Positive Train Control Systems, 82400-82425 [2020-27097]

Download as PDF 82400 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules created by case referrals. NCA proposes this rule to solidify the continuation of this effective partnership and provide public information regarding adjudication of character of discharge determinations involving potential statutory and regulatory bars to benefits. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are associated with this proposed rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. There are no small entities involved with the process for determining eligibility for interment or memorialization benefits. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 13771 Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA’s impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at https:// www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) are available on VA’s website at https://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.’’ This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Note to § 38.620: A benefit request pertaining to a decedent whose character of discharge may potentially bar eligibility to that benefit may be referred to the Veterans Benefits Administration for review in accordance with 38 CFR 3.12 (Character of discharge) or other applicable sections. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.201, National Cemeteries; 64.202, Procurement of Headstones and Markers and/or Presidential Memorial Certificates; and 64.203, State Cemetery Grants. 49 CFR Part 236 List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 38 Administrative practice and procedure, Cemeteries, Claims, Veterans. Signing Authority The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Brooks D. Tucker, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Performing the Delegable Duties of the Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 4, 2020, for publication. Luvenia Potts, Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 38 as follows: PART 38—NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 1. The authority citation for part 38 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 107, 112, 501, 512, 2306, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2407, 2408, 2411, 5303, 7105. 38.620 [AMENDED] 2. Amend § 38.620 by adding a Note following paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows: * * * * * ■ PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 [FR Doc. 2020–27106 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [Docket No. FRA–2019–0075] RIN 2130–AC75 Positive Train Control Systems Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: FRA is proposing to revise its regulations governing changes to positive train control (PTC) systems and reporting on PTC system functioning. First, recognizing that the railroad industry intends to enhance further FRA-certified PTC systems to continue improving rail safety and PTC technology’s reliability and operability, FRA proposes to modify the process by which a host railroad must submit a request for amendment (RFA) to FRA before making certain changes to its PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) and FRA-certified PTC system. Second, to enable more effective FRA oversight, FRA proposes to: Expand an existing reporting requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual; broaden the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related information, not just failure-related information; and require host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). Overall, the proposed amendments would benefit the railroad industry, the public, and FRA, by reducing unnecessary costs, facilitating innovation, and improving FRA’s ability to oversee PTC system performance and reliability, while not negatively affecting rail safety. DATES: Written comments must be received by February 16, 2021. FRA believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate to allow the public to comment on this proposed rule. FRA will consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA–2019–0075 may be submitted by going to https:// www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for submitting comments. Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket number (FRA–2019–0075), and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (2130–AC75). All comments received will be posted without change to https:// www.regulations.gov; this includes 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 and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Acting Staff Director, Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816–516–7168, email: Gabe.Neal@dot.gov; or Stephanie Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone: 202–493–0445, email: Stephanie.Anderson@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Table of Contents for Supplementary Information I. Executive Summary II. Background and Summary of the Main Proposals in the NPRM A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-Certified PTC Systems and the Associated PTCSPs D. Proposal To Expand the PerformanceRelated Reporting Requirements III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272 C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Federalism Implications E. International Trade Impact Assessment F. Environmental Impact G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Energy Impact J. Privacy Act Statement I. Executive Summary Section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) mandates each Class I railroad, and each entity providing regularly scheduled intercity VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 or commuter rail passenger transportation, to implement an FRAcertified PTC system fully on: (1) Its main lines over which poison- or toxicby-inhalation hazardous materials are transported, if the line carries five million or more gross tons of any annual traffic; (2) its main lines over which intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation is regularly provided; and (3) any other tracks the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by regulation or order.1 By law, PTC systems must be designed to prevent certain accidents or incidents, including train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movements of trains through switches left in the wrong position.2 In general, the statutory mandate requires that by December 31, 2020, FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems must govern operations on all PTC-mandated main lines, currently encompassing nearly 58,000 route miles nationwide.3 See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(6)–(7). Currently, 35 host railroads 4—including 7 Class I railroads, 23 intercity passenger railroads or commuter railroads, and 5 Class II or III, short line, or terminal railroads—are directly subject to the statutory mandate to implement an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on their PTC-mandated main lines by December 31, 2020. For purposes of FRA’s PTC regulations, a host railroad is ‘‘a railroad that has effective operating control over a segment of track,’’ and a tenant railroad is ‘‘a railroad, other than a host railroad, operating on track upon which a PTC 1 See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110–432, 104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), as amended by the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Public Law 114–73, 129 Stat. 568, 576–82 (Oct. 29, 2015), and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114–94, section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I. 2 See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005 (setting forth the technical specifications). 3 Except a railroad’s controlling locomotives or cab cars that are subject to either a temporary or permanent exception under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)–(k) or 49 CFR 236.1006(b), Equipping locomotives operating in PTC territory. 4 The infographics on FRA’s PTC website (https:// railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-traincontrol-ptc) identify 41 railroads currently subject to the statutory mandate, but six of those 41 railroads are tenant-only commuter railroads, not host railroads. As this proposed rule primarily focuses on requirements specific to host railroads, FRA will reference the current number of PTCmandated host railroads (35) and any host railroads that may become subject to the statutory mandate in the future. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 82401 system is required.’’ See 49 CFR 236.1003(b). For context, under the statutory mandate, ‘‘interoperability’’ is the general requirement that the controlling locomotives and cab cars of any host railroad and tenant railroad operating on the same main line must communicate with and respond to the PTC system, including uninterrupted movements over property boundaries, except as otherwise permitted by law.5 As of September 2020, according to host railroads’ PTC Implementation Plans (PTCIP), approximately 93 distinct PTCrequired tenant railroads operate on main lines subject to the statutory mandate. Because many railroads operate on multiple host railroads’ PTCmandated main lines, there are approximately 219 host-tenant railroad relationships in which PTC system interoperability must be achieved by December 31, 2020. From 2018 through 2020, FRA held three PTC Symposia and Collaboration Sessions per year to underscore the importance of the mandate, ensure the industry understands the statutory and regulatory requirements, and facilitate timely compliance. In addition, the six Collaboration Sessions during 2019 and 2020 provided the opportunity for FRA to convene the industry’s technical experts to share best practices and jointly resolve common technical problems. Through these meetings and regular coordination with all railroads implementing PTC systems, PTC system vendors and suppliers, and other stakeholders, FRA began proactively identifying aspects of FRA’s existing PTC regulations that could impede either PTC-related innovation or FRA’s oversight, following the December 31, 2020, statutory deadline for full PTC system implementation. Specifically, FRA identified two existing regulatory provisions, 49 CFR 236.1021 and 236.1029(h), which, if not revised, could impede the industry’s ability to advance PTC technology efficiently and FRA’s ability to oversee the performance and reliability of PTC systems effectively. First, understanding that the railroad industry intends to update FRAcertified PTC systems continually to ensure safe operations (e.g., through ongoing, necessary maintenance) and to enhance further the technology (e.g., by adding new functionality or improving a PTC system’s reliability and operability), FRA is proposing to modify the process under 49 CFR 236.1021 for 5 See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), (i)(3), (j)–(k); 49 CFR 236.1003, 236.1006, 236.1011(a)(3). E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82402 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified systems. The improved process will enable the industry to deploy upgrades and technological enhancements more efficiently, and ensure FRA’s review of changes or modifications to FRAcertified systems is more predictable and consistent going forward. The proposed process will apply only to PTC systems FRA has already certified under 49 U.S.C. 20157(h). The statutory mandate generally requires FRA to certify that a host railroad’s PTC system complies with 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, before it operates in revenue service, and this proposed rule will not amend the existing certification process FRA developed to comply with this mandate (i.e., this proposed rule would not amend 49 CFR 236.1009 or 236.1015 regarding PTCSPs and the PTC System Certification process). To be clear, FRA’s proposal to modify the process that currently requires a host railroad to submit, and obtain FRA’s approval of, an RFA to a PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021 will not apply to any existing or new PTC system, unless and until FRA has certified that PTC system under 49 U.S.C. 20157(h). Instead of the existing RFA approval process with an indefinite decision timeline, FRA proposes to require railroads to comply with a streamlined RFA process, which includes providing certain documentation, analysis, and safety assurances. This proposed rule would establish a 45-day deadline for FRA to review and approve or deny railroads’ RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs or FRA-certified PTC systems. In addition, FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and PTC Development Plans (PTCDP)—an option which, if exercised, would efficiently leverage industry’s resources, help ensure coordination among railroads operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for review and approval. Second, FRA proposes to expand an existing reporting requirement—49 CFR 236.1029(h), Annual report of system failures—by increasing the frequency of the reporting requirement from annual to biannual; broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related information, not just failure-related information; and requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) 6 to enable more effective FRA oversight. In addition, FRA proposes to amend § 236.1029(h) by updating the provision to use certain statutory terminology for consistency; clarifying the ambiguous filing obligation by specifying that only host railroads directly submit these reports to FRA; and explicitly requiring tenant railroads to provide the necessary data to their applicable host railroads by a specific date before the biannual filing deadlines. FRA analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule over a ten-year period and estimated its costs and cost savings, which are shown in the table below. The cost savings associated with FRA’s proposal to amend § 236.1021— i.e., to simplify the process for all RFAs to PTCSPs and authorize host railroads to file joint RFAs to PTCSPs and PTCDPs—would outweigh the costs associated with FRA’s proposal to expand the reporting requirement under paragraph (h) of § 236.1029. NET COST SAVINGS IN MILLIONS [2019 Dollars] Present value 7% Industry Costs ............................................................................................................................... Industry Cost Savings ................................................................................................................... Government Cost Savings ............................................................................................................ Net Cost Savings .......................................................................................................................... $324,158 6,116,671 17,978,594 23,771,107 $379,231 7,202,273 21,188,896 28,011,938 Annualized 7% $46,153 870,876 2,559,747 3,384,471 Annualized 3% $44,457 844,326 2,483,985 3,283,854 Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required the Secretary to prescribe PTC regulations necessary to implement the statutory mandate, including regulations specifying the essential technical functionalities of PTC systems and the means by which FRA will certify PTC systems.7 The Secretary delegated to the Federal Railroad Administrator the authority to carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 1.89(b). In accordance with its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49 CFR 1.89(b), FRA issued its first final PTC rule on January 15, 2010, which is set forth, as amended, under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, Positive Train Control Systems.8 FRA’s PTC regulations under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, prescribe ‘‘minimum, performance-based safety standards for PTC systems . . . including requirements to ensure that the development, functionality, architecture, installation, implementation, inspection, testing, operation, maintenance, repair, and modification of those PTC systems will achieve and maintain an acceptable level of safety.’’ 49 CFR 236.1001(a). FRA subsequently amended its PTC regulations via final rules issued in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.9 Most recently, on February 29, 2016, as required, FRA amended its PTC regulations to revise the regulations’ date-specific deadlines for conformity with the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act).10 Specifically, the PTCEI Act extended the original statutory deadline for full implementation of PTC systems from December 31, 2015, to at least December 31, 2018.11 In addition, the PTCEI Act permits railroads to utilize an 6 The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) will be placed in the docket (Docket No. FRA–2019–0075) for review when this NPRM is published. 7 Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g). 8 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010). 9 See 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 (May 14, 2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016). 10 Public Law 114–73, 129 Stat. 568, 576–82 (Oct. 29, 2015), as amended by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114–94, section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015). See also 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016), amending 49 CFR part 236, subpart I. 11 49 U.S.C. 20157(a). Please note that the PTCEI Act also required FRA to extend each deadline under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B) by three years, related to certain Class II and Class III railroads that operate in PTC territory. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(k); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016). II. Background and Summary of the Main Proposals in the NPRM A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Present value 3% VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules ‘‘alternative schedule and sequence’’ with a full implementation deadline beyond December 31, 2018, but not later than December 31, 2020. Further, the legislation required FRA to approve a railroad’s alternative schedule and sequence if the railroad demonstrated it met the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence.12 In this proposed rule, FRA proposes to revise three sections, 49 CFR 236.1003, 236.1021, and 236.1029, of FRA’s existing PTC regulations pursuant to its specific authority under 49 CFR 1.89 and 49 U.S.C. 20157(g), and its general authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 to prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety. B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS As referenced above, FRA regularly engages with host railroads, tenant railroads, and PTC system vendors and suppliers, as part of FRA’s oversight of railroads’ implementation of PTC systems on the mandated main lines under 49 U.S.C. 20157 and the other lines where railroads are voluntarily implementing PTC technology. The purpose of this section is to summarize FRA’s pertinent meetings prior to the issuance of this NPRM, pursuant to 49 CFR 5.19. During two of FRA’s PTC Collaboration Sessions in 2019 and 2020, FRA generally discussed its intention to propose to modify the RFA process under § 236.1021, specifically as it relates to FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified PTC systems. One of these two Collaboration Sessions was held on February 6, 2019 at DOT’s Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the other was hosted via teleconference on June 10, 2020. Specifically, during the Collaboration Session on February 6, 2019, FRA noted it was considering simplifying the formal process for railroads to modify their PTCSPs and PTC systems under § 236.1021, after FRA certifies a railroad’s PTC system as required under the statutory mandate. FRA raised questions for the industry to consider, 12 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(C) (using the term ‘‘shall’’). As background, four PTC-mandated host railroads reported that they fully implemented an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all their required main lines by December 31, 2018. Every other host railroad subject to the statutory mandate in 2018 formally requested an alternative schedule and sequence under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3). By March 5, 2019, FRA approved all applicable requests for an alternative schedule and sequence, as each railroad sufficiently demonstrated it, at a minimum, met the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence, under the statutory mandate. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 including how host railroads plan to maintain their PTCSPs, as required, acknowledging that PTC technology will continue evolving given, for example, ongoing software modifications necessary for safe operations and voluntary enhancements to improve further the reliability or operability of PTC systems.13 FRA understands that, over time, new software releases may become necessary to: Fix certain bugs or defects; eliminate newly discovered hazards; or add new functionality to continue to improve rail safety, or the reliability and operability of the technology. In addition, FRA acknowledged that certain changes to PTC systems will likely impact multiple PTCSPs, as the industry is currently implementing five main types of PTC systems.14 During the Collaboration Session on June 10, 2020, FRA discussed its intention to issue this NPRM and described the high-level objectives of this proposed rule. In addition, on October 2, 2019, during FRA’s PTC Collaboration Session hosted at the National Housing Center in Washington, DC, one Class I railroad suggested that FRA should consider amending the permanent reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) to make it consistent with the temporary statutory reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), because existing paragraph (h) of § 236.1029 uses different terminology to describe PTCrelated failures. In addition, during this meeting, one commuter railroad requested that FRA create a standardized form for railroads to utilize under § 236.1029(h). FRA made no commitments at any of its PTC Collaboration Sessions, but FRA internally considered this industry input as it developed this proposed rule. Please note that all presentations from FRA’s PTC Symposia and Collaboration Sessions are available in FRA’s eLibrary, including direct links on FRA’s PTC website at https://railroads.dot.gov/ 13 See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1009(d) (requiring a PTC system to be implemented in accordance with the host railroad’s PTCSP). 14 Currently, railroads are primarily implementing the following PTC systems in the United States: (1) The Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I–ETMS), which Class I railroads and many commuter railroads are implementing; (2) the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II) or the Advanced Speed Enforcement System II (ASES II), which most railroads operating on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) are implementing; (3) Enhanced Automatic Train Control (E–ATC), which five host railroads are implementing; (4) the Incremental Train Control System, which the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is implementing in parts of Michigan; and (5) the Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) system, which one commuter railroad has fully implemented on its PTCmandated main lines. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 82403 train-control/ptc/positive-train-controlptc. As information, representatives from all 35 host railroads currently subject to the statutory mandate attended at least two of the three above PTC Collaboration Sessions, and 89 percent of the PTC-mandated host railroads attended all three of the PTC Collaboration Sessions where FRA discussed either 49 CFR 236.1021 or 236.1029(h).15 Specifically, 97 percent of the 35 applicable host railroads attended the PTC Collaboration Sessions on February 6, 2019 and October 2, 2019, and 94 percent attended the session on June 10, 2020. Furthermore, representatives from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) participated in all three of these pertinent PTC Collaboration Sessions. In addition, a representative from the Commuter Rail Coalition attended the PTC Collaboration Sessions on October 2, 2019 and June 10, 2020. Furthermore, on the following dates, FRA met with AAR and several of its member railroads to discuss various PTC-related issues and topics, including FRA’s previously stated intention to propose modifications to the RFA process under § 236.1021, specifically as it applies to FRA-certified PTC systems: September 6, 2019; March 3, 2020; April 2, 2020; June 11, 2020; June 25, 2020; July 9, 2020; and August 27, 2020. During the meetings on September 6, 2019 and July 9, 2020, representatives from AAR and its member railroads indicated that FRA should consider amending other provisions under FRA’s PTC regulations, in addition to § 236.1021, but those provisions are not the focus of this proposed rule. As noted above, at this time, FRA considers it necessary to amend §§ 236.1021 and 236.1029(h) because those provisions, if not revised, could impede the industry’s ability to enhance PTC technology and FRA’s ability to oversee the performance and reliability of PTC systems effectively. If FRA finds that any other amendments to 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, are necessary or justified in the future, FRA will address them in a separate NPRM. Representatives from the following Class I railroads and passenger railroads, listed alphabetically, attended 15 In addition to the 35 host railroads subject to the statutory mandate, representatives from multiple other railroads attended these PTC Collaboration Sessions, including eight tenant-only passenger railroads that operate on PTC-mandated main lines. E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82404 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS the AAR meetings referenced immediately above: Amtrak, BNSF Railway, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX Transportation, Inc., Kansas City Southern Railway, Norfolk Southern Railway, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra), the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), and Union Pacific Railroad. The railroads’ main comments during these meetings involved their concerns that the existing process under § 236.1021 would stifle innovation and create significant delays in deploying improvements to PTC technology. In general, they supported revising the existing RFA process under § 236.1021 to help enable technological advancements and ensure FRA is not an impediment to the industry’s ability to enhance PTC technology. FRA’s statements during these meetings were consistent with FRA’s statements to all PTC-mandated host railroads at multiple PTC Collaboration Sessions. The proposals in this NPRM are based on FRA’s own review and analysis and, in part, on industry’s feedback during the meetings in 2019 and 2020, specified above. FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM. C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-Certified PTC Systems and the Associated PTCSPs FRA’s PTC regulations have always acknowledged that after ‘‘implementation of a train control system, the subject railroad may have legitimate reasons for making changes in the system design,’’ among other changes, including to a PTC system’s functionality.16 Accordingly, under 49 CFR 236.1015(d)(7), FRA requires host railroads’ PTCSPs to include, among other relevant information, a ‘‘complete description of the specific procedures and test equipment necessary to ensure the safe and proper . . . operation, maintenance, repair, inspection, testing, and modification of the PTC system on the railroad.’’ Recognizing that PTC technology must be actively maintained throughout its lifecycle and beyond, FRA’s regulations also require each railroad to ‘‘catalog and maintain all documents as specified in the PTCDP and PTCSP for . . . maintenance, repair, modification, inspection, and testing of the PTC system.’’ 17 Specifically, 49 CFR 236.1039(a) requires railroads to retain these documents in a PTC Operations and Maintenance Manual, which must be ‘‘readily available to persons required 16 See 17 49 75 FR 2598, 2660 (Jan. 15, 2010). CFR 236.1039(a). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 to perform such tasks and for inspection by FRA and FRA-certified state inspectors.’’ For example, a railroad’s Operations and Maintenance Manual must document all ‘‘[h]ardware, software, and firmware revisions . . . according to the railroad’s configuration management control plan and any additional configuration/revision control measures specified in the [host railroad’s] PTCSP.’’ 18 FRA is aware that host railroads will need to deploy new PTC software releases, among other changes, to ensure their PTC systems are performing properly—for example, to fix certain bugs or defects or eliminate newly discovered hazards. In addition to incremental changes to PTC systems that are necessary for the continued safe and proper functioning of the technology, FRA understands that several railroads and PTC system vendors and suppliers have chosen to design and develop their PTC systems to perform safety-related functions in addition to the minimum, performancebased functions specified under the statutory mandate and FRA’s regulations. Currently, FRA’s PTC regulations, in relevant part, prohibit a railroad from making certain changes to its FRAapproved PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC system unless the railroad files an RFA to its PTCSP and obtains approval from FRA’s Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety. 49 CFR 236.1021. This proposed rule does not envision revising the types of changes that currently require a host railroad to file an RFA under § 236.1021(h)(1)–(4) (often referred to as ‘‘material modifications’’) or the exceptions currently set forth under § 236.1021(i)– (k). For example, FRA’s regulations require a railroad to submit, for FRA review and approval, an RFA to the railroad’s PTCSP for any proposed modification of a safety-critical element of a PTC system or any proposed modification of a PTC system that affects the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it interoperates. See 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)–(4). Though FRA’s existing regulations specify that FRA will, to the extent practicable, review and issue a decision regarding a host railroad’s initially filed PTCSP within 180 days of the date it was filed, FRA’s 18 49 CFR 236.1039(c). See also Federal Railroad Administration, Revised PTC Guidance Regarding Interoperability Testing, Operations and Maintenance Manuals, and Certification Responsibilities (July 24, 2018), available at https:// www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L19583#p1_z5_gD_ lPO. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 regulations do not currently specify an estimated timeline for reviewing and approving or denying railroads’ subsequent RFAs to their PTCSPs.19 In practice, as of September 2020, it has taken FRA 127 days, on average, to review and approve recent RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems, which is, in part, due to the complex content requirements currently under paragraphs (d)(1) to (7) of § 236.1021. Instead of the existing RFA approval process with an indefinite decision timeline, FRA proposes to: (1) Require railroads to comply with a streamlined RFA process, including providing certain documentation, analysis, and safety assurances; and (2) establish a 45day deadline for FRA’s review and issuance of a decision. In new proposed paragraph (m) of § 236.1021, FRA outlines the proposed content requirements for RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems—focusing on the core information and analysis FRA would need to review to ensure the PTC system, including any proposed changes, will provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system. The improved process would enable the industry to implement technological enhancements more efficiently, and the clear timeline would help ensure a more predictable and transparent FRA review process going forward. In addition, this proposed rule envisions permitting host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and PTCDPs—an option which, if exercised, will efficiently leverage industry’s resources, help ensure coordination among railroads operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for review. As noted above, currently, the 35 PTC-mandated host railroads are implementing five types of PTC systems, though FRA acknowledges that, in several cases, railroads are implementing PTC systems of the same type in different manners (e.g., variances in design, functionality, and operation), requiring railroads to conduct additional testing and gap analyses to achieve and sustain interoperability, including configuration management. Appreciating that changes to safetycritical elements, including software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system will likely impact multiple, if not most, railroads implementing that same type of PTC system, FRA’s proposed rule outlines a path for such 19 See E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 49 CFR 236.1009(j)(2). 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS host railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific instructions under new proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of § 236.1021. The proposed rule would specify that while most types of information required under proposed paragraph (m) of § 236.1021 may be submitted jointly in the RFA, the joint RFA would need to include certain written confirmations or statements 20 from each host railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA. In addition, FRA’s proposed rule specifies that only host railroads with the same PTC System Certification classification under paragraph (e) of § 236.1015 may jointly file an RFA to their PTCSPs. Though this proposed rule would generally authorize host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to file RFAs to their PTCSPs jointly, FRA expects this aspect of the proposal, in the short term, primarily to impact host railroads implementing I–ETMS and E– ATC because each respective I–ETMS and E–ATC system is similar to others of the same type, with a baseline functionality. Conversely, there is not a uniform standard or specification currently underlying the ACSES II or ASES II PTC systems that host railroads are implementing on the NEC. In addition, there is an array of ACSES II suppliers, including for the onboard, wayside, and communications subsystems. In the future, however, as the ACSES II railroads finish establishing the Interoperable Change Management Plan they are currently developing, it is possible that at least some of the host railroads utilizing ACSES II or ASES II will elect to submit joint RFAs to their respective PTCSPs for certain system-wide changes, consistent with the option under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of § 236.1021. FRA recognizes that modifying and simplifying the process for host railroads to submit RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems is necessary to facilitate required maintenance and upgrades to PTC technology and encourage railroads to enhance their PTC systems to continue to improve rail safety. 20 For example, confirmation that: (1) Each host railroad notified any applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes, any associated effect on the tenant railroads’ operations, and any actions the tenant railroads must take in accordance with the configuration control measures set forth in the host railroad’s PTCSP; and (2) the PTC system, if modified, would meet all technical requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and not adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 D. Proposal To Expand the Performance-Related Reporting Requirements Following the applicable deadline for full PTC system implementation under 49 U.S.C. 20157, FRA’s regulations currently require a railroad to submit an annual report by April 16th each year regarding the number of PTC system failures, ‘‘including but not limited to locomotive, wayside, communications, and back office system failures,’’ that occurred during the previous calendar year. See 49 CFR 236.1029(h). The first failure-related annual reports pursuant to § 236.1029(h) were due on April 16, 2019 from the four host railroads whose statutory deadline was December 31, 2018 for the full implementation of a PTC system on their required main lines. FRA has found that all annual reports railroads submitted to date have been brief (e.g., as short as half of a page) and included minimal information, but still technically satisfied the existing content requirements under § 236.1029(h). Because the minimal information currently required under § 236.1029(h) does not permit FRA to monitor adequately the rate at which PTC system failures occur or evaluate improvements over time, FRA is proposing to revise § 236.1029(h) to enable FRA to perform its oversight functions effectively. Specifically, FRA proposes to increase the frequency of this reporting requirement from annual to biannual, with proposed filing deadlines on July 31 (covering the period from January 1 to June 30) and January 31 (covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year), instead of an annual filing deadline on April 16, as § 236.1029(h) currently provides. Under the existing framework, pursuant to § 236.1029(h), FRA must wait until April 16th each year to receive railroads’ failure-related data from the prior calendar year—data which is quite outdated by the time it is filed. FRA’s proposed biannual frequency would enable FRA to monitor closely trends in PTC system reliability with more up-todate data, covering two intervals per year. In addition, FRA notes that the proposed biannual frequency is reasonable, given that railroads must currently submit certain failure-related data quarterly or monthly, pursuant to a temporary reporting requirement under the statutory mandate, as discussed below. In addition, to ensure the data railroads submit under § 236.1029(h) are uniform, comparable, and objective, FRA proposes to revise this existing reporting requirement by specifying the PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 82405 exact types of statistics and information the reports must include; broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related information, not just failure-related information; and requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to enable more effective FRA oversight. Furthermore, FRA proposes to amend § 236.1029(h) to make it consistent with the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) because the existing statutory and regulatory provisions use different terminology to describe PTC-related failures. As background, the PTCEI Act established a reporting requirement that applies only temporarily—from October 29, 2015, to approximately December 31, 2021 21—and only to PTC systems that FRA has certified and have been implemented, including on a subset of a railroad’s main lines.22 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). As a default, the reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) specifies that when an FRA-certified PTC system ‘‘fails to initialize, cuts out, or malfunctions,’’ the railroad must submit a notification to the appropriate FRA regional office within 7 days of the failure, and the notification must include a description of the safety measures the railroad has in place. However, as the PTCEI Act authorized, FRA established an alternative reporting deadline (instead of within 7 days of each occurrence) and an alternative reporting location (instead of submitting the notifications to the appropriate FRA region).23 Specifically, on December 30, 2019 and March 16, 2020, FRA published a proposed framework for host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC systems to submit a Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) to fulfill this temporary reporting requirement under the PTCEI Act.24 On June 5, 2020, following the required 21 By law, the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) sunsets on approximately December 31, 2021—or more specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad obtains PTC System Certification from FRA and finishes fully implementing an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all its required main lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j). 