 hours.......... 2,000
Investigation of PTC Defect.
[[Page 52927]]
--PTC Supplier Reports of Safety 5 System Suppliers. 150 reports + 150 16 hours + 8 hours. 3,600
Relevant Failures or Defective rpt. copies.
Conditions.
236.1029--Report of On-Board Lead 46 Railroads....... 1,012 reports...... 96 hours........... 97,152
Locomotive PTC Device Failure.
236.1031--Previously Approved PTC
Systems.
--Request for Expedited 46 Railroads....... 3 REC Letters...... 160 hours.......... 480
Certification (REC) for PTC
System.
--Requests for Grandfathering on 46 Railroads....... 3 requests......... 1,600 hours........ 4,800
PTCSPs.
236.1035--Field Testing 46 railroads....... 230 field test 800 hours.......... 184,000
Requirements. plans.
--Relief Requests from 46 Railroads....... 46 requests........ 320 hours.......... 14,720
Regulations Necessary to Support
Field Testing.
236.1037--Records Retention.
--Results of Tests in PTCSP and 46 railroads....... 1,012 records...... 4 hours............ 4,048
PTCDP.
--PTC Service Contractors 46 Railroads....... 22,080 records..... 30 minutes......... 11,040
Training Records.
--Reports of Safety Relevant 46 Railroads....... 4 reports.......... 8 hours............ 32
Hazards Exceeding Those in PTCSP
and PTCDP.
--Final Report of Resolution of 46 Railroads....... 4 final reports.... 160 hours.......... 640
Inconsistency.
--236.1039--Operations & 46 railroads....... 46 manuals......... 250 hours.......... 11,500
Maintenance Manual (OMM):
Development.
--Positive Identification of 46 railroads....... 120,000 i.d. 1 hour............. 120,000
Safety-critical components. components.
--Designated RR Officers in OMM. 46 railroads....... 92 designations.... 2 hours............ 184
regarding PTC issues.
--236.1041--PTC Training Programs 46 Railroads....... 46 programs........ 400 hours.......... 18,400
--236.1043--Task Analysis/Basic 46 railroads....... 46 evaluations..... 720 hours.......... 33,120
Requirements: Training
Evaluations.
--Training Records............... 46 railroads....... 560 records........ 10 minutes......... 93
--236.1045--Training Specific to 46 railroads....... 32 trained 20 hours........... 640
Office Control Personnel. employees.
--236.1047--Training Specific to
Loc. Engineers & Other Operating
Personnel.
--PTC Conductor Training......... 30 railroads....... 8,000 trained 3 hours............ 24,000
conductors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan,
Information Clearance Officer, at 202-493-6292, or Ms. Nakia Jackson at
202-493-6073.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also
be submitted via e-mail to Mr. Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following
address