22 For example, acknowledging the incremental nature of implementation, the PTCEI Act required Class I railroads and Amtrak to demonstrate they ‘‘implemented a [PTC] system or initiated revenue service demonstration on the majority of [PTCmandated] territories . . . or route miles that are owned or controlled by such carrier[s],’’ to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence by law. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) (emphasis added). 23 See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4); 49 CFR 1.89. 24 See 84 FR 72121, 72123–26 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022, 15025–27 (Mar. 16, 2020). E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82406 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS notice-and-comment periods, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130– 0553),25 as revised based on feedback from AAR and APTA. Host railroads must utilize that mandatory form and adhere to its instructions, including the two-tiered reporting frequency 26 and the centralized reporting location, to comply with 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) until that temporary reporting requirement expires on approximately December 31, 2021.27 In this NPRM, FRA proposes to revise the permanent reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h) to utilize the statutory failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)—initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions—instead of the broad, imprecise term currently used in § 236.1029(h) (‘‘failures’’). Also, to ensure uniform interpretation of these terms, FRA proposes to add definitions of these three terms to the definitions section of FRA’s PTC regulations, 49 CFR 236.1003, retaining the definitions that FRA adopted during its development of the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), based on industry’s feedback. FRA’s proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) under proposed § 236.1029(h) will incorporate both: (1) The information currently required under § 236.1029(h); and (2) the corresponding types of data railroads must submit until approximately December 31, 2021 in their Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). For example, the proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance would require certain geographical information and contextual data to help 25 Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ PTCSystemFailuresFRAForm177/. 26 A host railroad must submit monthly failurerelated notifications if it has fully implemented a PTC system on all required main lines. However, if a host railroad is operating an FRA-certified PTC system but is still in the process of fully implementing the PTC system, the railroad must submit failure-related notifications on a quarterly basis. Host railroads must transition from submitting Form FRA F 6180.177 quarterly to monthly, when they finish fully implementing their FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems on their required main lines. For simplicity, in general, this two-tiered framework means that most host railroads that have obtained PTC System Certification must submit quarterly Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures throughout 2020, and monthly notifications throughout 2021 until the reporting requirement expires. For additional detail, please see 85 FR 15022, 15025– 27 (Mar. 16, 2020). 27 See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and (e)(1) (authorizing DOT to assess civil penalties for any violation of the statutory mandate). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 demonstrate how the occurrences of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions compare to all operations on that host railroad’s PTCgoverned main lines.28 Furthermore, railroads have previously observed that, under existing § 236.1029(h), it is unclear whether a host railroad, a tenant railroad, or both must submit the required reports to FRA. In this proposed rule, FRA proposes to resolve this ambiguity by specifying that only host railroads must directly submit these reports to FRA. This approach is consistent with the existing regulatory requirement directing a tenant railroad to report any PTC system failures or cut outs to ‘‘a designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and practicable.’’ See 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4) (emphasis added). To ensure that host railroads receive the necessary information from their tenant railroads to compile the proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) under § 236.1029(h), FRA proposes to require explicitly tenant railroads to provide the necessary data to their applicable host railroads by a specific date before the biannual filing deadlines, as set forth under new proposed paragraph (h)(4) of § 236.1029. FRA considers its proposed changes to § 236.1029(h), as described below, necessary to enable FRA to monitor the performance and reliability of railroads’ PTC systems effectively throughout the country. III. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 236.1003 Definitions FRA proposes to add three definitions to paragraph (b) of this section to help ensure that FRA and the railroad industry consistently interpret the statutory failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)—initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions—as FRA now proposes to use these corresponding terms in § 236.1029(h) 28 Several railroads previously commented that, without such a percentage or context, the frequency of PTC system failures might otherwise seem high, and additional data would help convey the actual rate of such failures. In addition, in AAR’s comments, dated February 28, 2020, associated with Form FRA F 6180.177 (under Docket Nos. FRA 2019–0004–N–20 and FRA 2020–0004–N–3), AAR specifically suggested that to ‘‘keep the report of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions in perspective, particularly if comparing individual railroads, it would be useful to normalize results between railroads.’’ Similarly, in APTA’s letter dated February 28, 2020, APTA requested that FRA identify the applicable denominator(s) to utilize when calculating the rate of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions. See also 85 FR 15022, 15026 (Mar. 16, 2020). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 and the associated Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). Specifically, FRA proposes to adopt the definitions of these three terms that FRA currently utilizes in the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), which were, in part, revised and refined based on industry’s feedback during the development of that corresponding form and the definitions therein.29 Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, Material Modifications, and Amendments The purpose of existing paragraphs (a) through (d) is to prohibit a railroad from making ‘‘changes, as defined by this section, to a PTC system, PTCIP, PTCDP, or PTCSP,’’ unless the railroad submits an RFA, with the content requirements under existing paragraphs (d)(1) through (7), and obtains approval from FRA’s Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety. To be clear, this proposed rule will not revise the types of changes that currently require a host railroad to file an RFA under § 236.1021(h)(1)–(4) (often referred to as ‘‘material modifications’’) or the exceptions currently set forth under § 236.1021(i)– (k). For example, FRA’s regulations currently require a railroad to submit an RFA, subject to FRA’s review and approval, before making the following types of changes listed under existing paragraphs (h)(1) through (4): (1) A discontinuance of a PTC system; (2) a decrease of the PTC system’s limits; (3) a modification of a safety-critical element of a PTC system; or (4) a modification of a PTC system that affects the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it interoperates. For context, existing § 236.1009(a)(2)(ii) additionally requires a railroad to submit an RFA— specifically to its FRA-approved PTCIP—if the railroad intends to initiate a new category of service (i.e., passenger or freight) or ‘‘[a]dd, subtract, or otherwise materially modify one or more lines of railroad for which installation of a PTC system is required.’’ In general, FRA’s proposed revisions to § 236.1021 are primarily intended to streamline the process by which host railroads must submit RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRAcertified systems, based on FRA’s recognition that the railroad industry intends to update and enhance FRAcertified PTC systems to advance rail 29 See 84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022, 15025–26 (Mar. 16, 2020). E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules safety.30 Accordingly, FRA’s proposed revisions to the process under existing paragraphs (a) through (d) are limited to removing any references to PTCSPs from those paragraphs, as FRA is proposing in this proposed rule to establish a new, streamlined process for RFAs associated with PTCSPs under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). In addition to FRA’s proposal to remove references to PTCSPs from existing paragraphs (a) through (d), FRA proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) in its entirety, and to incorporate the general principle of paragraph (d)(7) into a new proposed paragraph, (m)(2)(i), as discussed below. Consistent with the existing requirements under § 236.1021, railroads would still need to submit, and obtain FRA’s approval of, RFAs for certain changes to their PTCIPs and PTCDPs, including the types of changes enumerated above under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(1) through (2) and 236.1009(a)(2)(ii)—e.g., a proposed discontinuance of a PTC system or a proposed addition or removal of track segments from a railroad’s PTCIP. New proposed paragraph (l) would permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and PTCDPs, as those are system-based documents, albeit with some railroad-specific variances. FRA expects that host railroads would utilize this joint RFA option to the extent practicable, and it would efficiently leverage industry’s resources, help ensure coordination among railroads operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for review and approval. Because changes to safetycritical elements, including software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system would likely impact multiple, if not most, railroads implementing that same type of PTC system, FRA proposes to outline a path for such host railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific instructions under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). FRA notes that it would consider it acceptable for an association to submit a joint RFA under proposed paragraph (l), but it would need to be explicitly on behalf of two or more host railroads, and each host railroad would need to sign the filing. Proposed paragraph (l) would also specify that only host railroads with the same PTC System Certification 30 For additional detail and background, please see Section I (Executive Summary) and Subsection II–C (Proposal to Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-certified PTC Systems and the Associated PTCSPs) of this NPRM. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 classification under 49 CFR 236.1015(e) would be able to file a joint RFA to their PTCSPs. For example, when an RFA is necessary under § 236.1021 to account for certain proposed changes to railroads’ I–ETMS PTCSPs, or I–ETMS itself, FRA would expect a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I– ETMS is certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system under § 236.1015(e)(1), and a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I–ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC system under § 236.1015(e)(4). Two distinct RFAs would be necessary under these circumstances, as the impact of the proposed change(s) would need to be analyzed in the context of the underlying safety analysis in the FRAapproved PTCSPs—a safety analysis that is structured differently based on whether FRA has certified the PTC system as a non-vital, overlay system; a vital, overlay system; a standalone system; or a mixed system. Furthermore, with respect to joint RFAs, paragraph (l) would specify that, though most types of information required under proposed paragraph (m)(2) may be submitted jointly in the RFA, a joint RFA would need to include the written confirmation and statement specified under proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv), as described below, from each host railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA. New proposed paragraph (m) would outline the mandatory, three-step process a host railroad would need to follow to make changes to its FRAcertified PTC system and the associated FRA-approved PTCSP. FRA intends the process under proposed paragraph (m) to apply to all changes necessitating an RFA under existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this section—i.e., proposed changes to safety-critical elements of PTC systems and proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it interoperates. For brevity, FRA will refer to these changes as changes to safety-critical elements of PTC systems, as that is sufficiently broad for purposes of paragraph (m). Proposed paragraph (m)(1) would require a host railroad to revise its PTCSP to account for each proposed change to its PTC system, and summarize such changes in a chronological table of revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP. FRA retains its authority to request a copy of a host railroad’s governing PTCSP in accordance with 49 CFR 236.1009(h), FRA access, and 49 CFR 236.1037, Records retention. Proposed paragraph (m)(2) would specifically require a host railroad to file an RFA pursuant to paragraph (m) PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 82407 electronically, which could include electronic filing on FRA’s Secure Information Repository (https:// sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads currently file other PTC-related documents, or another designated location. If a host railroad wishes to seek confidential treatment of any part of its RFA, the railroad would need to comply with the existing process and requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, Request for confidential treatment, which include marking the document properly with the necessary labels and redactions, and providing a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed. FRA would post a host railroad’s RFA (the public, redacted version, if applicable) and FRA’s final decision letter in the respective railroad’s PTC docket on https://www.regulations.gov.31 In proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (v), FRA outlines the proposed content requirements for an RFA to an FRA-certified PTC system and the associated PTCSP—focusing on the core information and analysis FRA would need to review to ensure the PTC system, including any proposed changes, would provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system. Importantly, proposed paragraph (m)(2)(i) would require the RFA to include a summary of the proposed changes to any safetycritical elements of a PTC system, including a summary of how the changes to the PTC system would affect its safety-critical functionality, how any new hazards have been addressed and mitigated, whether each change is a planned change 32 that was previously included in all required analysis under § 236.1015, or an unplanned change, and the reason for the proposed changes, including whether the changes are necessary to address or resolve an emergency or urgent issue. FRA’s existing paragraphs (d)(7)(i) through (v) of § 236.1021 explain the distinction between an unplanned change and a planned change and impose certain additional requirements, including conducting suitable regression testing to FRA’s satisfaction and filing a new PTCDP and PTCSP, under certain circumstances. As noted 31 Railroads’ applicable PTC docket numbers are available on FRA’s website at https:// railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-andquarterly-reports. 32 See, e.g., 75 FR 2598, 2661 (Jan. 15, 2010) (stating that planned changes ‘‘are those that the system developer and the railroad have included in the safety analysis associated with the PTC system, but have not yet implemented. These changes provide enhanced functionality to the system, and FRA strongly encourages railroads to include PTC system improvements that further increase safety.’’). E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 82408 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules above, FRA proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) and instead require a host railroad to identify in its RFA under paragraph (m)(2)(i) only whether the change is a planned change or an unplanned change. That basic information would be valuable to include in the abbreviated RFA under paragraph (m) because several railroads have already accounted for long-term, planned changes to their PTC systems and proactively integrated those assumptions into the corresponding analyses in their PTCSPs. Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(ii) would require the RFA to include a copy of any associated software release notes, which would be critical for FRA to review and evaluate before one or more railroads deploy the upgraded software. A copy of the release notes would be integral in conveying the actual changes to the PTC system, including any corrections, enhancements, or new features or functionality. Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iii) would require the RFA to contain a confirmation that the host railroad has notified any applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes, any associated effect on the tenant railroads’ operations, and any actions the tenant railroads must take in accordance with the configuration control measures set forth in the host railroad’s PTCSP. In addition, proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iv) would require the RFA to include a statement from the host railroad’s Chief Engineer and Chief Operating Officer, or executive officers of similar qualifications, verifying that the modified PTC system would meet all technical requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and not adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads. This would be consistent with existing regulatory provisions that require PTC systems to achieve and maintain a level of safety, for each system modification, that is equal to or greater than the level of safety provided by the previous PTC system.33 Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(v) would require a host railroad to submit any other information that FRA requests on a case-by-case basis, during FRA’s review of the RFA. If FRA were to require a host railroad, or a set of host railroads, to provide additional information in support of the RFA, FRA’s request would identify a deadline by which to submit the information. Also, this would be generally consistent 33 See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1001(a), 236.1015(d)(11), 236.1015(e)(1)(iii), and 236.1015(g). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 with the existing provision under 49 CFR 236.1015(f), which provides that in any case where a PTCSP, or an RFA in this scenario, ‘‘lacks adequate data regarding [the] safety impacts of the proposed changes, the Associate Administrator may request the necessary data from the applicant.’’ Proposed paragraph (m)(3) would outline a definite, predictable timeline associated with FRA’s review of an RFA to a host railroad’s PTCSP or FRAcertified PTC system under proposed paragraph (m). Specifically, proposed paragraph (m)(3) would prohibit a host railroad from making any changes, as defined under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3) or (4),34 to its PTC system until the Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and Automation approves the RFA. Under proposed paragraph (m)(3)(i), FRA would review the RFA and issue a decision—i.e., an approval, conditional approval, or denial of the RFA—within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under paragraph (m)(2). FRA’s decision would be in the form of a letter from the Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and Automation. As noted above, FRA would post each final decision letter in the respective railroad’s PTC docket on https:// www.regulations.gov. FRA, however, may send interim correspondence— including any notices requiring a railroad to provide additional information under proposed paragraph (m)(2)(v)—via email. Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(ii) would explicitly acknowledge that FRA reserves the right to notify a railroad that it may proceed with making its proposed changes prior to the 45-day mark, including in an emergency or under other circumstances necessitating a railroad’s immediate implementation of the proposed changes to its PTC system. Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(iii) would specify that FRA may require a railroad to modify its RFA and/or its PTC system, but only to the extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the requirements under FRA’s PTC regulations. If FRA denies an RFA under proposed paragraph (m), proposed paragraph (m)(3)(iv) would specify that each applicable railroad would be prohibited from making the proposed changes to its PTC system until the railroad both sufficiently addresses FRA’s questions, comments, and concerns and obtains 34 That is, proposed changes to safety-critical elements of PTC systems or proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it interoperates. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 FRA’s approval. Consistent with proposed paragraph (l) of this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system, including the same certification classification under paragraph (e) of § 236.1015, would be permitted to submit information jointly to address FRA’s questions, comments, and concerns following any denial of an RFA under this section. FRA expects that its proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) would help establish an improved process that would entail a reasonable level of predictability and transparency in FRA’s review process and enable the industry to make technological advancements more efficiently. Section 236.1029 Failures PTC System Use and Currently, paragraph (h) of this section requires railroads to report annually to FRA the number of PTC system failures that occurred during the previous calendar year. FRA is proposing to revise this existing paragraph to clarify and expand the reporting requirement and require host railroads to submit the information in a Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). FRA’s proposed Excel-based 35 Form FRA F 6180.152 has been placed in the docket for this NPRM (Docket No. FRA– 2019–0075) for reference and review. Proposed paragraph (h)(1) would specify this reporting requirement applies to each host railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, which would include any new host railroads that become subject to the statutory mandate in the future and any host railroads that voluntarily implement a PTC system under subpart I.36 For clarification and simplicity, FRA is proposing to remove the phrase ‘‘following the date of required PTC system implementation established by section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code’’ from paragraph (h) because that phrase would be unnecessary after the final statutory deadline of December 31, 2020 and retaining that phrase may cause confusion about the applicability of this reporting requirement to new railroads that become subject to the statutory mandate after 2020 or railroads 35 Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. All third-party trademarks belong to their respective owners. 36 See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1011(d) (stating that a ‘‘railroad that elects to install a PTC system when not required to do so may elect to proceed under this subpart [subpart I] or under subpart H of this part,’’ including the associated filing and reporting requirements). E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules voluntarily implementing PTC systems on non-mandated lines. In addition, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require a host railroad to file its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) electronically, which could include electronic filing on FRA’s Secure Information Repository (https:// sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads file other PTC-related documents, or another designated location. To the extent a railroad would seek confidential treatment of any part of its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152), the railroad would need to comply with the existing process and requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, including proper labeling and redacting and providing a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed. FRA’s proposed Form FRA F 6180.152 would contain fields for a host railroad to identify its request for partial or full confidentiality and provide the required statement under § 209.11(c), if applicable. Also, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require a host railroad to include in its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) the figures itemized under proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (vii) for the host railroad, each of its applicable tenant railroads (as explained in proposed paragraph (h)(4)), and each of its PTC-governed track segments. In this proposed paragraph, FRA acknowledges that a host railroad’s PTCIP may identify or designate its specific track segments as territories, subdivisions, districts, main lines, branches, or corridors, based on a railroad’s own naming conventions. FRA expects that requiring this relatively high-level geographical information (e.g., by subdivision, not by milepost location) would still enable FRA to monitor closely trends in PTC system reliability throughout the country and focus its resources, for example, on any areas where PTC system failures are occurring at a high rate. Consistent with existing paragraph (h), proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) would require a railroad’s biannual report to include the number of PTC-related failures that occurred during the applicable reporting period, in addition to a numerical breakdown of the ‘‘failures by category, including but not limited to locomotive, wayside, communications, and back office system failures,’’ quoting existing 49 CFR 236.1029(h). In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii), however, FRA acknowledges that the source or cause of a PTC system failure might not VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 necessarily involve, in every instance, the PTC system itself, so FRA proposes to include an additional category for railroads to select in the applicable drop-down menu in Form FRA F 6180.152—i.e., ‘‘a non-PTC component.’’ Another difference between the existing paragraph (h) and FRA’s proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) is that FRA’s proposed language utilizes the statutory terminology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) as referenced above—initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions—which would be defined under paragraph (b) of § 236.1003. FRA is aware that railroads track their PTC system failures in this manner (by type of failure), given the existing temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and FRA’s associated mandatory form, the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). In proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv), FRA is proposing to expand the existing reporting requirement under paragraph (h) to encompass certain positive, performance-related information, as otherwise the information FRA receives would be about PTC system failures only. FRA proposes to require railroads’ Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance to include data about PTC technology’s positive impact on rail safety and the extent to which PTC systems are functioning as designed—to prevent train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movements of trains through switches left in the wrong position.37 Specifically, proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would require a host railroad to identify the number of intended enforcements by the PTC system and any other instances in which the PTC system prevented an accident or incident on the host railroad’s PTC-governed main lines, during the applicable reporting period. This type of statistic would be valuable and help demonstrate the extent to which PTC systems are meeting their desired objectives. FRA would interpret the term ‘‘intended enforcement’’ in this proposed paragraph consistently with how the term ‘‘enforce’’ is applied in FRA’s existing PTC regulations, which include references to how a PTC system shall enforce speeds, movement authorities, signal indications, and so forth. See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1005, 236.1013, 236.1015, and 236.1047(a)(3). In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), FRA would require a railroad’s Biannual Report of PTC 37 See 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 82409 System Performance to include certain contextual data to help FRA understand how the occurrences of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions compare to all operations on that host railroad’s PTC-governed main lines.38 Specifically, proposed paragraph (h)(1)(v) would require a railroad’s biannual report to include the number of scheduled attempts at initialization of the PTC system during the applicable reporting period, which would help FRA calculate the actual rate of that railroad’s PTC system initialization failures. Respectively, proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) would require the railroad to provide the number of trains and the number of train miles governed by the PTC system during the applicable reporting period. FRA’s proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) would generally encompass the same types of denominators currently set forth in the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) with one notable difference. In FRA’s proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), unlike Form FRA F 6180.177, FRA would be uniformly requiring those three data points from a host railroad and its applicable tenant railroads. In practice, FRA has found that host railroads providing certain denominators for tenant railroads (i.e., PTC-governed trains) and other denominators for the host railroad itself (i.e., scheduled attempts at initialization and PTC-governed train miles) makes it difficult for FRA to evaluate the rate at which failures are occurring systemwide. FRA expects that requiring uniform figures would help the agency derive more accurate, objective, and comparable statistics. Furthermore, FRA understands that host railroads collect the type of data under proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) for their own operations and their tenant railroads’ operations because several host railroads have provided those additional data points in their Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) to date. Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require a host railroad’s Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to include a summary of 38 FRA’s proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) would include fields for host railroads to provide the raw denominators set forth under proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), and FRA would calculate the rate of failures, utilizing those raw denominators. FRA has found that providing fields for railroads to enter such raw denominators, instead of percentages or rates, helps FRA accurately interpret railroads’ data, especially when comparing multiple railroads’ data or a single railroad’s data to its own prior reports. E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 82410 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules any actions the host railroad and its tenant railroads are taking to improve the performance and reliability of the PTC system continually. This narrative section would provide railroads an opportunity to explain briefly the steps they are taking to improve their PTC system’s performance, which could also help put the biannual statistics into perspective. FRA did not propose including this content requirement under proposed paragraph (h)(1) because that paragraph would be track segment-specific, and FRA acknowledges that railroads generally take a system-wide approach to improving their PTC systems. Accordingly, FRA proposes to categorize this content requirement in the separate, proposed paragraph (h)(2), and FRA’s proposed, Excel-based Form FRA F 6180.152 would contain a field for railroads to enter this summary. Proposed paragraph (h)(3) outlines the dates by which host railroads would submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA—i.e., by July 31 (covering the period from January 1 to June 30), and by January 31 (covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year). FRA expects that providing railroads one full month (from the end of the half-year period) to complete Form FRA 6180.152 would be sufficient and reasonable, given railroads’ experience, since 2016, in submitting their Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) one month after the end of the quarter. Furthermore, under the temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), the due date for any monthly notification is currently the 15th of the following month—so, for example, the notification regarding initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions during November 2020 is due by December 15, 2020 for the subset of host railroads that have fully implemented an FRAcertified PTC system. Accordingly, FRA expects that allowing one full month for railroads to prepare and submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) under proposed paragraph (h)(3) would be a reasonable timeframe for this permanent reporting requirement. Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would explicitly require any applicable tenant railroads that operate on a host railroad’s PTC-governed main line(s) to provide the necessary data to their applicable host railroads by a specific date before the biannual filing deadlines—i.e., by July 15 (for the biannual report covering the period from January 1 to June 30) and by VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 January 15 (for the biannual report covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year). The text in proposed paragraph (h)(4) clarifies, however, that a host railroad would not need to include data in Form FRA F 6180.152 regarding a tenant railroad that is subject to an exception under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(4) or (5) during the applicable reporting period because such a tenant railroad’s movements would not be governed by PTC technology in that case and there would not be any pertinent, performance-related data to submit. In general, FRA’s proposed paragraph (h)(4) regarding tenant railroad responsibilities is based, in part, on comments AAR and APTA previously submitted during the comment period associated with the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). Specifically, on February 28, 2020, AAR commented, ‘‘[i]f FRA is going to require hosts to report tenant data, the agency must impose a clear and direct requirement on tenants to report the desired information to their host railroad.’’ 39 In APTA’s comments, also dated February 28, 2020, APTA observed that a host railroad would need to obtain ‘‘all necessary logs to complete the analyses’’ from its tenant railroads to complete Form FRA F 6180.177 accurately.40 FRA acknowledges that an existing regulatory provision, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4), already requires a tenant railroad to report a PTC system failure or cut out to ‘‘a designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and practicable.’’ In addition, FRA is aware that several host railroads, including Class I railroads and passenger railroads, already regularly monitor and track tenant railroads’ PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions via automatically generated reports and/or via connected PTC system back offices. FRA expects that the language in proposed paragraph (h)(4) would help clarify the existing obligation on tenant railroads to provide certain data to their host railroads. Also, proposed paragraph (h)(4) would help ensure that host railroads receive tenant railroads’ necessary data for purposes of the reporting requirement under paragraph (h) in a timely manner. Specifically, in proposed paragraph (h)(4), FRA proposes to require each applicable tenant railroad to submit the information required under proposed 39 See Docket Nos. FRA 2019–0004–N–20 and FRA 2020–0004–N–3; 85 FR 15022, 15027 (Mar. 16, 2020). 40 See id. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) to each applicable host railroad by July 15 (for the report covering the period from January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for the report covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year). FRA expects that adding proposed paragraph (h)(4) to its regulations would offer more clarity and certainty about the timeframe under which tenant railroads would provide host railroads the information necessary to prepare and submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). In addition, this proposed paragraph would help ensure that host railroads receive such data at least 15 days before the biannual filing deadlines under proposed paragraph (h)(3), i.e., July 31 and January 31. IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 41 and DOT’s Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures in 49 CFR part 5. FRA made this determination by finding that the economic effects of this proposed regulatory action would not exceed the $100 million annual threshold defined by Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.42 FRA estimates this proposed rule would result in cost savings for the industry over a ten-year period. This proposed rule would reduce the burden on railroads while not adversely affecting railroad safety. To enable FRA to oversee the performance and reliability of railroads’ PTC systems effectively, FRA is proposing to change the reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h). FRA’s proposed changes include, but are not limited to, increasing the reporting frequency from annual to biannual, clarifying the types of statistics and information the reports must include, and expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related information, not just failure-related information. The amended provision would require host railroads to submit additional information. Accordingly, FRA estimates that the number of hours it would take a host railroad to report the required information under 41 See 42 See E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993). 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). 18DEP1 82411 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules § 236.1029(h) would increase under the proposed rule. To provide clarity and precision regarding the reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h), FRA has developed a proposed, Excel-based Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) that railroads would utilize to satisfy this reporting requirement. While FRA is proposing to expand this existing reporting requirement, the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads would be reduced under § 236.1021. Specifically, FRA is proposing to establish a streamlined process to enable the railroad industry to make technological advancements to FRA-certified PTC systems more efficiently and with FRA’s continued oversight. Instead of the existing RFA approval process under § 236.1021, FRA proposes to: (1) Require host railroads to comply with a streamlined process, which would include providing certain safety assurances and analysis in a concise RFA; and (2) establish a 45-day FRA decision deadline. This more efficient process is expected to result in cost savings for both the host railroads and the government. FRA’s proposed simplification of the content requirements associated with an RFA to a PTCSP under § 236.1021 would reduce the number of burden hours per RFA. In addition, FRA is proposing to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of RFAs railroads would need to submit in the future. Currently, 35 host railroads are required to submit RFAs before making certain changes to their PTCSPs under § 236.1021, with many host railroads projected to submit one RFA to a PTCSP per year. Over the next ten years, FRA expects there will be an average increase of 1.5 new PTC-governed host railroads per year, beginning in the second year, for a total of approximately 14 additional host railroads. Table A summarizes the types of PTC systems the 35 host railroads currently subject to the statutory mandate are implementing as of 2020 and the approximate number of RFAs host railroads would file to their PTCSPs under existing regulations. TABLE A—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REQUIRED RFAS TO PTCSPS BY TYPE OF PTC SYSTEM PTC systems being implemented by host railroads (as of 2020) 43 Type of PTC system Annual Number of RFAs per PTC system Total number of RFAs ACSES II ............................................................................................................................ CBTC ................................................................................................................................. E–ATC ............................................................................................................................... ITCS ................................................................................................................................... I–ETMS .............................................................................................................................. 8 1 5 1 26 1 1 1 1 2 8 1 5 1 52 Total ............................................................................................................................ 41 ........................ 67 Currently, without the proposed rule, FRA estimates the 35 host railroads would need to submit approximately 67 RFAs annually given the types of changes the industry intends to make to their PTC systems each year under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)–(4) in the future.44 FRA has estimated that the current hourly burden is 160 hours per RFA, based on previously approved PTC Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Table B below provides the current hourly burden and costs that host railroads face when submitting RFAs to their PTCSPs under the existing § 236.1021. TABLE B—CURRENT HOST RAILROAD HOURLY BURDEN AND COST FOR RFAS TO PTCSPS khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Year Submissions Hour burden per submission Total annual cost 7-Percent 3-Percent 1 ................................................................................... 2 ................................................................................... 3 ................................................................................... 4 ................................................................................... 5 ................................................................................... 6 ................................................................................... 7 ................................................................................... 8 ................................................................................... 9 ................................................................................... 10 ................................................................................. 67 69 70 72 73 75 76 78 79 81 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 $830,505 855,296 867,692 892,483 904,879 929,670 942,066 966,857 979,252 1,004,044 $830,505 799,342 757,876 728,532 690,328 662,842 627,738 602,110 569,934 546,133 $830,505 830,385 817,883 816,749 803,973 801,942 788,965 786,143 773,031 769,516 Total ...................................................................... 740 .............................. 9,172,744 6,815,340 8,019,091 Costs As described above, FRA is also proposing to amend a reporting 43 Several host railroads are implementing multiple types of PTC systems. 44 Previously, FRA estimated it would receive, on average, approximately 10 RFAs to railroads’ PTCIPs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs each year. However, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual, clarifying the types of statistics and information the reports must include, and expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related from discussions with PTC-mandated railroads, FRA found the estimate did not account adequately for the number of RFAs host railroads intend to submit to their PTCSPs annually under § 236.1021(h)(3)–(4) without the proposed rule. Tables A, B, and F in this proposed rule estimate more accurately the approximate average number of RFAs host railroads would submit to their PTCSPs each year under the existing regulations and under the proposed rule. See 84 FR 72121, 72127 (Dec. 30, 2019). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82412 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules information. Though FRA’s proposed rule will increase the number of required submissions, as well as the hourly burden per submission, FRA estimates any new costs will be minimal and offset by the cost savings derived from the proposed changes as presented in the Cost Savings section below. To clarify the information FRA is requesting from host railroads, FRA created an Excel-based form for the Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). This form will incorporate the information currently required under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) and the additional types of information specified in this NPRM.45 Host railroads with FRAcertified PTC systems are experienced in compiling this type of information, given the corresponding reporting requirements under the temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130–0553). The hourly burden associated with submitting the required information will increase initially from 8 hours to 12 hours per report on average. FRA estimates that, over time, railroads will develop procedures that decrease the reporting burden from 12 hours per submission to 10 hours per submission. FRA assumes this decrease will begin in the fourth year of the analysis as host railroads become familiar with the Excel-based form and as they develop processes to improve their data collection and reporting. In addition to the increase in hourly burden, FRA estimates an increased burden will result from the additional annual report this proposed rule will require. Consistent with the previously stated estimates, FRA assumes that 35 host railroads will submit these biannual reports, and the number of applicable host railroads will increase by 1.5 on average each year. This analysis accounts for the marginal increase of four hours for the first three years of a host railroad reporting and two hours for each subsequent year. Table C below shows the marginal hourly burden increase associated with railroads’ reporting under the proposed rule. TABLE C—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD MARGINAL BURDEN INCREASE Number of host railroad submissions with marginal 4-hour burden Year Number of host railroad submissions with marginal 2-hour burden Total marginal hourly burden 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 6 ....................................................................................................................................... 7 ....................................................................................................................................... 8 ....................................................................................................................................... 9 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 ..................................................................................................................................... 35 37 38 2 3 5 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 38 38 38 40 42 43 45 140 146 152 84 88 96 96 100 102 106 Total .......................................................................................................................... 136 284 1,110 In addition to the marginal increase, host railroads will face an additional reporting burden due to the proposed change from annual to biannual reporting. This analysis accounts for the new burden of 12 hours for the first three years of a host railroad’s reporting and 10 hours for each subsequent year to account for the proposed change from annual to biannual reporting. Table D below shows the new hourly burden under this proposed rule for the ten-year period of this analysis. TABLE D—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD NEW SUBMISSIONS Number of host railroad submissions with new 12-hour burden khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Year Number of host railroad submissions with new 10-hour burden Total new hourly burden 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 6 ....................................................................................................................................... 7 ....................................................................................................................................... 8 ....................................................................................................................................... 9 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 ..................................................................................................................................... 35 37 38 2 3 5 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 38 38 38 40 42 43 45 420 438 456 404 416 440 448 468 478 498 Total .......................................................................................................................... 136 284 4,466 45 The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) will be placed VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 in the docket (Docket No. FRA–2019–0075) for review when this NPRM is published. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules FRA calculated the total additional burden hours for submissions by multiplying the respective number of submissions with their associated annual burden for each individual year. The summation of the hourly burden is 82413 throughout this analysis.46 Table E provides the ten-year cost to the railroad industry associated with the expanded reporting requirement, as proposed. multiplied by the fully burdened wage rate of a Professional and Administrative employee. For purposes of this analysis, FRA uses the fully burdened rate of $77.47 to calculate both the costs and cost savings TABLE E—TEN-YEAR TOTAL COSTS Total marginal hour burden Year Total new submission hour burden Total annual host railroad submissions cost 47 Total new complete hour burden 7-Percent 3-Percent 1 ........................................................... 2 ........................................................... 3 ........................................................... 4 ........................................................... 5 ........................................................... 6 ........................................................... 7 ........................................................... 8 ........................................................... 9 ........................................................... 10 ......................................................... 140 146 152 84 88 96 96 100 102 106 420 438 456 404 416 440 448 468 478 498 560 584 608 488 504 536 544 568 580 604 $43,385 45,244 47,103 37,807 39,046 41,525 42,145 44,004 44,934 46,793 $43,385 42,284 41,142 30,861 29,788 29,607 28,083 27,404 26,152 25,453 $43,385 43,926 44,399 34,598 34,692 35,820 35,296 35,780 35,471 35,863 Total .............................................. 1,110 4,466 5,576 431,987 324,158 379,231 * Note: Table may not sum due to rounding. FRA estimates that the total cost to the railroad industry will be $324,158, discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, discounted at 3 percent. In terms of governmental costs associated with the expanded reporting requirement, including the proposed increase from annual to biannual reporting, FRA expects it will cost approximately $10,000, over the ten-year period, to review the additional data railroads will submit in the proposed Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). As FRA considers these additional governmental costs to be de minimis, they are not included in the economic analysis. Cost Savings There are currently 35 host railroads that are required to submit an RFA before changing safety-critical elements of their PTC systems and their PTCSPs. FRA estimates that over the next ten years, the number of PTC-governed host railroads will increase by approximately 14, for a total of 49 host railroads. For purposes of this analysis, FRA estimates that approximately 1.5 new host railroads are added each year, beginning in year two. Currently, under FRA’s existing regulations, FRA estimates that host railroads will submit 67 annual RFAs to their PTCSPs that FRA must review and approve before those host railroads change and improve their PTC systems. Under this proposed rule, FRA is proposing to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs.48 Table F below shows the number of RFAs to PTCSPs that would be submitted under the existing regulation and the proposed rule. Over a ten-year period, FRA estimates that the changes described in this proposed rule will result in railroads submitting approximately 590 fewer RFAs. TABLE F—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RFAS TO PTCSPS Approximate number of RFAs to PTCSPs per year under existing regulations khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Current types of PTC systems Approximate number of RFAs to PTCSPs per year under proposal Total number of reduction of RFAs to PTCSPs ACSES II ................................................................................................................................ CBTC ..................................................................................................................................... E–ATC ................................................................................................................................... ITCS ....................................................................................................................................... I–ETMS .................................................................................................................................. 8 1 5 1 52 8 1 1 1 49 4 0 0 4 0 48 Subtotal in Year 1 ........................................................................................................... 67 15 52 46 2019 Composite Surface Transportation Board (STB) Professional and Administrative hourly wage rate of $44.27 burdened by 75-percent ($44.27 × 1.75 = $77.47). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 47 Total Annual Host Railroad Submissions Cost = Total New Complete Hour Burden × $77.47. 48 FRA expects its proposal to allow host railroads to submit joint RFAs to impact primarily host railroads implementing I–ETMS and E–ATC PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 because each I–ETMS system is relatively similar and manufactured by the same set of suppliers, and each E–ATC system is relatively similar and manufactured by the same set of suppliers. E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82414 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules FRA estimates the current burden is 160 hours per RFA to a PTCSP based on the existing RFA content requirements. FRA’s proposed simplification of the content requirements would reduce the burden hours by 50 percent, resulting in 80 burden hours per RFA. Table G provides the estimated ten-year cost to host railroads based on FRA’s proposal to simplify the RFA process. TABLE G—TEN-YEAR COST OF JOINT RFAS AND SIMPLIFIED RFAS Year Hour burden per submission Submissions Total annual cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 1 ............................................................................. 2 ............................................................................. 3 ............................................................................. 4 ............................................................................. 5 ............................................................................. 6 ............................................................................. 7 ............................................................................. 8 ............................................................................. 9 ............................................................................. 10 ........................................................................... 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 $92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 $92,967 86,885 81,201 75,889 70,924 66,284 61,948 57,895 54,108 50,568 $92,967 90,259 87,630 85,078 82,600 80,194 77,858 75,591 73,389 71,251 Total ................................................................ 150 ................................ 929,670 698,669 816,818 Overall, FRA expects that simplifying the content requirements for RFAs to PTCSPs, as well as permitting host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs, will result in a ten-year cost savings of $6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. TABLE H—TOTAL TEN-YEAR COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED § 236.1021 Cost of joint RFAs and simplified RFA process (with proposed rule) Current host railroad costs (without proposed regulation) Year Total annual cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 1 ............................................................................. 2 ............................................................................. 3 ............................................................................. 4 ............................................................................. 5 ............................................................................. 6 ............................................................................. 7 ............................................................................. 8 ............................................................................. 9 ............................................................................. 10 ........................................................................... $830,505 855,296 867,692 892,483 904,879 929,670 942,066 966,857 979,252 1,004,044 $92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 92,967 $737,538 762,329 774,725 799,516 811,912 836,703 849,099 873,890 886,285 911,077 $737,538 712,457 676,675 652,643 619,404 596,558 565,790 544,215 515,826 495,565 $737,538 740,126 730,253 731,671 721,373 721,747 711,107 710,552 699,642 698,264 Total ................................................................ 9,172,744 929,670 8,243,074 6,116,671 7,202,273 In addition, FRA’s proposed changes to the RFA process will result in cost savings for the government, through a reduction in time needed to review an RFA with the existing contents under 49 CFR 236.1021(d)(1)–(7). Under the proposed rule, FRA will review a streamlined RFA with the more focused information that new proposed paragraph (m)(2) would require. Table I below outlines the assumptions that FRA used to calculate the governmental cost savings. FRA’s estimates assume there will be PTC system changes that are complex and will require additional time to review, as well as system changes that are less complex. TABLE I—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COST ASSUMPTIONS Average employee count needed khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Staff level Average hourly burden Average hourly salary Fully burdened rate Cost savings per staff level GS–15 .................................................................... GS–14 .................................................................... GS–13 .................................................................... 1 2 2 10 105 119 $77.75 62.34 49.71 $136.07 109.10 86.99 $1,315 19,171 20,646 Total ................................................................ 5 234 189.81 332.17 41,132 49 For I–ETMS systems, FRA estimates the total number of annual RFAs to PTCSPs would be reduced from 52 (under the existing regulation) to VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 4 (under the proposed rule)—i.e., 2 RFAs per year from the set of railroads whose I–ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC system and 2 RFAs per year from PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 the set of railroads whose I–ETMS is certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system. E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules Without the proposed rule, FRA would be required to review and approve or deny all 67 of the RFAs to PTCSPs that would be submitted annually. FRA estimated that over the next ten years, the total cost to the government would be $30.4 million. Table J provides an overview of the ten- 82415 year government burden without the proposed rule. TABLE J—TEN-YEAR GOVERNMENT BURDEN [Without proposed rule] Year Submissions Government cost to review each submission Total annual cost 7-Percent 3-Percent 1 ............................................................................. 2 ............................................................................. 3 ............................................................................. 4 ............................................................................. 5 ............................................................................. 6 ............................................................................. 7 ............................................................................. 8 ............................................................................. 9 ............................................................................. 10 ........................................................................... 67 69 70 72 73 75 76 78 79 81 $41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 $2,755,871 2,838,136 2,879,268 2,961,533 3,002,665 3,084,930 3,126,062 3,208,327 3,249,460 3,331,724 $2,755,871 2,652,463 2,514,864 2,417,493 2,290,719 2,199,512 2,083,027 1,997,985 1,891,215 1,812,237 $2,755,871 2,755,471 2,713,986 2,710,222 2,667,829 2,661,088 2,618,028 2,608,664 2,565,153 2,553,489 Total ................................................................ 740 411,324 30,437,976 22,615,387 26,609,802 Based on the proposed changes to § 236.1021, the number of RFAs that FRA would be required to review will decrease from 67 to 15 per year, beginning in the first year. This reduction is the same as seen in the cost savings above. The resulting reduction would mean that the new government cost to review the RFAs would be reduced to $6.2 million over the ten- year period. Table K below outlines the government costs under the proposed rule. TABLE K—TEN-YEAR NEW GOVERNMENT BURDEN Year Submissions Government cost to review each submission Total annual cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 1 ............................................................................. 2 ............................................................................. 3 ............................................................................. 4 ............................................................................. 5 ............................................................................. 6 ............................................................................. 7 ............................................................................. 8 ............................................................................. 9 ............................................................................. 10 ........................................................................... 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 $41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 41,132 $616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 $616,986 576,622 538,899 503,644 470,696 439,902 411,124 384,228 359,091 335,600 $616,986 599,016 581,568 564,630 548,184 532,218 516,716 501,666 487,054 472,868 Total ................................................................ 150 411,324 6,169,860 4,636,793 5,420,906 FRA estimates that its proposed changes will result in a ten-year government cost savings of $18.0 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. TABLE L—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS Current government cost to review submissions (without proposed rule) khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Government cost to review submissions (with proposed rule) $2,755,871 2,838,136 2,879,268 2,961,533 3,002,665 3,084,930 3,126,062 3,208,327 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 $616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 616,986 Sfmt 4702 Total annual cost savings $2,138,885 2,221,150 2,262,282 2,344,547 2,385,679 2,467,944 2,509,076 2,591,341 E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 7-Percent $2,138,885 2,075,841 1,975,965 1,913,849 1,820,023 1,759,610 1,671,904 1,613,757 3-Percent $2,138,885 2,156,456 2,132,418 2,145,592 2,119,645 2,128,870 2,101,312 2,106,998 82416 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules TABLE L—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS—Continued Current government cost to review submissions (without proposed rule) Year Government cost to review submissions (with proposed rule) Total annual cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 9 ........................................................................... 10 ......................................................................... 3,249,460 3,331,724 616,986 616,986 2,632,474 2,714,738 1,532,124 1,476,638 2,078,099 2,080,621 Total .............................................................. 30,437,976 6,169,860 24,268,116 17,978,594 21,188,896 Results This proposed rule would reduce the burden on railroads while not adversely affecting railroad safety. To oversee the performance and reliability of railroads’ PTC systems, FRA is proposing to expand the reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h), as described above. FRA estimates that the total ten-year industry cost associated with the expanded reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h) will be $324,158, discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, discounted at 3 percent. Though FRA is proposing to expand certain reporting requirements, the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads will be reduced overall. The proposed simplification of RFAs to PTCSPs will reduce the number of burden hours per RFA. Also, FRA is proposing to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of submissions railroads will need to submit in the future. FRA expects that its proposed changes will result in a ten-year cost savings for the railroad industry of $6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. In addition, during the same period, FRA expects that the proposed changes will produce government cost savings amounting to $18.0 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. FRA estimates that the total net cost savings for this proposed rule will be $23.8 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $28.0 million, discounted at 3 percent. The annualized cost savings will be $3.4 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $3.3 million, discounted at 3 percent. TABLE M—TOTAL TEN-YEAR NET COST SAVINGS Total industry cost savings Year Total industry costs Total net cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 1 ............................................................... 2 ............................................................... 3 ............................................................... 4 ............................................................... 5 ............................................................... 6 ............................................................... 7 ............................................................... 8 ............................................................... 9 ............................................................... 10 ............................................................. $737,538 762,329 774,725 799,516 811,912 836,703 849,099 873,890 886,285 911,077 $2,138,885 2,221,150 2,262,282 2,344,547 2,385,679 2,467,944 2,509,076 2,591,341 2,632,474 2,714,738 $43,385 45,244 47,103 37,807 39,046 41,525 42,145 44,004 44,934 46,793 $2,833,038 2,938,235 2,989,904 3,106,256 3,158,545 3,263,122 3,316,030 3,421,227 3,473,825 3,579,022 $2,833,038 2,746,014 2,611,498 2,535,631 2,409,639 2,326,561 2,209,611 2,130,568 2,021,798 1,946,751 $2,833,038 2,852,655 2,818,271 2,842,665 2,806,326 2,814,797 2,777,123 2,781,770 2,742,269 2,743,022 Total .................................................. 8,243,074 24,268,116 431,987 32,079,203 23,771,107 28,011,938 Annualized ................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,384,471 3,283,854 FRA requests comments on the assumptions and burden estimates that are used within this analysis. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Total government cost savings B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272 The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ (67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) require agency review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if promulgated, would not VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FRA has not determined whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, FRA seeks comment on the potential small business impacts of the proposed requirements in this NPRM. FRA prepared an IRFA, which is included below, to aid the public in commenting on the potential small business impacts of the proposed requirements in this NPRM. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1. Reasons for Considering Agency Action FRA is initiating the proposed rulemaking to enable railroads to make technological advancements to their PTC systems more efficiently, with FRA’s continued oversight, by improving and streamlining the RFA process under 49 CFR 236.1021. Without the proposed rule, each host railroad would be required to submit independently an RFA, with the information required under 49 CFR 236.1021(d)(1)–(7), several times per year and wait for FRA to approve each RFA prior to implementing E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS enhancements or necessary changes to existing FRA-certified technology. In addition, FRA is proposing to improve the reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) by, for example, increasing the reporting frequency from annual to biannual, updating the provision to use certain statutory terminology for consistency, and expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related information, so FRA can oversee PTC systems’ performance and reliability more effectively. To reduce the burden on host railroads, FRA has developed an Excel-based form (Form FRA F 6180.152) in which all the information could be succinctly input and sent to FRA electronically. 2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule The objective of this proposed rule is to establish an improved process to enable the industry to make technological advancements to FRAcertified PTC systems more efficiently, and with FRA’s continued oversight. Instead of the existing approval process under § 236.1021, FRA proposes to require host railroads to comply with a streamlined process, which includes providing certain safety assurances and analysis. This improved process is expected to result in cost savings for both the host railroads and the government. Furthermore, FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, which would benefit both the industry and FRA. FRA is also proposing to expand the reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h) to enable FRA to oversee PTC systems’ performance and reliability effectively. The expanded reporting requirement would increase the costs to host railroads, but that minimal cost would be offset by the cost savings associated with FRA’s proposed changes to § 236.1021. The Secretary has broad statutory authority to ‘‘prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety’’ under 49 U.S.C. 20103 and regarding PTC technology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g). This proposed rule will reduce the burden on railroads while not adversely affecting railroad safety. In this proposed rule, FRA proposes to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on regulated entities by reducing the complexity and number of RFAs host railroads must submit regarding certain enhancements and necessary changes to their FRA- VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 certified PTC systems under § 236.1021 and providing more clarity and precision regarding the reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h), using a form. 3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities, unless the Secretary certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business concern that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and stipulates in its size standards that a ‘‘small entity’’ in the railroad industry is a for-profit ‘‘line-haul railroad’’ that has fewer than 1,500 employees, a ‘‘short line railroad’’ with fewer than 500 employees, or a ‘‘commuter rail system’’ with annual receipts of less than seven million dollars. See ‘‘Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards,’’ 13 CFR part 121, subpart A. The proposed rule would directly apply to all host railroads subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157, including, in relevant part, 5 Class II or III, short line, or terminal railroads, and 23 intercity passenger railroads or commuter railroads, some of which may be small entities. 4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the Class of Small Entities That Will be Subject to the Requirements and the Type of Professional Skill Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record The proposed RFA process would allow railroads to make enhancements and necessary changes to their PTC systems more efficiently. FRA understands that only 5 of the current PTC-mandated host railroads are small entities; however, because this proposed rule would reduce the regulatory costs and hourly burdens on these railroads, the proposed changes would result in a positive impact on those railroads. FRA is also proposing to amend the reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h) by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual, clarifying the types of statistics and information the reports must include, and expanding the reporting PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 82417 requirement to encompass positive performance-related information.50 Though this expanded reporting requirement would double the number of submissions and increase the hourly burden, the proposed changes are necessary to enable FRA to oversee the performance and reliability of railroads’ PTC systems effectively. FRA estimates that the additional costs associated with the increased reporting requirement will be more than offset by the proposed changes to § 236.1021. Furthermore, FRA assumes that as host railroads become more familiar with the reporting requirements proposed under § 236.1029(h), the hourly burden per submission will be reduced from 12 hours to 10 hours. FRA expects that the proposed reporting requirement tasks will be completed by one Professional and Administrative employee per host railroad and require a basic understanding of Microsoft Excel. To calculate the individual costs for small entities, FRA divided the total cost for each year by the number of estimated host railroads. FRA assumes that the hourly burden to submit an RFA is independent of an entity’s size because the RFA depends upon the PTC system and not the individual railroad making the submission. The total cost for all host railroads in year one would be $43,385. FRA estimates that the individual cost to each host railroad would be approximately $1,240. The estimated ten-year cost per host railroad that FRA considers a small entity would be approximately $7,997, discounted at 7 percent, or $9,247, discounted at 3 percent. Though the proposed rule would impose costs on those host railroads that are small entities, it would also result in cost savings. To calculate the individual cost savings for small entities, FRA divided the total cost savings for each year by the number of estimated host railroads. The total annual cost savings in the first year would be $737,538. FRA estimates that the individual cost savings for each host railroad would be $21,073. The estimated ten-year cost savings per host railroad that FRA considers a small entity would be $149,476, discounted at 7 percent, or $173,984, discounted at 3 percent. FRA requests comments on the burden that small entities would face under this proposed rule. 50 In addition, with respect to tenant railroads, FRA’s proposed changes to § 236.1029(h) are generally consistent with the existing regulatory requirement specifying that a tenant railroad must report a PTC system failure or cut out to ‘‘a designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and practicable.’’ See § 236.1029(b)(4) (emphasis added). E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82418 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 5. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule the public comment period for this NPRM when making a final determination of the rule’s economic impact on small entities. FRA is not aware of any relevant Federal rule that duplicates, overlaps with, or conflicts with the proposed rule. As described in this NPRM, the existing and proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(h) (proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance, Form FRA F 6180.152) constitutes a permanent reporting requirement, whereas the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130–0553) under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) is a temporary reporting requirement and expires on approximately December 31, 2021. FRA invites all interested parties to submit comments, data, and information demonstrating the potential economic impact on small entities that will result from the adoption of this proposed rule. FRA particularly encourages small entities potentially impacted by the proposed amendments to participate in the public comment process. FRA will consider all comments received during 6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule FRA is proposing this rulemaking to alleviate burdens on industry and improve the process associated with changes and upgrades to FRA-certified PTC systems and the associated PTCSPs. FRA’s proposed changes to § 236.1021 are expected to result in cost savings for both the host railroads and the government. Furthermore, FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, which will benefit both the industry and FRA. The main alternative to this rulemaking would be to maintain the status quo. In the absence of this proposed rule, railroads would continue to submit information under § 236.1029(h) that may not be sufficient for FRA to oversee PTC systems’ performance and reliability effectively. FRA notes the NPRM proposes to establish a new C. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are being submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Please note that any new or revised requirements, as proposed in this NPRM, are marked by asterisks (*) in the table below. The sections that contain the proposed and current information collection requirements under OMB Control No. 2130–0553 52 and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows: Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per response 235.6(c)—Expedited application for approval of certain changes described in this section. —Copy of expedited application to labor union ................. —Railroad letter rescinding its request for expedited application of certain signal system changes. —Revised application for certain signal system changes —Copy of railroad revised application to labor union ........ 236.1—Railroad maintained signal plans at all interlockings, automatic signal locations, and controlled points, and updates to ensure accuracy. 236.15—Designation of automatic block, traffic control, train stop, train control, cab signal, and PTC territory in timetable instructions. 236.18—Software management control plan—New railroads. 236.23(e)—The names, indications, and aspects of roadway and cab signals shall be defined in the carrier’s Operating Rule Book or Special Instructions. Modifications shall be filed with FRA within 30 days after such modifications become effective. 236.587(d)—Certification and departure test results ......... 42 railroads ................. 5 hours ................. 50 $3,850 42 railroads ................. 42 railroads ................. 10 expedited applications. 10 copies .................... 1 letter ........................ 30 minutes ............ 6 hours ................. 5 6 385 462 42 railroads ................. 42 railroads ................. 700 railroads ............... 1 application ............... 1 copy ......................... 25 plan changes ......... 5 hours ................. 30 minutes ............ 15 minutes ............ 5 .5 6.3 385 39 485 700 railroads ............... 10 timetable instructions. 30 minutes ............ 5 385 2 railroads ................... 2 plans ........................ 160 hours ............. 320 24,640 700 railroads ............... 2 modifications ........... 1 hour ................... 2 154 742 railroads ............... 5 seconds ............. 6,337 487,949 2 railroads ................... 4,562,500 train departures. 2 RSPPs ..................... 40 hours ............... 80 6,160 742 railroads ............... 1 joint plan .................. 2,000 hours .......... 2,000 240,000 742 railroads ............... 0.5 filings/approval petitions. 0.25 data calls/documents. 50 hours ............... 25 1,925 5 hours ................. 1 77 (c)(2)—Response to FRA’s request for further data after informational filing. 51 Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). 52 See also 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 2019) (60-day ICR notice); 85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020) (30-day ICR notice). On June 5, 2020, OMB approved the revised ICR, entitled ‘‘PTC and Other Signal Systems’’ under OMB Control No. 2130–0553, for a period of three years, expiring on June 30, 2023. 53 The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2019 STB Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 742 railroads ............... includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost amounts to $120 per hour. For Professional/ Administrative staff, this cost amounts to $77 per hour. 54 A railroad’s final Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) will be due on January 31, 2021, assuming the railroad fully implements an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system by the statutory deadline of December 31, 2020. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Total annual burden hours Total annual dollar cost equivalent 53 CFR section/subject 236.905(a)—Railroad Safety Program Plan (RSPP)— New railroads. 236.913(a)—Filing and approval of a joint Product Safety Plan (PSP). (c)(1)—Informational filing/petition for special approval ..... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS form 51 to report the required information under § 236.1029(h), which will help clarify and facilitate this reporting requirement for the industry. The alternative of not issuing the proposed rule would also forgo the more efficient process of allowing host railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, and to implement certain changes to their PTC systems under the proposed streamlined process under § 236.1021(l) and (m), which would reduce the overall burden of FRA’s PTC regulations. 55 A railroad’s final Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166) will be due on March 31, 2021, assuming it fully implements an FRAcertified and interoperable PTC system by the statutory deadline of December 31, 2020. 56 The temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) expires on approximately December 31, 2021 per 49 U.S.C. 20157(j). E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82419 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules Total annual responses Average time per response Total annual burden hours Total annual dollar cost equivalent 53 CFR section/subject Respondent universe (d)(1)(ii)—Response to FRA’s request for further information within 15 days after receipt of the Notice of Product Development (NOPD). (d)(1)(iii)—Technical consultation by FRA with the railroad on the design and planned development of the product. (d)(1)(v)—Railroad petition to FRA for final approval of NOPD. (d)(2)(ii)—Response to FRA’s request for additional information associated with a petition for approval of PSP or PSP amendment. (e)—Comments to FRA on railroad informational filing or special approval petition. (h)(3)(i)—Railroad amendment to PSP .............................. (j)—Railroad field testing/information filing document ....... 236.917(a)—Railroad retention of records: results of tests and inspections specified in the PSP. (b)—Railroad report that frequency of safety-relevant hazards exceeds threshold set forth in PSP. (b)(3)—Railroad final report to FRA on the results of the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-relevant hazards. 236.919(a)—Railroad Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM). (b)—Plans for proper maintenance, repair, inspection, and testing of safety-critical products. (c)—Documented hardware, software, and firmware revisions in OMM. 236.921 and 923(a)—Railroad Training and Qualification Program. 236.923(b)—Training records retained in a designated location and available to FRA upon request. Form FRA F 6180.165—Quarterly PTC Progress Report (49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2)) 54. Form FRA F 6180.166—Annual PTC Progress Report (49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1) and 49 CFR 236.1009(a)(5)) 55. Form FRA F 6180.177—Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)) 56. 236.1001(b)—A railroad’s additional or more stringent rules than prescribed under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I. 742 railroads ............... 0.25 data calls/documents. 1 hour ................... 0.25 19 742 railroads ............... 0.25 technical consultations. 5 hours ................. 1.3 100 742 railroads ............... 0.25 petitions .............. 1 hour ................... 0.25 19 742 railroads ............... 1 request .................... 50 hours ............... 50 3,850 742 railroads ............... 0.5 comments/letters .. 10 hours ............... 5 385 742 railroads ............... 742 railroads ............... 13 railroads with PSP 2 amendments ............ 1 field test document .. 13 PSP safety results 20 hours ............... 100 hours ............. 160 hours ............. 40 100 2,080 3,080 7,700 160,160 13 railroads ................. 1 report ....................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 13 railroads ................. 1 report ....................... 10 hours ............... 10 770 13 railroads ................. 1 OMM update ........... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 13 railroads ................. 1 plan update ............. 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 13 railroads ................. 1 revision .................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 13 railroads ................. 1 program ................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 13 railroads ................. 350 records ................ 10 minutes ............ 58 4,466 35 railroads ................. 11.7 reports/forms ...... 23.22 hours .......... 271 20,867 35 railroads ................. 11.7 reports/forms ...... 40.12 hours .......... 468 36,036 38 railroads ................. 144 reports/forms ....... 1 hour ................... 144 11,088 38 railroads ................. 1 rule or instruction .... 40 hours ............... 40 4,800 40 3,080 236.1005(b)(4)(i)–(ii)—A railroad’s submission of estimated traffic projections for the next 5 years, to support a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA, not to implement a PTC system based on reductions in rail traffic. The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021. (b)(4)(iii)—A railroad’s request for a de minimis exception, in a PTCIP or an RFA, based on a minimal quantity of PIH materials traffic. 7 Class I railroads ...... (b)(5)—A railroad’s request to remove a line from its PTCIP based on the sale of the line to another railroad and any related request for FRA review from the acquiring railroad. The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021. (g)(1)(i)—A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute trains not equipped with a PTC system onto PTC-equipped tracks and vice versa during certain emergencies. (g)(1)(ii)—A railroad’s written or telephonic notice of the conditions necessitating emergency rerouting and other required information under 236.1005(i). (g)(2)—A railroad’s temporary rerouting request due to planned maintenance not exceeding 30 days. (h)(1)—A response to any request for additional information from FRA, prior to commencing rerouting due to planned maintenance. (h)(2)—A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute trains due to planned maintenance exceeding 30 days. 236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)—A progress report due by December 31, 2020, and by December 31, 2022, from any Class II or III railroad utilizing a temporary exception under this section. 38 railroads ................. 45 rerouting extension requests. 8 hours ................. 360 27,720 38 railroads ................. 45 written or telephonic notices. 2 hours ................. 90 6,930 38 railroads ................. 720 requests ............... 8 hours ................. 5,760 443,520 38 railroads ................. 10 requests ................. 2 hours ................. 20 1,540 38 railroads ................. 160 requests ............... 8 hours ................. 1,280 98,560 262 railroads ............... 5 reports ..................... 16 hours ............... 80 6,160 (b)(5)(vii)—A railroad’s request to utilize different yard movement procedures, as part of a freight yard movements exception. The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 1 exception request .... Sfmt 4702 40 hours ............... E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82420 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per response Total annual burden hours Total annual dollar cost equivalent 53 236.1007(b)(1)—For any high-speed service over 90 miles per hour (mph), a railroad’s PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) must additionally establish that the PTC system was designed and will be operated to meet the fail-safe operation criteria in Appendix C. The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. (c)—An HSR–125 document accompanying a host railroad’s PTCSP, for operations over 125 mph. (c)(1)—A railroad’s request for approval to use foreign service data, prior to submission of a PTCSP. (d)—A railroad’s request in a PTCSP that FRA excuse compliance with one or more of this section’s requirements. 236.1009(a)(2)—A PTCIP if a railroad becomes a host railroad of a main line requiring the implementation of a PTC system, including the information under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR 236.1011. (a)(3)—Any new PTCIPs jointly filed by a host railroad and a tenant railroad. (b)(1)—A host railroad’s submission, individually or jointly with a tenant railroad or PTC system supplier, of an unmodified Type Approval. (b)(2)—A host railroad’s submission of a PTCDP with the information required under 49 CFR 236.1013, requesting a Type Approval for a PTC system that either does not have a Type Approval or has a Type Approval that requires one or more variances. 38 railroads ................. 1 HSR–125 document 3,200 hours .......... 3,200 384,000 38 railroads ................. 0.3 requests ................ 8,000 hours .......... 2,667 205,359 38 railroads ................. 1 request .................... 1,000 hours .......... 1,000 120,000 264 railroads ............... 1 PTCIP ...................... 535 hours ............. 535 64,200 264 railroads ............... 1 joint PTCIP .............. 267 hours ............. 267 32,040 264 railroads ............... 1 document ................. 8 hours ................. 8 616 264 railroads ............... 1 PTCDP .................... 2,000 hours .......... 2,000 154,000 (d)—A host railroad’s submission of a PTCSP .................. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015. (e)(3)—Any request for full or partial confidentiality of a PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent (NPI), PTCDP, or PTCSP. (h)—Any responses or documents submitted in connection with FRA’s use of its authority to monitor, test, and inspect processes, procedures, facilities, documents, records, design and testing materials, artifacts, training materials and programs, and any other information used in the design, development, manufacture, test, implementation, and operation of the PTC system, including interviews with railroad personnel. (j)(2)(iii)—Any additional information provided in response to FRA’s consultations or inquiries about a PTCDP or PTCSP. 38 railroads ................. 10 confidentiality requests. 8 hours ................. 80 6,160 38 railroads ................. 36 interviews and documents. 4 hours ................. 144 11,088 38 railroads ................. 1 set of additional information. 400 hours ............. 400 30,800 236.1011(a)–(b)—PTCIP content requirements ................ The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021. (e)—Any public comment on PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs. 38 railroads ................. 16 1,232 236.1013, PTCDP and NPI content requirements ............. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021. 236.1015—Any new host railroad’s PTCSP meeting all content requirements under 49 CFR 236.1015. (g)—A PTCSP for a PTC system replacing an existing certified PTC system. (h)—A quantitative risk assessment, if FRA requires one to be submitted. 236.1017(a)—An independent third-party assessment, if FRA requires one to be conducted and submitted. (b)—A railroad’s written request to confirm whether a specific entity qualifies as an independent third party. —Further information provided to FRA upon request ....... 264 railroads ............... 1 PTCSP .................... 8,000 hours .......... 8,000 616,000 38 railroads ................. 0.3 PTCSPs ................ 3,200 hours .......... 1,067 82,159 38 railroads ................. 0.3 assessments ........ 800 hours ............. 267 20,559 38 railroads ................. 0.3 assessments ........ 1,600 hours .......... 533 63,960 38 railroads ................. 0.3 written requests .... 8 hours ................. 3 231 38 railroads ................. 20 hours ............... 7 539 38 railroads ................. 0.3 sets of additional information. 0.3 requests ................ 20 hours ............... 7 539 38 railroads ................. 0.3 requests ................ 32 hours ............... 11 847 38 railroads ................. 1 MTEA ...................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 38 railroads ................. 1 request and/or plan 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 10 railroads ................. 1 request .................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 7 railroads ................... 1 request .................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 (d)—A request not to provide certain documents otherwise required under Appendix F for an independent, third-party assessment. (e)—A request for FRA to accept information certified by a foreign regulatory entity for purposes of 49 CFR 236.1017 and/or 236.1009(i). 236.1019(b)—A request for a passenger terminal main line track exception (MTEA). (c)(1)—A request for a limited operations exception (based on restricted speed, temporal separation, or a risk mitigation plan). (c)(2)—A request for a limited operations exception for a non-Class I, freight railroad’s track. (c)(3)—A request for a limited operations exception for a Class I railroad’s track. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 2 public comments ..... Sfmt 4702 8 hours ................. E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82421 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules Total annual responses Average time per response Total annual burden hours Total annual dollar cost equivalent 53 CFR section/subject Respondent universe (d)—A railroad’s collision hazard analysis in support of an MTEA, if FRA requires one to be conducted and submitted. 38 railroads ................. (e)—Any temporal separation procedures utilized under the 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1). 236.1021(a)–(d)—Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCIP or PTCDP. (e)—Any public comments, if an RFA includes a request for approval of a discontinuance or material modification of a signal or train control system and a Federal Register notice is published. 38 railroads ................. 10 RFAs ..................... 5 interested parties ..... 10 RFA public comments. (l)—Any jointly filed RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP (* Note: This is a new proposed paragraph to authorize host railroads to file joint RFAs in certain cases, but such RFAs are already required under FRA’s existing regulations *). The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)–(d) and (m). (m)—Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCSP (* Note: Revised requirement. This is a new proposed paragraph with a simplified process governing RFAs to PTCSPs *). 236.1023(a)—A railroad’s PTC Product Vendor List, which must be continually updated. 38 railroads ................. 15 RFAs ..................... 38 railroads ................. 2 updated lists ............ (b)(1)—All contractual arrangements between a railroad and its hardware and software suppliers or vendors for certain immediate notifications. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. (b)(2)–(3)—A vendor’s or supplier’s notification, upon receipt of a report of any safety-critical failure of its product, to any railroads using the product. 10 vendors or suppliers. (c)(1)–(2)—A railroad’s process and procedures for taking action upon being notified of a safety-critical failure or a safety-critical upgrade, patch, revision, repair, replacement, or modification, and a railroad’s configuration/revision control measures, set forth in its PTCSP. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. (d)—A railroad’s submission, to the applicable vendor or supplier, of the railroad’s procedures for action upon notification of a safety-critical failure, upgrade, patch, or revision to the PTC system and actions to be taken until it is adjusted, repaired, or replaced. (e)—A railroad’s database of all safety-relevant hazards, which must be maintained after the PTC system is placed in service. (e)(1)—A railroad’s notification to the vendor or supplier and FRA if the frequency of a safety-relevant hazard exceeds the threshold set forth in the PTCDP and PTCSP, and about the failure, malfunction, or defective condition that decreased or eliminated the safety functionality. (e)(2)—Continual updates about any and all subsequent failures. 38 railroads ................. 2.5 notifications .......... 38 railroads ................. (f)—Any notifications that must be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR 236.1023. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h). (g)—A railroad’s and vendor’s or supplier’s report, upon FRA request, about an investigation of an accident or service difficulty due to a manufacturing or design defect and their corrective actions. (h)—A PTC system vendor’s or supplier’s reports of any safety-relevant failures, defective conditions, previously unidentified hazards, recommended mitigation actions, and any affected railroads. 38 railroads ................. 0.5 reports .................. 10 vendors or suppliers. 20 reports ................... (k)—A report of a failure of a PTC system resulting in a more favorable aspect than intended or other condition hazardous to the movement of a train, including the reports required under part 233. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233. 236.1029(b)(4)—A report of an en route failure, other failure, or cut out to a designated railroad officer of the host railroad. (h)—Form FRA F 6180.152—Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (*Revised requirement and new form*). 150 host and tenant railroads. 1,000 reports .............. 30 minutes ............ 500 38,500 38 railroads ................. 76 reports ................... 12 hours ............... 912 70,224 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 17 1,309 160 hours ............. 1,600 123,200 16 hours ............... 160 12,320 80 hours ............... 1,200 92,400 8 hours ................. 16 1,232 80 6,160 16 hours ............... 40 3,080 38 database updates .. 16 hours ............... 608 46,816 38 railroads ................. 8 notifications ............. 8 hours ................. 64 4,928 38 railroads ................. 1 update ..................... 8 hours ................. 8 616 40 hours ............... 20 1,540 8 hours ................. 160 12,320 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 0.3 collision hazard analysis. 10 notifications ........... Sfmt 4702 50 hours ............... 8 hours ................. E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82422 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules CFR section/subject Respondent universe Average time per response Total annual burden hours 236.1033—Communications and security requirements ... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015. 236.1035(a)–(b)—A railroad’s request for authorization to field test an uncertified PTC system and any responses to FRA’s testing conditions. 38 railroads ................. 236.1037(a)(1)–(2)—Records retention ............................. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015. (a)(3)–(4)—Records retention ............................................ The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b). (b)—Results of inspections and tests specified in a railroad’s PTCSP and PTCDP. (c)—A contractor’s records related to the testing, maintenance, or operation of a PTC system maintained at a designated office. (d)(3)—A railroad’s final report of the results of the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-related hazards below the threshold set forth in the PTCSP. 236.1039(a)–(c), (e)—A railroad’s PTC Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM), which must be maintained and available to FRA upon request. (d)—A railroad’s identification of a PTC system’s safetycritical components, including spare equipment. 236.1041(a)–(b) and 236.1043(a)—A railroad’s PTC Training and Qualification Program (i.e., a written plan). 236.1043(b)—Training records retained in a designated location and available to FRA upon request. 38 railroads ................. 800 records ................ 20 contractors ............. Total ............................................................................ 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. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Clearance Officer, at 202– 493–0440 or via email at Hodan.Wells@ dot.gov. D. Federalism Implications khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Total annual responses Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ are defined in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 10 requests ................. 400 30,800 1 hour ................... 800 61,600 1,600 records ............. 10 minutes ............ 267 20,559 38 railroads ................. 8 final reports ............. 160 hours ............. 1,280 98,560 38 railroads ................. 2 OMM updates .......... 10 hours ............... 20 1,540 38 railroads ................. 1 hour ................... 1 77 38 railroads ................. 1 identified new component. 2 programs ................. 10 hours ............... 20 1,540 150 host and tenant railroads. 150 PTC training record databases. 1 hour ................... 150 11,550 N/A .............................. 4,567,923 responses .. N/A ....................... 49,116 4,107,626 Executive Order to include regulations having ‘‘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.’’ Id. 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 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 analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined this proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States or their political subdivisions; on the relationship between the Federal government and the States or their political subdivisions; or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In addition, FRA has determined this proposed rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 40 hours ............... Total annual dollar cost equivalent 53 governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. This proposed rule could have preemptive effect by the operation of law under a provision of the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106 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 ‘‘essentially local safety or security hazard’’ exception to section 20106. 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 under Federal railroad safety statutes, specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106. Accordingly, FRA has determined that preparation of a federalism summary impact statement for this proposed rule is not required. E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules E. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This proposed rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS F. Environmental Impact FRA has evaluated this proposed rule consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council of Environmental Quality’s NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 771, and determined that it is categorically excluded from environmental review and therefore does not require the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an agency’s NEPA implementing regulations that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 1508.4. Specifically, FRA has determined that this proposed rule is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘Promulgation of rules, the issuance of policy statements, the waiver or modification of existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary approvals that do not result in significantly increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise.’’ This proposed rule does not directly or indirectly impact any environmental resources and would not result in significantly increased emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the proposed rule is likely to result in safety benefits. In analyzing the applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed environmental review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that no such unusual circumstances exist with respect to this proposed rule and the proposal meets the requirements for VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking has no potential to affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303. G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,’’ and DOT Order 5610.2B, dated November 18, 2020, require DOT agencies to consider environmental justice principles by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT Order instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 12898, Executive Order 13771, and requirements within the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, as appropriate. FRA has evaluated this proposed rule and has determined it would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations or low-income populations. H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ‘‘before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement’’ detailing the effect on State, PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 82423 local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required. I. Energy Impact Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has evaluated this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 and determined that this proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within the meaning of Executive Order 13211. Executive Order 13783, ‘‘Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,’’ requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. 82 FR 16093 (Mar. 31, 2017). FRA has evaluated this proposed rule under Executive Order 13783 and determined that this rule would not burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. J. Privacy Act Statement In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible through https://www.transportation.gov/ privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and response, DOT encourages commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for alternate submission instructions. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236 Penalties, Positive train control, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 236, as follows: E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 82424 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules PART 236—RULES, STANDARDS, AND INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF SIGNAL AND TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND APPLIANCES 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, 20501–20505, 20701–20703, 21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89. 2. Amend § 236.1003 in paragraph (b) by adding the definitions of ‘‘Cut out’’, ‘‘Initialization failure’’, and ‘‘Malfunction’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: ■ § 236.1003 Definitions. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS * * * * * (b) * * * Cut out means any disabling of a PTC system, subsystem, or component en route, including when the PTC system cuts out on its own or a person cuts out the system, unless the cut out was necessary to exit PTC-governed territory and enter non-PTC territory. * * * * * Initialization failure means any instance when a PTC system fails to activate on a locomotive or train, unless the PTC system successfully activates during a subsequent attempt in the same location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. For the types of PTC systems that do not initialize by design, a failed departure test is considered an initialization failure for purposes of the reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h), unless the PTC system successfully passes the departure test during a subsequent attempt in the same location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. * * * * * Malfunction means any instance when a PTC system, subsystem, or component fails to perform the functions mandated under 49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the applicable host railroad’s PTCSP. * * * * * ■ 3. Amend § 236.1021 by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) introductory text, and (d)(4); ■ b. Removing paragraph (d)(7); and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (l) and (m). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 236.1021 Discontinuances, material modifications, and amendments. (a) No changes, as defined by this section, to a PTCIP or PTCDP may be made unless: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 (1) The railroad files a request for amendment (RFA) to the applicable PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator; and (2) The Associate Administrator approves the RFA. * * * * * (c) In lieu of a separate filing under part 235 of this chapter, a railroad may request approval of a discontinuance or material modification of a signal or train control system by filing an RFA to its PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator. (d) FRA will not approve an RFA to a PTCIP or PTCDP unless the request includes: * * * * * (4) The changes to the PTCIP or PTCDP, as applicable; * * * * * (l) Any RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP pursuant to this section may be submitted jointly with other host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system. However, only host railroads with the same PTC System Certification classification under § 236.1015(e) may jointly file an RFA to their PTCSPs. Any joint RFA to multiple host railroads’ PTCSPs must include the information required under paragraph (m) of this section. The joint RFA must also include the written confirmation and statement specified under paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section from each host railroad jointly filing the RFA. (m) No changes, as specified under paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, may be made to an FRA-certified PTC system or an FRA-approved PTCSP unless the host railroad first complies with the following process: (1) The host railroad revises its PTCSP to account for each proposed change to its PTC system and summarizes such changes in a chronological table of revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP; (2) The host railroad electronically submits the following information in an RFA to the Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and Automation: (i) A summary of the proposed changes to any safety-critical elements of a PTC system, including a summary of how the changes to the PTC system would affect its safety-critical functionality, how any new hazards have been addressed and mitigated, whether each change is a planned change that was previously included in all required analysis under § 236.1015 or an unplanned change, and the reason for the proposed changes, including whether the changes are necessary to address or resolve an emergency or urgent issue; PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (ii) Any associated software release notes; (iii) A confirmation that the host railroad has notified any applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes, any associated effect on the tenant railroads’ operations, and any actions the tenant railroads must take in accordance with the configuration control measures set forth in the host railroad’s PTCSP; (iv) A statement from the host railroad’s Chief Engineer and Chief Operating Officer, or executive officers of similar qualifications, verifying that the modified PTC system would meet all technical requirements under this subpart, provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and not adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads; and (v) Any other information that FRA requests; and (3) A host railroad shall not make any changes, as specified under paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, to its PTC system until the Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and Automation approves the RFA. (i) FRA will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the RFA within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under paragraph (m)(2) of this section. (ii) FRA reserves the right to notify a railroad that changes may proceed prior to the 45-day mark, including in an emergency or under other circumstances necessitating a railroad’s immediate implementation of the proposed changes to its PTC system. (iii) FRA may require a railroad to modify its RFA or its PTC system to the extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the requirements of this part. (iv) Following any FRA denial of an RFA, each applicable railroad is prohibited from making the proposed changes to its PTC system until the railroad both sufficiently addresses FRA’s questions, comments, and concerns and obtains FRA’s approval. Consistent with paragraph (l) of this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system, including the same certification classification under § 236.1015(e), may jointly submit information to address FRA’s questions, comments, and concerns following any denial of an RFA under this section. ■ 4. Amend § 236.1029 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: § 236.1029 PTC system use and failures. * * * * * (h) Biannual Report of PTC System Performance. (1) Each host railroad E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or this subpart shall electronically submit a Biannual Report of PTC System Performance on Form FRA F 6180.152, containing the following information for the applicable reporting period, separated by the host railroad, each applicable tenant railroad, and each PTC-governed track segment (e.g., territory, subdivision, district, main line, branch, or corridor), consistent with the railroad’s PTC Implementation Plan: (i) The total number of PTC system initialization failures, and subtotals identifying the number of initialization failures where the source or cause was the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, back office subsystem, or a non-PTC component; (ii) The total number of PTC system cut outs, and subtotals identifying the number of cut outs where the source or cause was the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:58 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 subsystem, back office subsystem, or a non-PTC component; (iii) The total number of PTC system malfunctions, and subtotals identifying the number of malfunctions where the source or cause was the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, back office subsystem, or a non-PTC component; (iv) The number of intended enforcements by the PTC system and any other instances in which the PTC system prevented an accident or incident; (v) The number of scheduled attempts at initialization of the PTC system; (vi) The number of trains governed by the PTC system; and (vii) The number of train miles governed by the PTC system. (2) A host railroad’s Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) shall also include a summary of any actions the host railroad and its tenant railroads are continually taking to improve the performance and reliability of the PTC system. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 82425 (3) Each host railroad shall electronically submit a Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA by the following due dates: July 31 (covering the period from January 1 to June 30), and January 31 (covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year). (4) Each tenant railroad that operates on a host railroad’s PTC-governed main line(s), unless the tenant railroad is currently subject to an exception under § 236.1006(b)(4) or (5), shall submit the information required under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section to each applicable host railroad by July 15 (for the report covering the period from January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for the report covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year). Issued in Washington, DC Quintin C. Kendall, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 2020–27097 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P E:\FR\FM\18DEP1.SGM 18DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82400-82425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27097]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 236

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0075]
RIN 2130-AC75


Positive Train Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to revise its regulations governing changes 
to positive train control (PTC) systems and reporting on PTC system 
functioning. First, recognizing that the railroad industry intends to 
enhance further FRA-certified PTC systems to continue improving rail 
safety and PTC technology's reliability and operability, FRA proposes 
to modify the process by which a host railroad must submit a request 
for amendment (RFA) to FRA before making certain changes to its PTC 
Safety Plan (PTCSP) and FRA-certified PTC system. Second, to enable 
more effective FRA oversight, FRA proposes to: Expand an existing 
reporting requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to 
biannual; broaden the reporting requirement to encompass positive 
performance-related information, not just failure-related information; 
and require host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual 
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). Overall, the 
proposed amendments would benefit the railroad industry, the public, 
and FRA, by reducing unnecessary costs, facilitating innovation, and 
improving FRA's ability to oversee PTC system performance and 
reliability, while not negatively affecting rail safety.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 16, 2021. FRA 
believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate to allow the public to 
comment on this proposed rule. FRA will consider comments received 
after that date to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: 

[[Page 82401]]

    Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2019-0075 may be 
submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the 
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket 
number (FRA-2019-0075), and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking (2130-AC75). All comments received will be posted without 
change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes 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 and follow the 
online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Acting Staff Director, 
Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168, 
email: [email protected]; or Stephanie Anderson, Attorney Adviser, 
telephone: 202-493-0445, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Summary of the Main Proposals in the NPRM
    A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations
    B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM
    C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-
Certified PTC Systems and the Associated PTCSPs
    D. Proposal To Expand the Performance-Related Reporting 
Requirements
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism Implications
    E. International Trade Impact Assessment
    F. Environmental Impact
    G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Energy Impact
    J. Privacy Act Statement

I. Executive Summary

    Section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 
mandates each Class I railroad, and each entity providing regularly 
scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, to 
implement an FRA-certified PTC system fully on: (1) Its main lines over 
which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are 
transported, if the line carries five million or more gross tons of any 
annual traffic; (2) its main lines over which intercity or commuter 
rail passenger transportation is regularly provided; and (3) any other 
tracks the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by 
regulation or order.\1\ By law, PTC systems must be designed to prevent 
certain accidents or incidents, including train-to-train collisions, 
over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and 
movements of trains through switches left in the wrong position.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432, 
104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), as amended by the Positive 
Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-73, 129 Stat. 568, 576-82 (Oct. 29, 2015), and the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, section 
11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015), codified as amended 
at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 236, subpart I.
    \2\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005 
(setting forth the technical specifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the statutory mandate requires that by December 31, 
2020, FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems must govern 
operations on all PTC-mandated main lines, currently encompassing 
nearly 58,000 route miles nationwide.\3\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR 
236.1005(b)(6)-(7). Currently, 35 host railroads \4\--including 7 Class 
I railroads, 23 intercity passenger railroads or commuter railroads, 
and 5 Class II or III, short line, or terminal railroads--are directly 
subject to the statutory mandate to implement an FRA-certified and 
interoperable PTC system on their PTC-mandated main lines by December 
31, 2020. For purposes of FRA's PTC regulations, a host railroad is ``a 
railroad that has effective operating control over a segment of 
track,'' and a tenant railroad is ``a railroad, other than a host 
railroad, operating on track upon which a PTC system is required.'' See 
49 CFR 236.1003(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Except a railroad's controlling locomotives or cab cars that 
are subject to either a temporary or permanent exception under 49 
U.S.C. 20157(j)-(k) or 49 CFR 236.1006(b), Equipping locomotives 
operating in PTC territory.
    \4\ The infographics on FRA's PTC website (https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc) 
identify 41 railroads currently subject to the statutory mandate, 
but six of those 41 railroads are tenant-only commuter railroads, 
not host railroads. As this proposed rule primarily focuses on 
requirements specific to host railroads, FRA will reference the 
current number of PTC-mandated host railroads (35) and any host 
railroads that may become subject to the statutory mandate in the 
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For context, under the statutory mandate, ``interoperability'' is 
the general requirement that the controlling locomotives and cab cars 
of any host railroad and tenant railroad operating on the same main 
line must communicate with and respond to the PTC system, including 
uninterrupted movements over property boundaries, except as otherwise 
permitted by law.\5\ As of September 2020, according to host railroads' 
PTC Implementation Plans (PTCIP), approximately 93 distinct PTC-
required tenant railroads operate on main lines subject to the 
statutory mandate. Because many railroads operate on multiple host 
railroads' PTC-mandated main lines, there are approximately 219 host-
tenant railroad relationships in which PTC system interoperability must 
be achieved by December 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), (i)(3), (j)-
(k); 49 CFR 236.1003, 236.1006, 236.1011(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2018 through 2020, FRA held three PTC Symposia and 
Collaboration Sessions per year to underscore the importance of the 
mandate, ensure the industry understands the statutory and regulatory 
requirements, and facilitate timely compliance. In addition, the six 
Collaboration Sessions during 2019 and 2020 provided the opportunity 
for FRA to convene the industry's technical experts to share best 
practices and jointly resolve common technical problems.
    Through these meetings and regular coordination with all railroads 
implementing PTC systems, PTC system vendors and suppliers, and other 
stakeholders, FRA began proactively identifying aspects of FRA's 
existing PTC regulations that could impede either PTC-related 
innovation or FRA's oversight, following the December 31, 2020, 
statutory deadline for full PTC system implementation. Specifically, 
FRA identified two existing regulatory provisions, 49 CFR 236.1021 and 
236.1029(h), which, if not revised, could impede the industry's ability 
to advance PTC technology efficiently and FRA's ability to oversee the 
performance and reliability of PTC systems effectively.
    First, understanding that the railroad industry intends to update 
FRA-certified PTC systems continually to ensure safe operations (e.g., 
through ongoing, necessary maintenance) and to enhance further the 
technology (e.g., by adding new functionality or improving a PTC 
system's reliability and operability), FRA is proposing to modify the 
process under 49 CFR 236.1021 for

[[Page 82402]]

RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified systems. The improved process will 
enable the industry to deploy upgrades and technological enhancements 
more efficiently, and ensure FRA's review of changes or modifications 
to FRA-certified systems is more predictable and consistent going 
forward. The proposed process will apply only to PTC systems FRA has 
already certified under 49 U.S.C. 20157(h). The statutory mandate 
generally requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC system 
complies with 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, before it operates in revenue 
service, and this proposed rule will not amend the existing 
certification process FRA developed to comply with this mandate (i.e., 
this proposed rule would not amend 49 CFR 236.1009 or 236.1015 
regarding PTCSPs and the PTC System Certification process). To be 
clear, FRA's proposal to modify the process that currently requires a 
host railroad to submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to a 
PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021 will not apply to any existing or new PTC 
system, unless and until FRA has certified that PTC system under 49 
U.S.C. 20157(h).
    Instead of the existing RFA approval process with an indefinite 
decision timeline, FRA proposes to require railroads to comply with a 
streamlined RFA process, which includes providing certain 
documentation, analysis, and safety assurances. This proposed rule 
would establish a 45-day deadline for FRA to review and approve or deny 
railroads' RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs or FRA-certified PTC 
systems. In addition, FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing 
the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and 
PTC Development Plans (PTCDP)--an option which, if exercised, would 
efficiently leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination 
among railroads operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the 
number of similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA 
for review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form 
FRA F 6180.152) will be placed in the docket (Docket No. FRA-2019-
0075) for review when this NPRM is published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, FRA proposes to expand an existing reporting requirement--
49 CFR 236.1029(h), Annual report of system failures--by increasing the 
frequency of the reporting requirement from annual to biannual; 
broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information; and 
requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report 
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) \6\ to enable more 
effective FRA oversight. In addition, FRA proposes to amend Sec.  
236.1029(h) by updating the provision to use certain statutory 
terminology for consistency; clarifying the ambiguous filing obligation 
by specifying that only host railroads directly submit these reports to 
FRA; and explicitly requiring tenant railroads to provide the necessary 
data to their applicable host railroads by a specific date before the 
biannual filing deadlines.
    FRA analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule over a ten-
year period and estimated its costs and cost savings, which are shown 
in the table below. The cost savings associated with FRA's proposal to 
amend Sec.  236.1021--i.e., to simplify the process for all RFAs to 
PTCSPs and authorize host railroads to file joint RFAs to PTCSPs and 
PTCDPs--would outweigh the costs associated with FRA's proposal to 
expand the reporting requirement under paragraph (h) of Sec.  236.1029.

                                          Net Cost Savings in Millions
                                                 [2019 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Present value    Present value
                                                       7%               3%         Annualized 7%   Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Costs................................         $324,158         $379,231         $46,153         $44,457
Industry Cost Savings.........................        6,116,671        7,202,273         870,876         844,326
Government Cost Savings.......................       17,978,594       21,188,896       2,559,747       2,483,985
Net Cost Savings..............................       23,771,107       28,011,938       3,384,471       3,283,854
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Summary of the Main Proposals in the NPRM

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations

    Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required 
the Secretary to prescribe PTC regulations necessary to implement the 
statutory mandate, including regulations specifying the essential 
technical functionalities of PTC systems and the means by which FRA 
will certify PTC systems.\7\ The Secretary delegated to the Federal 
Railroad Administrator the authority to carry out the functions and 
exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 1.89(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), codified 
as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49 
CFR 1.89(b), FRA issued its first final PTC rule on January 15, 2010, 
which is set forth, as amended, under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, 
Positive Train Control Systems.\8\ FRA's PTC regulations under 49 CFR 
part 236, subpart I, prescribe ``minimum, performance-based safety 
standards for PTC systems . . . including requirements to ensure that 
the development, functionality, architecture, installation, 
implementation, inspection, testing, operation, maintenance, repair, 
and modification of those PTC systems will achieve and maintain an 
acceptable level of safety.'' 49 CFR 236.1001(a). FRA subsequently 
amended its PTC regulations via final rules issued in 2010, 2012, 2014, 
and 2016.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010).
    \9\ See 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 (May 14, 
2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, on February 29, 2016, as required, FRA amended its 
PTC regulations to revise the regulations' date-specific deadlines for 
conformity with the Positive Train Control Enforcement and 
Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act).\10\ Specifically, the PTCEI Act 
extended the original statutory deadline for full implementation of PTC 
systems from December 31, 2015, to at least December 31, 2018.\11\ In 
addition, the PTCEI Act permits railroads to utilize an

[[Page 82403]]

``alternative schedule and sequence'' with a full implementation 
deadline beyond December 31, 2018, but not later than December 31, 
2020. Further, the legislation required FRA to approve a railroad's 
alternative schedule and sequence if the railroad demonstrated it met 
the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative 
schedule and sequence.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Public Law 114-73, 129 Stat. 568, 576-82 (Oct. 29, 2015), 
as amended by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, 
Public Law 114-94, section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 
2015). See also 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016), amending 49 CFR part 
236, subpart I.
    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(a). Please note that the PTCEI Act also 
required FRA to extend each deadline under 49 CFR 
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B) by three years, related to certain Class II 
and Class III railroads that operate in PTC territory. See 49 U.S.C. 
20157(k); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016).
    \12\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(C) (using the term ``shall''). As 
background, four PTC-mandated host railroads reported that they 
fully implemented an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on 
all their required main lines by December 31, 2018. Every other host 
railroad subject to the statutory mandate in 2018 formally requested 
an alternative schedule and sequence under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3). By 
March 5, 2019, FRA approved all applicable requests for an 
alternative schedule and sequence, as each railroad sufficiently 
demonstrated it, at a minimum, met the six statutory criteria 
necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence, under 
the statutory mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposed rule, FRA proposes to revise three sections, 49 
CFR 236.1003, 236.1021, and 236.1029, of FRA's existing PTC regulations 
pursuant to its specific authority under 49 CFR 1.89 and 49 U.S.C. 
20157(g), and its general authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 to prescribe 
regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety.

B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM

    As referenced above, FRA regularly engages with host railroads, 
tenant railroads, and PTC system vendors and suppliers, as part of 
FRA's oversight of railroads' implementation of PTC systems on the 
mandated main lines under 49 U.S.C. 20157 and the other lines where 
railroads are voluntarily implementing PTC technology. The purpose of 
this section is to summarize FRA's pertinent meetings prior to the 
issuance of this NPRM, pursuant to 49 CFR 5.19.
    During two of FRA's PTC Collaboration Sessions in 2019 and 2020, 
FRA generally discussed its intention to propose to modify the RFA 
process under Sec.  236.1021, specifically as it relates to FRA-
approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified PTC systems. One of these two 
Collaboration Sessions was held on February 6, 2019 at DOT's 
Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the other was hosted via 
teleconference on June 10, 2020.
    Specifically, during the Collaboration Session on February 6, 2019, 
FRA noted it was considering simplifying the formal process for 
railroads to modify their PTCSPs and PTC systems under Sec.  236.1021, 
after FRA certifies a railroad's PTC system as required under the 
statutory mandate. FRA raised questions for the industry to consider, 
including how host railroads plan to maintain their PTCSPs, as 
required, acknowledging that PTC technology will continue evolving 
given, for example, ongoing software modifications necessary for safe 
operations and voluntary enhancements to improve further the 
reliability or operability of PTC systems.\13\ FRA understands that, 
over time, new software releases may become necessary to: Fix certain 
bugs or defects; eliminate newly discovered hazards; or add new 
functionality to continue to improve rail safety, or the reliability 
and operability of the technology. In addition, FRA acknowledged that 
certain changes to PTC systems will likely impact multiple PTCSPs, as 
the industry is currently implementing five main types of PTC 
systems.\14\ During the Collaboration Session on June 10, 2020, FRA 
discussed its intention to issue this NPRM and described the high-level 
objectives of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1009(d) (requiring a PTC system to be 
implemented in accordance with the host railroad's PTCSP).
    \14\ Currently, railroads are primarily implementing the 
following PTC systems in the United States: (1) The Interoperable 
Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), which Class I railroads 
and many commuter railroads are implementing; (2) the Advanced Civil 
Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II) or the Advanced Speed 
Enforcement System II (ASES II), which most railroads operating on 
the Northeast Corridor (NEC) are implementing; (3) Enhanced 
Automatic Train Control (E-ATC), which five host railroads are 
implementing; (4) the Incremental Train Control System, which the 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is implementing in 
parts of Michigan; and (5) the Communication Based Train Control 
(CBTC) system, which one commuter railroad has fully implemented on 
its PTC-mandated main lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, on October 2, 2019, during FRA's PTC Collaboration 
Session hosted at the National Housing Center in Washington, DC, one 
Class I railroad suggested that FRA should consider amending the 
permanent reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) to make it 
consistent with the temporary statutory reporting requirement under 49 
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), because existing paragraph (h) of Sec.  236.1029 
uses different terminology to describe PTC-related failures. In 
addition, during this meeting, one commuter railroad requested that FRA 
create a standardized form for railroads to utilize under Sec.  
236.1029(h). FRA made no commitments at any of its PTC Collaboration 
Sessions, but FRA internally considered this industry input as it 
developed this proposed rule. Please note that all presentations from 
FRA's PTC Symposia and Collaboration Sessions are available in FRA's 
eLibrary, including direct links on FRA's PTC website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc.
    As information, representatives from all 35 host railroads 
currently subject to the statutory mandate attended at least two of the 
three above PTC Collaboration Sessions, and 89 percent of the PTC-
mandated host railroads attended all three of the PTC Collaboration 
Sessions where FRA discussed either 49 CFR 236.1021 or 236.1029(h).\15\ 
Specifically, 97 percent of the 35 applicable host railroads attended 
the PTC Collaboration Sessions on February 6, 2019 and October 2, 2019, 
and 94 percent attended the session on June 10, 2020. Furthermore, 
representatives from the American Public Transportation Association 
(APTA), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 
(ASLRRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) participated 
in all three of these pertinent PTC Collaboration Sessions. In 
addition, a representative from the Commuter Rail Coalition attended 
the PTC Collaboration Sessions on October 2, 2019 and June 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In addition to the 35 host railroads subject to the 
statutory mandate, representatives from multiple other railroads 
attended these PTC Collaboration Sessions, including eight tenant-
only passenger railroads that operate on PTC-mandated main lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, on the following dates, FRA met with AAR and several 
of its member railroads to discuss various PTC-related issues and 
topics, including FRA's previously stated intention to propose 
modifications to the RFA process under Sec.  236.1021, specifically as 
it applies to FRA-certified PTC systems: September 6, 2019; March 3, 
2020; April 2, 2020; June 11, 2020; June 25, 2020; July 9, 2020; and 
August 27, 2020. During the meetings on September 6, 2019 and July 9, 
2020, representatives from AAR and its member railroads indicated that 
FRA should consider amending other provisions under FRA's PTC 
regulations, in addition to Sec.  236.1021, but those provisions are 
not the focus of this proposed rule. As noted above, at this time, FRA 
considers it necessary to amend Sec. Sec.  236.1021 and 236.1029(h) 
because those provisions, if not revised, could impede the industry's 
ability to enhance PTC technology and FRA's ability to oversee the 
performance and reliability of PTC systems effectively. If FRA finds 
that any other amendments to 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, are necessary 
or justified in the future, FRA will address them in a separate NPRM.
    Representatives from the following Class I railroads and passenger 
railroads, listed alphabetically, attended

[[Page 82404]]

the AAR meetings referenced immediately above: Amtrak, BNSF Railway, 
Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX 
Transportation, Inc., Kansas City Southern Railway, Norfolk Southern 
Railway, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation 
(Metra), the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), 
and Union Pacific Railroad. The railroads' main comments during these 
meetings involved their concerns that the existing process under Sec.  
236.1021 would stifle innovation and create significant delays in 
deploying improvements to PTC technology. In general, they supported 
revising the existing RFA process under Sec.  236.1021 to help enable 
technological advancements and ensure FRA is not an impediment to the 
industry's ability to enhance PTC technology. FRA's statements during 
these meetings were consistent with FRA's statements to all PTC-
mandated host railroads at multiple PTC Collaboration Sessions. The 
proposals in this NPRM are based on FRA's own review and analysis and, 
in part, on industry's feedback during the meetings in 2019 and 2020, 
specified above. FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.

C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-Certified PTC 
Systems and the Associated PTCSPs

    FRA's PTC regulations have always acknowledged that after 
``implementation of a train control system, the subject railroad may 
have legitimate reasons for making changes in the system design,'' 
among other changes, including to a PTC system's functionality.\16\ 
Accordingly, under 49 CFR 236.1015(d)(7), FRA requires host railroads' 
PTCSPs to include, among other relevant information, a ``complete 
description of the specific procedures and test equipment necessary to 
ensure the safe and proper . . . operation, maintenance, repair, 
inspection, testing, and modification of the PTC system on the 
railroad.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 75 FR 2598, 2660 (Jan. 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that PTC technology must be actively maintained 
throughout its lifecycle and beyond, FRA's regulations also require 
each railroad to ``catalog and maintain all documents as specified in 
the PTCDP and PTCSP for . . . maintenance, repair, modification, 
inspection, and testing of the PTC system.'' \17\ Specifically, 49 CFR 
236.1039(a) requires railroads to retain these documents in a PTC 
Operations and Maintenance Manual, which must be ``readily available to 
persons required to perform such tasks and for inspection by FRA and 
FRA-certified state inspectors.'' For example, a railroad's Operations 
and Maintenance Manual must document all ``[h]ardware, software, and 
firmware revisions . . . according to the railroad's configuration 
management control plan and any additional configuration/revision 
control measures specified in the [host railroad's] PTCSP.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 49 CFR 236.1039(a).
    \18\ 49 CFR 236.1039(c). See also Federal Railroad 
Administration, Revised PTC Guidance Regarding Interoperability 
Testing, Operations and Maintenance Manuals, and Certification 
Responsibilities (July 24, 2018), available at https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L19583#p1_z5_gD_lPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA is aware that host railroads will need to deploy new PTC 
software releases, among other changes, to ensure their PTC systems are 
performing properly--for example, to fix certain bugs or defects or 
eliminate newly discovered hazards. In addition to incremental changes 
to PTC systems that are necessary for the continued safe and proper 
functioning of the technology, FRA understands that several railroads 
and PTC system vendors and suppliers have chosen to design and develop 
their PTC systems to perform safety-related functions in addition to 
the minimum, performance-based functions specified under the statutory 
mandate and FRA's regulations.
    Currently, FRA's PTC regulations, in relevant part, prohibit a 
railroad from making certain changes to its FRA-approved PTCSP or FRA-
certified PTC system unless the railroad files an RFA to its PTCSP and 
obtains approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad 
Safety. 49 CFR 236.1021. This proposed rule does not envision revising 
the types of changes that currently require a host railroad to file an 
RFA under Sec.  236.1021(h)(1)-(4) (often referred to as ``material 
modifications'') or the exceptions currently set forth under Sec.  
236.1021(i)-(k).
    For example, FRA's regulations require a railroad to submit, for 
FRA review and approval, an RFA to the railroad's PTCSP for any 
proposed modification of a safety-critical element of a PTC system or 
any proposed modification of a PTC system that affects the safety-
critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it 
interoperates. See 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)-(4). Though FRA's existing 
regulations specify that FRA will, to the extent practicable, review 
and issue a decision regarding a host railroad's initially filed PTCSP 
within 180 days of the date it was filed, FRA's regulations do not 
currently specify an estimated timeline for reviewing and approving or 
denying railroads' subsequent RFAs to their PTCSPs.\19\ In practice, as 
of September 2020, it has taken FRA 127 days, on average, to review and 
approve recent RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems, which is, 
in part, due to the complex content requirements currently under 
paragraphs (d)(1) to (7) of Sec.  236.1021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 49 CFR 236.1009(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of the existing RFA approval process with an indefinite 
decision timeline, FRA proposes to: (1) Require railroads to comply 
with a streamlined RFA process, including providing certain 
documentation, analysis, and safety assurances; and (2) establish a 45-
day deadline for FRA's review and issuance of a decision. In new 
proposed paragraph (m) of Sec.  236.1021, FRA outlines the proposed 
content requirements for RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems--
focusing on the core information and analysis FRA would need to review 
to ensure the PTC system, including any proposed changes, will provide 
an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system. 
The improved process would enable the industry to implement 
technological enhancements more efficiently, and the clear timeline 
would help ensure a more predictable and transparent FRA review process 
going forward.
    In addition, this proposed rule envisions permitting host railroads 
utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their 
PTCSPs and PTCDPs--an option which, if exercised, will efficiently 
leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination among railroads 
operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of 
similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for 
review. As noted above, currently, the 35 PTC-mandated host railroads 
are implementing five types of PTC systems, though FRA acknowledges 
that, in several cases, railroads are implementing PTC systems of the 
same type in different manners (e.g., variances in design, 
functionality, and operation), requiring railroads to conduct 
additional testing and gap analyses to achieve and sustain 
interoperability, including configuration management.
    Appreciating that changes to safety-critical elements, including 
software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system will likely 
impact multiple, if not most, railroads implementing that same type of 
PTC system, FRA's proposed rule outlines a path for such

[[Page 82405]]

host railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific 
instructions under new proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec.  
236.1021. The proposed rule would specify that while most types of 
information required under proposed paragraph (m) of Sec.  236.1021 may 
be submitted jointly in the RFA, the joint RFA would need to include 
certain written confirmations or statements \20\ from each host 
railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA. In addition, FRA's 
proposed rule specifies that only host railroads with the same PTC 
System Certification classification under paragraph (e) of Sec.  
236.1015 may jointly file an RFA to their PTCSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, confirmation that: (1) Each host railroad 
notified any applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes, 
any associated effect on the tenant railroads' operations, and any 
actions the tenant railroads must take in accordance with the 
configuration control measures set forth in the host railroad's 
PTCSP; and (2) the PTC system, if modified, would meet all technical 
requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an equivalent 
or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and not 
adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though this proposed rule would generally authorize host railroads 
utilizing the same type of PTC system to file RFAs to their PTCSPs 
jointly, FRA expects this aspect of the proposal, in the short term, 
primarily to impact host railroads implementing I-ETMS and E-ATC 
because each respective I-ETMS and E-ATC system is similar to others of 
the same type, with a baseline functionality. Conversely, there is not 
a uniform standard or specification currently underlying the ACSES II 
or ASES II PTC systems that host railroads are implementing on the NEC. 
In addition, there is an array of ACSES II suppliers, including for the 
onboard, wayside, and communications subsystems. In the future, 
however, as the ACSES II railroads finish establishing the 
Interoperable Change Management Plan they are currently developing, it 
is possible that at least some of the host railroads utilizing ACSES II 
or ASES II will elect to submit joint RFAs to their respective PTCSPs 
for certain system-wide changes, consistent with the option under 
proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec.  236.1021.
    FRA recognizes that modifying and simplifying the process for host 
railroads to submit RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems is 
necessary to facilitate required maintenance and upgrades to PTC 
technology and encourage railroads to enhance their PTC systems to 
continue to improve rail safety.

D. Proposal To Expand the Performance-Related Reporting Requirements

    Following the applicable deadline for full PTC system 
implementation under 49 U.S.C. 20157, FRA's regulations currently 
require a railroad to submit an annual report by April 16th each year 
regarding the number of PTC system failures, ``including but not 
limited to locomotive, wayside, communications, and back office system 
failures,'' that occurred during the previous calendar year. See 49 CFR 
236.1029(h). The first failure-related annual reports pursuant to Sec.  
236.1029(h) were due on April 16, 2019 from the four host railroads 
whose statutory deadline was December 31, 2018 for the full 
implementation of a PTC system on their required main lines. FRA has 
found that all annual reports railroads submitted to date have been 
brief (e.g., as short as half of a page) and included minimal 
information, but still technically satisfied the existing content 
requirements under Sec.  236.1029(h).
    Because the minimal information currently required under Sec.  
236.1029(h) does not permit FRA to monitor adequately the rate at which 
PTC system failures occur or evaluate improvements over time, FRA is 
proposing to revise Sec.  236.1029(h) to enable FRA to perform its 
oversight functions effectively. Specifically, FRA proposes to increase 
the frequency of this reporting requirement from annual to biannual, 
with proposed filing deadlines on July 31 (covering the period from 
January 1 to June 30) and January 31 (covering the period from July 1 
to December 31 of the prior calendar year), instead of an annual filing 
deadline on April 16, as Sec.  236.1029(h) currently provides. Under 
the existing framework, pursuant to Sec.  236.1029(h), FRA must wait 
until April 16th each year to receive railroads' failure-related data 
from the prior calendar year--data which is quite outdated by the time 
it is filed. FRA's proposed biannual frequency would enable FRA to 
monitor closely trends in PTC system reliability with more up-to-date 
data, covering two intervals per year. In addition, FRA notes that the 
proposed biannual frequency is reasonable, given that railroads must 
currently submit certain failure-related data quarterly or monthly, 
pursuant to a temporary reporting requirement under the statutory 
mandate, as discussed below.
    In addition, to ensure the data railroads submit under Sec.  
236.1029(h) are uniform, comparable, and objective, FRA proposes to 
revise this existing reporting requirement by specifying the exact 
types of statistics and information the reports must include; 
broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information; and 
requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report 
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to enable more 
effective FRA oversight.
    Furthermore, FRA proposes to amend Sec.  236.1029(h) to make it 
consistent with the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4) because the existing statutory and regulatory provisions 
use different terminology to describe PTC-related failures. As 
background, the PTCEI Act established a reporting requirement that 
applies only temporarily--from October 29, 2015, to approximately 
December 31, 2021 \21\--and only to PTC systems that FRA has certified 
and have been implemented, including on a subset of a railroad's main 
lines.\22\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). As a default, the reporting 
requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) specifies that when an FRA-
certified PTC system ``fails to initialize, cuts out, or 
malfunctions,'' the railroad must submit a notification to the 
appropriate FRA regional office within 7 days of the failure, and the 
notification must include a description of the safety measures the 
railroad has in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ By law, the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4) sunsets on approximately December 31, 2021--or more 
specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad obtains PTC 
System Certification from FRA and finishes fully implementing an 
FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all its required main 
lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
    \22\ For example, acknowledging the incremental nature of 
implementation, the PTCEI Act required Class I railroads and Amtrak 
to demonstrate they ``implemented a [PTC] system or initiated 
revenue service demonstration on the majority of [PTC-mandated] 
territories . . . or route miles that are owned or controlled by 
such carrier[s],'' to qualify for an alternative schedule and 
sequence by law. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as the PTCEI Act authorized, FRA established an 
alternative reporting deadline (instead of within 7 days of each 
occurrence) and an alternative reporting location (instead of 
submitting the notifications to the appropriate FRA region).\23\ 
Specifically, on December 30, 2019 and March 16, 2020, FRA published a 
proposed framework for host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC 
systems to submit a Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form 
FRA F 6180.177) to fulfill this temporary reporting requirement under 
the PTCEI Act.\24\ On June 5, 2020, following the required

[[Page 82406]]

notice-and-comment periods, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approved the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 
6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553),\25\ as revised based on feedback 
from AAR and APTA. Host railroads must utilize that mandatory form and 
adhere to its instructions, including the two-tiered reporting 
frequency \26\ and the centralized reporting location, to comply with 
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) until that temporary reporting requirement 
expires on approximately December 31, 2021.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4); 49 CFR 1.89.
    \24\ See 84 FR 72121, 72123-26 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022, 
15025-27 (Mar. 16, 2020).
    \25\ Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/PTCSystemFailuresFRAForm177/.
    \26\ A host railroad must submit monthly failure-related 
notifications if it has fully implemented a PTC system on all 
required main lines. However, if a host railroad is operating an 
FRA-certified PTC system but is still in the process of fully 
implementing the PTC system, the railroad must submit failure-
related notifications on a quarterly basis. Host railroads must 
transition from submitting Form FRA F 6180.177 quarterly to monthly, 
when they finish fully implementing their FRA-certified and 
interoperable PTC systems on their required main lines. For 
simplicity, in general, this two-tiered framework means that most 
host railroads that have obtained PTC System Certification must 
submit quarterly Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures 
throughout 2020, and monthly notifications throughout 2021 until the 
reporting requirement expires. For additional detail, please see 85 
FR 15022, 15025-27 (Mar. 16, 2020).
    \27\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and (e)(1) (authorizing DOT to 
assess civil penalties for any violation of the statutory mandate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this NPRM, FRA proposes to revise the permanent reporting 
requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h) to utilize the statutory failure-
related terms under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)--initialization failures, cut 
outs, and malfunctions--instead of the broad, imprecise term currently 
used in Sec.  236.1029(h) (``failures''). Also, to ensure uniform 
interpretation of these terms, FRA proposes to add definitions of these 
three terms to the definitions section of FRA's PTC regulations, 49 CFR 
236.1003, retaining the definitions that FRA adopted during its 
development of the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form 
FRA F 6180.177), based on industry's feedback.
    FRA's proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA 
F 6180.152) under proposed Sec.  236.1029(h) will incorporate both: (1) 
The information currently required under Sec.  236.1029(h); and (2) the 
corresponding types of data railroads must submit until approximately 
December 31, 2021 in their Statutory Notifications of PTC System 
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). For example, the proposed Biannual 
Report of PTC System Performance would require certain geographical 
information and contextual data to help demonstrate how the occurrences 
of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions 
compare to all operations on that host railroad's PTC-governed main 
lines.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Several railroads previously commented that, without such a 
percentage or context, the frequency of PTC system failures might 
otherwise seem high, and additional data would help convey the 
actual rate of such failures. In addition, in AAR's comments, dated 
February 28, 2020, associated with Form FRA F 6180.177 (under Docket 
Nos. FRA 2019-0004-N-20 and FRA 2020-0004-N-3), AAR specifically 
suggested that to ``keep the report of PTC system initialization 
failures, cut outs, and malfunctions in perspective, particularly if 
comparing individual railroads, it would be useful to normalize 
results between railroads.'' Similarly, in APTA's letter dated 
February 28, 2020, APTA requested that FRA identify the applicable 
denominator(s) to utilize when calculating the rate of PTC system 
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions. See also 85 FR 
15022, 15026 (Mar. 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, railroads have previously observed that, under 
existing Sec.  236.1029(h), it is unclear whether a host railroad, a 
tenant railroad, or both must submit the required reports to FRA. In 
this proposed rule, FRA proposes to resolve this ambiguity by 
specifying that only host railroads must directly submit these reports 
to FRA. This approach is consistent with the existing regulatory 
requirement directing a tenant railroad to report any PTC system 
failures or cut outs to ``a designated railroad officer of the host 
railroad as soon as safe and practicable.'' See 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4) 
(emphasis added). To ensure that host railroads receive the necessary 
information from their tenant railroads to compile the proposed 
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) under 
Sec.  236.1029(h), FRA proposes to require explicitly tenant railroads 
to provide the necessary data to their applicable host railroads by a 
specific date before the biannual filing deadlines, as set forth under 
new proposed paragraph (h)(4) of Sec.  236.1029.
    FRA considers its proposed changes to Sec.  236.1029(h), as 
described below, necessary to enable FRA to monitor the performance and 
reliability of railroads' PTC systems effectively throughout the 
country.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 236.1003 Definitions

    FRA proposes to add three definitions to paragraph (b) of this 
section to help ensure that FRA and the railroad industry consistently 
interpret the statutory failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)--initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions--as FRA 
now proposes to use these corresponding terms in Sec.  236.1029(h) and 
the associated Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152). Specifically, FRA proposes to adopt the definitions of these 
three terms that FRA currently utilizes in the Statutory Notification 
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), which were, in part, 
revised and refined based on industry's feedback during the development 
of that corresponding form and the definitions therein.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022, 15025-
26 (Mar. 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, Material Modifications, and 
Amendments

    The purpose of existing paragraphs (a) through (d) is to prohibit a 
railroad from making ``changes, as defined by this section, to a PTC 
system, PTCIP, PTCDP, or PTCSP,'' unless the railroad submits an RFA, 
with the content requirements under existing paragraphs (d)(1) through 
(7), and obtains approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for 
Railroad Safety.
    To be clear, this proposed rule will not revise the types of 
changes that currently require a host railroad to file an RFA under 
Sec.  236.1021(h)(1)-(4) (often referred to as ``material 
modifications'') or the exceptions currently set forth under Sec.  
236.1021(i)-(k). For example, FRA's regulations currently require a 
railroad to submit an RFA, subject to FRA's review and approval, before 
making the following types of changes listed under existing paragraphs 
(h)(1) through (4): (1) A discontinuance of a PTC system; (2) a 
decrease of the PTC system's limits; (3) a modification of a safety-
critical element of a PTC system; or (4) a modification of a PTC system 
that affects the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system 
with which it interoperates. For context, existing Sec.  
236.1009(a)(2)(ii) additionally requires a railroad to submit an RFA--
specifically to its FRA-approved PTCIP--if the railroad intends to 
initiate a new category of service (i.e., passenger or freight) or 
``[a]dd, subtract, or otherwise materially modify one or more lines of 
railroad for which installation of a PTC system is required.''
    In general, FRA's proposed revisions to Sec.  236.1021 are 
primarily intended to streamline the process by which host railroads 
must submit RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified 
systems, based on FRA's recognition that the railroad industry intends 
to update and enhance FRA-certified PTC systems to advance rail

[[Page 82407]]

safety.\30\ Accordingly, FRA's proposed revisions to the process under 
existing paragraphs (a) through (d) are limited to removing any 
references to PTCSPs from those paragraphs, as FRA is proposing in this 
proposed rule to establish a new, streamlined process for RFAs 
associated with PTCSPs under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). In 
addition to FRA's proposal to remove references to PTCSPs from existing 
paragraphs (a) through (d), FRA proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) in 
its entirety, and to incorporate the general principle of paragraph 
(d)(7) into a new proposed paragraph, (m)(2)(i), as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For additional detail and background, please see Section I 
(Executive Summary) and Subsection II-C (Proposal to Establish a New 
Process for Modifying FRA-certified PTC Systems and the Associated 
PTCSPs) of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the existing requirements under Sec.  236.1021, 
railroads would still need to submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, 
RFAs for certain changes to their PTCIPs and PTCDPs, including the 
types of changes enumerated above under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(1) through 
(2) and 236.1009(a)(2)(ii)--e.g., a proposed discontinuance of a PTC 
system or a proposed addition or removal of track segments from a 
railroad's PTCIP.
    New proposed paragraph (l) would permit host railroads utilizing 
the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and 
PTCDPs, as those are system-based documents, albeit with some railroad-
specific variances. FRA expects that host railroads would utilize this 
joint RFA option to the extent practicable, and it would efficiently 
leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination among railroads 
operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of 
similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for 
review and approval. Because changes to safety-critical elements, 
including software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system 
would likely impact multiple, if not most, railroads implementing that 
same type of PTC system, FRA proposes to outline a path for such host 
railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific 
instructions under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). FRA notes that it 
would consider it acceptable for an association to submit a joint RFA 
under proposed paragraph (l), but it would need to be explicitly on 
behalf of two or more host railroads, and each host railroad would need 
to sign the filing.
    Proposed paragraph (l) would also specify that only host railroads 
with the same PTC System Certification classification under 49 CFR 
236.1015(e) would be able to file a joint RFA to their PTCSPs. For 
example, when an RFA is necessary under Sec.  236.1021 to account for 
certain proposed changes to railroads' I-ETMS PTCSPs, or I-ETMS itself, 
FRA would expect a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I-
ETMS is certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system under Sec.  
236.1015(e)(1), and a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I-
ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC system under Sec.  236.1015(e)(4). Two 
distinct RFAs would be necessary under these circumstances, as the 
impact of the proposed change(s) would need to be analyzed in the 
context of the underlying safety analysis in the FRA-approved PTCSPs--a 
safety analysis that is structured differently based on whether FRA has 
certified the PTC system as a non-vital, overlay system; a vital, 
overlay system; a standalone system; or a mixed system.
    Furthermore, with respect to joint RFAs, paragraph (l) would 
specify that, though most types of information required under proposed 
paragraph (m)(2) may be submitted jointly in the RFA, a joint RFA would 
need to include the written confirmation and statement specified under 
proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv), as described below, from each 
host railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA.
    New proposed paragraph (m) would outline the mandatory, three-step 
process a host railroad would need to follow to make changes to its 
FRA-certified PTC system and the associated FRA-approved PTCSP. FRA 
intends the process under proposed paragraph (m) to apply to all 
changes necessitating an RFA under existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) 
of this section--i.e., proposed changes to safety-critical elements of 
PTC systems and proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the 
safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it 
interoperates. For brevity, FRA will refer to these changes as changes 
to safety-critical elements of PTC systems, as that is sufficiently 
broad for purposes of paragraph (m).
    Proposed paragraph (m)(1) would require a host railroad to revise 
its PTCSP to account for each proposed change to its PTC system, and 
summarize such changes in a chronological table of revisions at the 
beginning of its PTCSP. FRA retains its authority to request a copy of 
a host railroad's governing PTCSP in accordance with 49 CFR 
236.1009(h), FRA access, and 49 CFR 236.1037, Records retention.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(2) would specifically require a host 
railroad to file an RFA pursuant to paragraph (m) electronically, which 
could include electronic filing on FRA's Secure Information Repository 
(https://sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads currently file other PTC-
related documents, or another designated location. If a host railroad 
wishes to seek confidential treatment of any part of its RFA, the 
railroad would need to comply with the existing process and 
requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, Request for confidential treatment, 
which include marking the document properly with the necessary labels 
and redactions, and providing a statement justifying nondisclosure and 
referring to the specific legal authority claimed. FRA would post a 
host railroad's RFA (the public, redacted version, if applicable) and 
FRA's final decision letter in the respective railroad's PTC docket on 
https://www.regulations.gov.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Railroads' applicable PTC docket numbers are available on 
FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (v), FRA outlines the 
proposed content requirements for an RFA to an FRA-certified PTC system 
and the associated PTCSP--focusing on the core information and analysis 
FRA would need to review to ensure the PTC system, including any 
proposed changes, would provide an equivalent or greater level of 
safety than the existing PTC system. Importantly, proposed paragraph 
(m)(2)(i) would require the RFA to include a summary of the proposed 
changes to any safety-critical elements of a PTC system, including a 
summary of how the changes to the PTC system would affect its safety-
critical functionality, how any new hazards have been addressed and 
mitigated, whether each change is a planned change \32\ that was 
previously included in all required analysis under Sec.  236.1015, or 
an unplanned change, and the reason for the proposed changes, including 
whether the changes are necessary to address or resolve an emergency or 
urgent issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., 75 FR 2598, 2661 (Jan. 15, 2010) (stating that 
planned changes ``are those that the system developer and the 
railroad have included in the safety analysis associated with the 
PTC system, but have not yet implemented. These changes provide 
enhanced functionality to the system, and FRA strongly encourages 
railroads to include PTC system improvements that further increase 
safety.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA's existing paragraphs (d)(7)(i) through (v) of Sec.  236.1021 
explain the distinction between an unplanned change and a planned 
change and impose certain additional requirements, including conducting 
suitable regression testing to FRA's satisfaction and filing a new 
PTCDP and PTCSP, under certain circumstances. As noted

[[Page 82408]]

above, FRA proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) and instead require a 
host railroad to identify in its RFA under paragraph (m)(2)(i) only 
whether the change is a planned change or an unplanned change. That 
basic information would be valuable to include in the abbreviated RFA 
under paragraph (m) because several railroads have already accounted 
for long-term, planned changes to their PTC systems and proactively 
integrated those assumptions into the corresponding analyses in their 
PTCSPs.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(ii) would require the RFA to include a 
copy of any associated software release notes, which would be critical 
for FRA to review and evaluate before one or more railroads deploy the 
upgraded software. A copy of the release notes would be integral in 
conveying the actual changes to the PTC system, including any 
corrections, enhancements, or new features or functionality.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iii) would require the RFA to contain a 
confirmation that the host railroad has notified any applicable tenant 
railroads of the proposed changes, any associated effect on the tenant 
railroads' operations, and any actions the tenant railroads must take 
in accordance with the configuration control measures set forth in the 
host railroad's PTCSP. In addition, proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iv) would 
require the RFA to include a statement from the host railroad's Chief 
Engineer and Chief Operating Officer, or executive officers of similar 
qualifications, verifying that the modified PTC system would meet all 
technical requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an 
equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and 
not adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads. This 
would be consistent with existing regulatory provisions that require 
PTC systems to achieve and maintain a level of safety, for each system 
modification, that is equal to or greater than the level of safety 
provided by the previous PTC system.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1001(a), 236.1015(d)(11), 
236.1015(e)(1)(iii), and 236.1015(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(v) would require a host railroad to 
submit any other information that FRA requests on a case-by-case basis, 
during FRA's review of the RFA. If FRA were to require a host railroad, 
or a set of host railroads, to provide additional information in 
support of the RFA, FRA's request would identify a deadline by which to 
submit the information. Also, this would be generally consistent with 
the existing provision under 49 CFR 236.1015(f), which provides that in 
any case where a PTCSP, or an RFA in this scenario, ``lacks adequate 
data regarding [the] safety impacts of the proposed changes, the 
Associate Administrator may request the necessary data from the 
applicant.''
    Proposed paragraph (m)(3) would outline a definite, predictable 
timeline associated with FRA's review of an RFA to a host railroad's 
PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC system under proposed paragraph (m). 
Specifically, proposed paragraph (m)(3) would prohibit a host railroad 
from making any changes, as defined under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3) or 
(4),\34\ to its PTC system until the Director of FRA's Office of 
Railroad Systems, Technology, and Automation approves the RFA. Under 
proposed paragraph (m)(3)(i), FRA would review the RFA and issue a 
decision--i.e., an approval, conditional approval, or denial of the 
RFA--within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under 
paragraph (m)(2). FRA's decision would be in the form of a letter from 
the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and 
Automation. As noted above, FRA would post each final decision letter 
in the respective railroad's PTC docket on https://www.regulations.gov. 
FRA, however, may send interim correspondence--including any notices 
requiring a railroad to provide additional information under proposed 
paragraph (m)(2)(v)--via email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ That is, proposed changes to safety-critical elements of 
PTC systems or proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the 
safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it 
interoperates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(ii) would explicitly acknowledge that FRA 
reserves the right to notify a railroad that it may proceed with making 
its proposed changes prior to the 45-day mark, including in an 
emergency or under other circumstances necessitating a railroad's 
immediate implementation of the proposed changes to its PTC system.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(iii) would specify that FRA may require a 
railroad to modify its RFA and/or its PTC system, but only to the 
extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the requirements 
under FRA's PTC regulations.
    If FRA denies an RFA under proposed paragraph (m), proposed 
paragraph (m)(3)(iv) would specify that each applicable railroad would 
be prohibited from making the proposed changes to its PTC system until 
the railroad both sufficiently addresses FRA's questions, comments, and 
concerns and obtains FRA's approval. Consistent with proposed paragraph 
(l) of this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC 
system, including the same certification classification under paragraph 
(e) of Sec.  236.1015, would be permitted to submit information jointly 
to address FRA's questions, comments, and concerns following any denial 
of an RFA under this section.
    FRA expects that its proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) would help 
establish an improved process that would entail a reasonable level of 
predictability and transparency in FRA's review process and enable the 
industry to make technological advancements more efficiently.

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and Failures

    Currently, paragraph (h) of this section requires railroads to 
report annually to FRA the number of PTC system failures that occurred 
during the previous calendar year. FRA is proposing to revise this 
existing paragraph to clarify and expand the reporting requirement and 
require host railroads to submit the information in a Biannual Report 
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). FRA's proposed Excel-
based \35\ Form FRA F 6180.152 has been placed in the docket for this 
NPRM (Docket No. FRA-2019-0075) for reference and review. Proposed 
paragraph (h)(1) would specify this reporting requirement applies to 
each host railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or 49 CFR part 236, 
subpart I, which would include any new host railroads that become 
subject to the statutory mandate in the future and any host railroads 
that voluntarily implement a PTC system under subpart I.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. 
All third-party trademarks belong to their respective owners.
    \36\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1011(d) (stating that a ``railroad 
that elects to install a PTC system when not required to do so may 
elect to proceed under this subpart [subpart I] or under subpart H 
of this part,'' including the associated filing and reporting 
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For clarification and simplicity, FRA is proposing to remove the 
phrase ``following the date of required PTC system implementation 
established by section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code'' 
from paragraph (h) because that phrase would be unnecessary after the 
final statutory deadline of December 31, 2020 and retaining that phrase 
may cause confusion about the applicability of this reporting 
requirement to new railroads that become subject to the statutory 
mandate after 2020 or railroads

[[Page 82409]]

voluntarily implementing PTC systems on non-mandated lines.
    In addition, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require a host 
railroad to file its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form 
FRA F 6180.152) electronically, which could include electronic filing 
on FRA's Secure Information Repository (https://sir.fra.dot.gov), where 
railroads file other PTC-related documents, or another designated 
location. To the extent a railroad would seek confidential treatment of 
any part of its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152), the railroad would need to comply with the existing process 
and requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, including proper labeling and 
redacting and providing a statement justifying nondisclosure and 
referring to the specific legal authority claimed. FRA's proposed Form 
FRA F 6180.152 would contain fields for a host railroad to identify its 
request for partial or full confidentiality and provide the required 
statement under Sec.  209.11(c), if applicable.
    Also, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require a host railroad to 
include in its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152) the figures itemized under proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 
through (vii) for the host railroad, each of its applicable tenant 
railroads (as explained in proposed paragraph (h)(4)), and each of its 
PTC-governed track segments. In this proposed paragraph, FRA 
acknowledges that a host railroad's PTCIP may identify or designate its 
specific track segments as territories, subdivisions, districts, main 
lines, branches, or corridors, based on a railroad's own naming 
conventions. FRA expects that requiring this relatively high-level 
geographical information (e.g., by subdivision, not by milepost 
location) would still enable FRA to monitor closely trends in PTC 
system reliability throughout the country and focus its resources, for 
example, on any areas where PTC system failures are occurring at a high 
rate.
    Consistent with existing paragraph (h), proposed paragraphs 
(h)(1)(i) through (iii) would require a railroad's biannual report to 
include the number of PTC-related failures that occurred during the 
applicable reporting period, in addition to a numerical breakdown of 
the ``failures by category, including but not limited to locomotive, 
wayside, communications, and back office system failures,'' quoting 
existing 49 CFR 236.1029(h). In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through 
(iii), however, FRA acknowledges that the source or cause of a PTC 
system failure might not necessarily involve, in every instance, the 
PTC system itself, so FRA proposes to include an additional category 
for railroads to select in the applicable drop-down menu in Form FRA F 
6180.152--i.e., ``a non-PTC component.''
    Another difference between the existing paragraph (h) and FRA's 
proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) is that FRA's proposed 
language utilizes the statutory terminology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) 
as referenced above--initialization failures, cut outs, and 
malfunctions--which would be defined under paragraph (b) of Sec.  
236.1003. FRA is aware that railroads track their PTC system failures 
in this manner (by type of failure), given the existing temporary 
reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and FRA's associated 
mandatory form, the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form 
FRA F 6180.177).
    In proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv), FRA is proposing to expand the 
existing reporting requirement under paragraph (h) to encompass certain 
positive, performance-related information, as otherwise the information 
FRA receives would be about PTC system failures only. FRA proposes to 
require railroads' Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance to 
include data about PTC technology's positive impact on rail safety and 
the extent to which PTC systems are functioning as designed--to prevent 
train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into 
established work zones, and movements of trains through switches left 
in the wrong position.\37\ Specifically, proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv) 
would require a host railroad to identify the number of intended 
enforcements by the PTC system and any other instances in which the PTC 
system prevented an accident or incident on the host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines, during the applicable reporting period. This type 
of statistic would be valuable and help demonstrate the extent to which 
PTC systems are meeting their desired objectives. FRA would interpret 
the term ``intended enforcement'' in this proposed paragraph 
consistently with how the term ``enforce'' is applied in FRA's existing 
PTC regulations, which include references to how a PTC system shall 
enforce speeds, movement authorities, signal indications, and so forth. 
See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1005, 236.1013, 236.1015, and 236.1047(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), FRA would require a 
railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance to include certain 
contextual data to help FRA understand how the occurrences of PTC 
system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions compare to 
all operations on that host railroad's PTC-governed main lines.\38\ 
Specifically, proposed paragraph (h)(1)(v) would require a railroad's 
biannual report to include the number of scheduled attempts at 
initialization of the PTC system during the applicable reporting 
period, which would help FRA calculate the actual rate of that 
railroad's PTC system initialization failures. Respectively, proposed 
paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) would require the railroad to provide 
the number of trains and the number of train miles governed by the PTC 
system during the applicable reporting period. FRA's proposed 
paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) would generally encompass the same 
types of denominators currently set forth in the Statutory Notification 
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) with one notable 
difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ FRA's proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152) would include fields for host railroads to 
provide the raw denominators set forth under proposed paragraphs 
(h)(1)(v) through (vii), and FRA would calculate the rate of 
failures, utilizing those raw denominators. FRA has found that 
providing fields for railroads to enter such raw denominators, 
instead of percentages or rates, helps FRA accurately interpret 
railroads' data, especially when comparing multiple railroads' data 
or a single railroad's data to its own prior reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FRA's proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), unlike Form 
FRA F 6180.177, FRA would be uniformly requiring those three data 
points from a host railroad and its applicable tenant railroads. In 
practice, FRA has found that host railroads providing certain 
denominators for tenant railroads (i.e., PTC-governed trains) and other 
denominators for the host railroad itself (i.e., scheduled attempts at 
initialization and PTC-governed train miles) makes it difficult for FRA 
to evaluate the rate at which failures are occurring system-wide. FRA 
expects that requiring uniform figures would help the agency derive 
more accurate, objective, and comparable statistics. Furthermore, FRA 
understands that host railroads collect the type of data under proposed 
paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) for their own operations and their 
tenant railroads' operations because several host railroads have 
provided those additional data points in their Statutory Notifications 
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) to date.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require a host railroad's Biannual 
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to include a 
summary of

[[Page 82410]]

any actions the host railroad and its tenant railroads are taking to 
improve the performance and reliability of the PTC system continually. 
This narrative section would provide railroads an opportunity to 
explain briefly the steps they are taking to improve their PTC system's 
performance, which could also help put the biannual statistics into 
perspective. FRA did not propose including this content requirement 
under proposed paragraph (h)(1) because that paragraph would be track 
segment-specific, and FRA acknowledges that railroads generally take a 
system-wide approach to improving their PTC systems. Accordingly, FRA 
proposes to categorize this content requirement in the separate, 
proposed paragraph (h)(2), and FRA's proposed, Excel-based Form FRA F 
6180.152 would contain a field for railroads to enter this summary.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(3) outlines the dates by which host 
railroads would submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA--i.e., by July 31 (covering the period 
from January 1 to June 30), and by January 31 (covering the period from 
July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year). FRA expects that 
providing railroads one full month (from the end of the half-year 
period) to complete Form FRA 6180.152 would be sufficient and 
reasonable, given railroads' experience, since 2016, in submitting 
their Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) one month 
after the end of the quarter. Furthermore, under the temporary 
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), 
the due date for any monthly notification is currently the 15th of the 
following month--so, for example, the notification regarding 
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions during November 
2020 is due by December 15, 2020 for the subset of host railroads that 
have fully implemented an FRA-certified PTC system. Accordingly, FRA 
expects that allowing one full month for railroads to prepare and 
submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152) under proposed paragraph (h)(3) would be a reasonable 
timeframe for this permanent reporting requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would explicitly require any applicable 
tenant railroads that operate on a host railroad's PTC-governed main 
line(s) to provide the necessary data to their applicable host 
railroads by a specific date before the biannual filing deadlines--
i.e., by July 15 (for the biannual report covering the period from 
January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for the biannual report 
covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar 
year). The text in proposed paragraph (h)(4) clarifies, however, that a 
host railroad would not need to include data in Form FRA F 6180.152 
regarding a tenant railroad that is subject to an exception under 49 
CFR 236.1006(b)(4) or (5) during the applicable reporting period 
because such a tenant railroad's movements would not be governed by PTC 
technology in that case and there would not be any pertinent, 
performance-related data to submit.
    In general, FRA's proposed paragraph (h)(4) regarding tenant 
railroad responsibilities is based, in part, on comments AAR and APTA 
previously submitted during the comment period associated with the 
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). 
Specifically, on February 28, 2020, AAR commented, ``[i]f FRA is going 
to require hosts to report tenant data, the agency must impose a clear 
and direct requirement on tenants to report the desired information to 
their host railroad.'' \39\ In APTA's comments, also dated February 28, 
2020, APTA observed that a host railroad would need to obtain ``all 
necessary logs to complete the analyses'' from its tenant railroads to 
complete Form FRA F 6180.177 accurately.\40\ FRA acknowledges that an 
existing regulatory provision, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4), already requires 
a tenant railroad to report a PTC system failure or cut out to ``a 
designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and 
practicable.'' In addition, FRA is aware that several host railroads, 
including Class I railroads and passenger railroads, already regularly 
monitor and track tenant railroads' PTC system initialization failures, 
cut outs, and malfunctions via automatically generated reports and/or 
via connected PTC system back offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Docket Nos. FRA 2019-0004-N-20 and FRA 2020-0004-N-3; 
85 FR 15022, 15027 (Mar. 16, 2020).
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA expects that the language in proposed paragraph (h)(4) would 
help clarify the existing obligation on tenant railroads to provide 
certain data to their host railroads. Also, proposed paragraph (h)(4) 
would help ensure that host railroads receive tenant railroads' 
necessary data for purposes of the reporting requirement under 
paragraph (h) in a timely manner. Specifically, in proposed paragraph 
(h)(4), FRA proposes to require each applicable tenant railroad to 
submit the information required under proposed paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(2) to each applicable host railroad by July 15 (for the report 
covering the period from January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for 
the report covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior 
calendar year). FRA expects that adding proposed paragraph (h)(4) to 
its regulations would offer more clarity and certainty about the 
timeframe under which tenant railroads would provide host railroads the 
information necessary to prepare and submit their Biannual Reports of 
PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). In addition, this 
proposed paragraph would help ensure that host railroads receive such 
data at least 15 days before the biannual filing deadlines under 
proposed paragraph (h)(3), i.e., July 31 and January 31.

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    This proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' \41\ and 
DOT's Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures 
in 49 CFR part 5. FRA made this determination by finding that the 
economic effects of this proposed regulatory action would not exceed 
the $100 million annual threshold defined by Executive Order 12866. 
This proposed rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive 
Order 13771.\42\ FRA estimates this proposed rule would result in cost 
savings for the industry over a ten-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993).
    \42\ See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would reduce the burden on railroads while not 
adversely affecting railroad safety. To enable FRA to oversee the 
performance and reliability of railroads' PTC systems effectively, FRA 
is proposing to change the reporting requirement under 49 CFR 
236.1029(h). FRA's proposed changes include, but are not limited to, 
increasing the reporting frequency from annual to biannual, clarifying 
the types of statistics and information the reports must include, and 
expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information. The amended 
provision would require host railroads to submit additional 
information. Accordingly, FRA estimates that the number of hours it 
would take a host railroad to report the required information under

[[Page 82411]]

Sec.  236.1029(h) would increase under the proposed rule. To provide 
clarity and precision regarding the reporting requirement under Sec.  
236.1029(h), FRA has developed a proposed, Excel-based Biannual Report 
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) that railroads would 
utilize to satisfy this reporting requirement.
    While FRA is proposing to expand this existing reporting 
requirement, the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads 
would be reduced under Sec.  236.1021. Specifically, FRA is proposing 
to establish a streamlined process to enable the railroad industry to 
make technological advancements to FRA-certified PTC systems more 
efficiently and with FRA's continued oversight. Instead of the existing 
RFA approval process under Sec.  236.1021, FRA proposes to: (1) Require 
host railroads to comply with a streamlined process, which would 
include providing certain safety assurances and analysis in a concise 
RFA; and (2) establish a 45-day FRA decision deadline. This more 
efficient process is expected to result in cost savings for both the 
host railroads and the government. FRA's proposed simplification of the 
content requirements associated with an RFA to a PTCSP under Sec.  
236.1021 would reduce the number of burden hours per RFA. In addition, 
FRA is proposing to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of 
PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus 
reducing the number of RFAs railroads would need to submit in the 
future.
    Currently, 35 host railroads are required to submit RFAs before 
making certain changes to their PTCSPs under Sec.  236.1021, with many 
host railroads projected to submit one RFA to a PTCSP per year. Over 
the next ten years, FRA expects there will be an average increase of 
1.5 new PTC-governed host railroads per year, beginning in the second 
year, for a total of approximately 14 additional host railroads. Table 
A summarizes the types of PTC systems the 35 host railroads currently 
subject to the statutory mandate are implementing as of 2020 and the 
approximate number of RFAs host railroads would file to their PTCSPs 
under existing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Several host railroads are implementing multiple types of 
PTC systems.

                   Table A--Estimated Number of Required RFAs to PTCSPs by Type of PTC System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              PTC systems being
                                                             implemented by host   Annual Number   Total number
                     Type of PTC system                        railroads (as of     of RFAs per       of RFAs
                                                                  2020) \43\        PTC system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES II...................................................                    8               1               8
CBTC.......................................................                    1               1               1
E-ATC......................................................                    5               1               5
ITCS.......................................................                    1               1               1
I-ETMS.....................................................                   26               2              52
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
    Total..................................................                   41  ..............              67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, without the proposed rule, FRA estimates the 35 host 
railroads would need to submit approximately 67 RFAs annually given the 
types of changes the industry intends to make to their PTC systems each 
year under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)-(4) in the future.\44\ FRA has 
estimated that the current hourly burden is 160 hours per RFA, based on 
previously approved PTC Information Collection Requests (ICRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Previously, FRA estimated it would receive, on average, 
approximately 10 RFAs to railroads' PTCIPs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs each 
year. However, from discussions with PTC-mandated railroads, FRA 
found the estimate did not account adequately for the number of RFAs 
host railroads intend to submit to their PTCSPs annually under Sec.  
236.1021(h)(3)-(4) without the proposed rule. Tables A, B, and F in 
this proposed rule estimate more accurately the approximate average 
number of RFAs host railroads would submit to their PTCSPs each year 
under the existing regulations and under the proposed rule. See 84 
FR 72121, 72127 (Dec. 30, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table B below provides the current hourly burden and costs that 
host railroads face when submitting RFAs to their PTCSPs under the 
existing Sec.  236.1021.

                    Table B--Current Host Railroad Hourly Burden and Cost for RFAs to PTCSPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Hour burden per     Total annual
            Year                Submissions       submission           cost          7-Percent       3-Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................              67                160         $830,505        $830,505        $830,505
2...........................              69                160          855,296         799,342         830,385
3...........................              70                160          867,692         757,876         817,883
4...........................              72                160          892,483         728,532         816,749
5...........................              73                160          904,879         690,328         803,973
6...........................              75                160          929,670         662,842         801,942
7...........................              76                160          942,066         627,738         788,965
8...........................              78                160          966,857         602,110         786,143
9...........................              79                160          979,252         569,934         773,031
10..........................              81                160        1,004,044         546,133         769,516
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................             740  .................        9,172,744       6,815,340       8,019,091
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    As described above, FRA is also proposing to amend a reporting 
requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual, 
clarifying the types of statistics and information the reports must 
include, and expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive 
performance-related

[[Page 82412]]

information. Though FRA's proposed rule will increase the number of 
required submissions, as well as the hourly burden per submission, FRA 
estimates any new costs will be minimal and offset by the cost savings 
derived from the proposed changes as presented in the Cost Savings 
section below.
    To clarify the information FRA is requesting from host railroads, 
FRA created an Excel-based form for the Biannual Report of PTC System 
Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). This form will incorporate the 
information currently required under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) and the 
additional types of information specified in this NPRM.\45\ Host 
railroads with FRA-certified PTC systems are experienced in compiling 
this type of information, given the corresponding reporting 
requirements under the temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System 
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152) will be placed in the docket (Docket No. FRA-
2019-0075) for review when this NPRM is published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hourly burden associated with submitting the required 
information will increase initially from 8 hours to 12 hours per report 
on average. FRA estimates that, over time, railroads will develop 
procedures that decrease the reporting burden from 12 hours per 
submission to 10 hours per submission. FRA assumes this decrease will 
begin in the fourth year of the analysis as host railroads become 
familiar with the Excel-based form and as they develop processes to 
improve their data collection and reporting.
    In addition to the increase in hourly burden, FRA estimates an 
increased burden will result from the additional annual report this 
proposed rule will require. Consistent with the previously stated 
estimates, FRA assumes that 35 host railroads will submit these 
biannual reports, and the number of applicable host railroads will 
increase by 1.5 on average each year.
    This analysis accounts for the marginal increase of four hours for 
the first three years of a host railroad reporting and two hours for 
each subsequent year. Table C below shows the marginal hourly burden 
increase associated with railroads' reporting under the proposed rule.

                            Table C--Ten-Year Host Railroad Marginal Burden Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of host    Number of host
                                                                railroad          railroad
                           Year                             submissions with  submissions with   Total marginal
                                                             marginal 4-hour   marginal 2-hour    hourly burden
                                                                 burden            burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................                35                 0               140
2.........................................................                37                 0               146
3.........................................................                38                 0               152
4.........................................................                 2                38                84
5.........................................................                 3                38                88
6.........................................................                 5                38                96
7.........................................................                 4                40                96
8.........................................................                 4                42               100
9.........................................................                 4                43               102
10........................................................                 4                45               106
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................               136               284             1,110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the marginal increase, host railroads will face an 
additional reporting burden due to the proposed change from annual to 
biannual reporting. This analysis accounts for the new burden of 12 
hours for the first three years of a host railroad's reporting and 10 
hours for each subsequent year to account for the proposed change from 
annual to biannual reporting. Table D below shows the new hourly burden 
under this proposed rule for the ten-year period of this analysis.

                                 Table D--Ten-Year Host Railroad New Submissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of host    Number of host
                                                                railroad          railroad
                           Year                             submissions with     submissions    Total new hourly
                                                               new 12-hour    with new 10-hour       burden
                                                                 burden            burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................                35                 0               420
2.........................................................                37                 0               438
3.........................................................                38                 0               456
4.........................................................                 2                38               404
5.........................................................                 3                38               416
6.........................................................                 5                38               440
7.........................................................                 4                40               448
8.........................................................                 4                42               468
9.........................................................                 4                43               478
10........................................................                 4                45               498
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................               136               284             4,466
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 82413]]

    FRA calculated the total additional burden hours for submissions by 
multiplying the respective number of submissions with their associated 
annual burden for each individual year. The summation of the hourly 
burden is multiplied by the fully burdened wage rate of a Professional 
and Administrative employee. For purposes of this analysis, FRA uses 
the fully burdened rate of $77.47 to calculate both the costs and cost 
savings throughout this analysis.\46\ Table E provides the ten-year 
cost to the railroad industry associated with the expanded reporting 
requirement, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 2019 Composite Surface Transportation Board (STB) 
Professional and Administrative hourly wage rate of $44.27 burdened 
by 75-percent ($44.27 x 1.75 = $77.47).
    \47\ Total Annual Host Railroad Submissions Cost = Total New 
Complete Hour Burden x $77.47.

                                                              Table E--Ten-Year Total Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Total annual
                                                        Total marginal     Total new       Total new      host railroad
                         Year                             hour burden     submission     complete hour  submissions cost     7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                          hour burden       burden            \47\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................................             140             420             560           $43,385         $43,385         $43,385
2.....................................................             146             438             584            45,244          42,284          43,926
3.....................................................             152             456             608            47,103          41,142          44,399
4.....................................................              84             404             488            37,807          30,861          34,598
5.....................................................              88             416             504            39,046          29,788          34,692
6.....................................................              96             440             536            41,525          29,607          35,820
7.....................................................              96             448             544            42,145          28,083          35,296
8.....................................................             100             468             568            44,004          27,404          35,780
9.....................................................             102             478             580            44,934          26,152          35,471
10....................................................             106             498             604            46,793          25,453          35,863
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................................           1,110           4,466           5,576           431,987         324,158         379,231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Table may not sum due to rounding.

    FRA estimates that the total cost to the railroad industry will be 
$324,158, discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, discounted at 3 
percent. In terms of governmental costs associated with the expanded 
reporting requirement, including the proposed increase from annual to 
biannual reporting, FRA expects it will cost approximately $10,000, 
over the ten-year period, to review the additional data railroads will 
submit in the proposed Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form 
FRA F 6180.152). As FRA considers these additional governmental costs 
to be de minimis, they are not included in the economic analysis.
Cost Savings
    There are currently 35 host railroads that are required to submit 
an RFA before changing safety-critical elements of their PTC systems 
and their PTCSPs. FRA estimates that over the next ten years, the 
number of PTC-governed host railroads will increase by approximately 
14, for a total of 49 host railroads. For purposes of this analysis, 
FRA estimates that approximately 1.5 new host railroads are added each 
year, beginning in year two.
    Currently, under FRA's existing regulations, FRA estimates that 
host railroads will submit 67 annual RFAs to their PTCSPs that FRA must 
review and approve before those host railroads change and improve their 
PTC systems. Under this proposed rule, FRA is proposing to permit host 
railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to 
their PTCDPs and PTCSPs.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ FRA expects its proposal to allow host railroads to submit 
joint RFAs to impact primarily host railroads implementing I-ETMS 
and E-ATC because each I-ETMS system is relatively similar and 
manufactured by the same set of suppliers, and each E-ATC system is 
relatively similar and manufactured by the same set of suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table F below shows the number of RFAs to PTCSPs that would be 
submitted under the existing regulation and the proposed rule. Over a 
ten-year period, FRA estimates that the changes described in this 
proposed rule will result in railroads submitting approximately 590 
fewer RFAs.

                                   Table F--Estimated Number of RFAs to PTCSPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Approximate
                                                                number of RFAs    Approximate
                                                                to PTCSPs per    number of RFAs  Total number of
                 Current types of PTC systems                     year under     to PTCSPs per     reduction of
                                                                   existing        year under     RFAs to PTCSPs
                                                                 regulations        proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES II.....................................................                8                8                0
CBTC.........................................................                1                1                0
E-ATC........................................................                5                1                4
ITCS.........................................................                1                1                0
I-ETMS.......................................................               52           \49\ 4               48
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal in Year 1.......................................               67               15               52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 82414]]

    FRA estimates the current burden is 160 hours per RFA to a PTCSP 
based on the existing RFA content requirements. FRA's proposed 
simplification of the content requirements would reduce the burden 
hours by 50 percent, resulting in 80 burden hours per RFA. Table G 
provides the estimated ten-year cost to host railroads based on FRA's 
proposal to simplify the RFA process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ For I-ETMS systems, FRA estimates the total number of 
annual RFAs to PTCSPs would be reduced from 52 (under the existing 
regulation) to 4 (under the proposed rule)--i.e., 2 RFAs per year 
from the set of railroads whose I-ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC 
system and 2 RFAs per year from the set of railroads whose I-ETMS is 
certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system.

                                                Table G--Ten-Year Cost of Joint RFAs and Simplified RFAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Hour burden per     Total annual
                               Year                                   Submissions        submission        cost savings      7-Percent       3-Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                15                  80          $92,967         $92,967         $92,967
2................................................................                15                  80           92,967          86,885          90,259
3................................................................                15                  80           92,967          81,201          87,630
4................................................................                15                  80           92,967          75,889          85,078
5................................................................                15                  80           92,967          70,924          82,600
6................................................................                15                  80           92,967          66,284          80,194
7................................................................                15                  80           92,967          61,948          77,858
8................................................................                15                  80           92,967          57,895          75,591
9................................................................                15                  80           92,967          54,108          73,389
10...............................................................                15                  80           92,967          50,568          71,251
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               150  ..................          929,670         698,669         816,818
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, FRA expects that simplifying the content requirements for 
RFAs to PTCSPs, as well as permitting host railroads utilizing the same 
type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs, will result in a ten-year cost 
savings of $6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 million, 
discounted at 3 percent.

                                      Table H--Total Ten-Year Cost Savings Associated With Proposed Sec.   236.1021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Current host
                                                                    railroad costs   Cost of joint RFAs
                               Year                                    (without      and simplified RFA    Total annual      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                       proposed         process (with      cost savings
                                                                      regulation)      proposed rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................          $830,505             $92,967         $737,538        $737,538        $737,538
2................................................................           855,296              92,967          762,329         712,457         740,126
3................................................................           867,692              92,967          774,725         676,675         730,253
4................................................................           892,483              92,967          799,516         652,643         731,671
5................................................................           904,879              92,967          811,912         619,404         721,373
6................................................................           929,670              92,967          836,703         596,558         721,747
7................................................................           942,066              92,967          849,099         565,790         711,107
8................................................................           966,857              92,967          873,890         544,215         710,552
9................................................................           979,252              92,967          886,285         515,826         699,642
10...............................................................         1,004,044              92,967          911,077         495,565         698,264
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................         9,172,744             929,670        8,243,074       6,116,671       7,202,273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FRA's proposed changes to the RFA process will result 
in cost savings for the government, through a reduction in time needed 
to review an RFA with the existing contents under 49 CFR 
236.1021(d)(1)-(7). Under the proposed rule, FRA will review a 
streamlined RFA with the more focused information that new proposed 
paragraph (m)(2) would require.
    Table I below outlines the assumptions that FRA used to calculate 
the governmental cost savings. FRA's estimates assume there will be PTC 
system changes that are complex and will require additional time to 
review, as well as system changes that are less complex.

                                                   Table I--Government Administrative Cost Assumptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Cost savings
                           Staff level                             Average employee    Average hourly     Average hourly  Fully burdened     per staff
                                                                     count needed          burden             salary           rate            level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS-15............................................................                 1                  10           $77.75         $136.07          $1,315
GS-14............................................................                 2                 105            62.34          109.10          19,171
GS-13............................................................                 2                 119            49.71           86.99          20,646
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................                 5                 234           189.81          332.17          41,132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 82415]]

    Without the proposed rule, FRA would be required to review and 
approve or deny all 67 of the RFAs to PTCSPs that would be submitted 
annually. FRA estimated that over the next ten years, the total cost to 
the government would be $30.4 million. Table J provides an overview of 
the ten-year government burden without the proposed rule.

                                                           Table J--Ten-Year Government Burden
                                                                 [Without proposed rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Government cost to
                               Year                                   Submissions        review each       Total annual      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                                         submission            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                67             $41,132       $2,755,871      $2,755,871      $2,755,871
2................................................................                69              41,132        2,838,136       2,652,463       2,755,471
3................................................................                70              41,132        2,879,268       2,514,864       2,713,986
4................................................................                72              41,132        2,961,533       2,417,493       2,710,222
5................................................................                73              41,132        3,002,665       2,290,719       2,667,829
6................................................................                75              41,132        3,084,930       2,199,512       2,661,088
7................................................................                76              41,132        3,126,062       2,083,027       2,618,028
8................................................................                78              41,132        3,208,327       1,997,985       2,608,664
9................................................................                79              41,132        3,249,460       1,891,215       2,565,153
10...............................................................                81              41,132        3,331,724       1,812,237       2,553,489
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               740             411,324       30,437,976      22,615,387      26,609,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the proposed changes to Sec.  236.1021, the number of RFAs 
that FRA would be required to review will decrease from 67 to 15 per 
year, beginning in the first year. This reduction is the same as seen 
in the cost savings above. The resulting reduction would mean that the 
new government cost to review the RFAs would be reduced to $6.2 million 
over the ten-year period. Table K below outlines the government costs 
under the proposed rule.

                                                         Table K--Ten-Year New Government Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Government cost to
                               Year                                   Submissions        review each       Total annual      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                                         submission        cost savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                15             $41,132         $616,986        $616,986        $616,986
2................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         576,622         599,016
3................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         538,899         581,568
4................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         503,644         564,630
5................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         470,696         548,184
6................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         439,902         532,218
7................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         411,124         516,716
8................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         384,228         501,666
9................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         359,091         487,054
10...............................................................                15              41,132          616,986         335,600         472,868
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               150             411,324        6,169,860       4,636,793       5,420,906
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates that its proposed changes will result in a ten-year 
government cost savings of $18.0 million, discounted at 7 percent, or 
$21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent.

                                                     Table L--Government Administrative Cost Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Current
                                                                   government cost   Government cost to
                                                                      to review      review submissions    Total annual
                              Year                                   submissions       (with proposed      cost savings      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                       (without             rule)
                                                                    proposed rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $2,755,871            $616,986       $2,138,885      $2,138,885      $2,138,885
2...............................................................          2,838,136             616,986        2,221,150       2,075,841       2,156,456
3...............................................................          2,879,268             616,986        2,262,282       1,975,965       2,132,418
4...............................................................          2,961,533             616,986        2,344,547       1,913,849       2,145,592
5...............................................................          3,002,665             616,986        2,385,679       1,820,023       2,119,645
6...............................................................          3,084,930             616,986        2,467,944       1,759,610       2,128,870
7...............................................................          3,126,062             616,986        2,509,076       1,671,904       2,101,312
8...............................................................          3,208,327             616,986        2,591,341       1,613,757       2,106,998

[[Page 82416]]

 
9...............................................................          3,249,460             616,986        2,632,474       1,532,124       2,078,099
10..............................................................          3,331,724             616,986        2,714,738       1,476,638       2,080,621
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         30,437,976           6,169,860       24,268,116      17,978,594      21,188,896
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results
    This proposed rule would reduce the burden on railroads while not 
adversely affecting railroad safety. To oversee the performance and 
reliability of railroads' PTC systems, FRA is proposing to expand the 
reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h), as described above. FRA 
estimates that the total ten-year industry cost associated with the 
expanded reporting requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h) will be 
$324,158, discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, discounted at 3 
percent.
    Though FRA is proposing to expand certain reporting requirements, 
the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads will be 
reduced overall. The proposed simplification of RFAs to PTCSPs will 
reduce the number of burden hours per RFA. Also, FRA is proposing to 
permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit 
joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of 
submissions railroads will need to submit in the future.
    FRA expects that its proposed changes will result in a ten-year 
cost savings for the railroad industry of $6.1 million, discounted at 7 
percent, or $7.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. In addition, during 
the same period, FRA expects that the proposed changes will produce 
government cost savings amounting to $18.0 million, discounted at 7 
percent, or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent.
    FRA estimates that the total net cost savings for this proposed 
rule will be $23.8 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $28.0 million, 
discounted at 3 percent. The annualized cost savings will be $3.4 
million, discounted at 7 percent, or $3.3 million, discounted at 3 
percent.

                                                        Table M--Total Ten-Year Net Cost Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total
                          Year                            Total industry    government    Total industry  Total net cost     7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                           cost savings    cost savings        costs          savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................        $737,538      $2,138,885         $43,385      $2,833,038      $2,833,038      $2,833,038
2.......................................................         762,329       2,221,150          45,244       2,938,235       2,746,014       2,852,655
3.......................................................         774,725       2,262,282          47,103       2,989,904       2,611,498       2,818,271
4.......................................................         799,516       2,344,547          37,807       3,106,256       2,535,631       2,842,665
5.......................................................         811,912       2,385,679          39,046       3,158,545       2,409,639       2,806,326
6.......................................................         836,703       2,467,944          41,525       3,263,122       2,326,561       2,814,797
7.......................................................         849,099       2,509,076          42,145       3,316,030       2,209,611       2,777,123
8.......................................................         873,890       2,591,341          44,004       3,421,227       2,130,568       2,781,770
9.......................................................         886,285       2,632,474          44,934       3,473,825       2,021,798       2,742,269
10......................................................         911,077       2,714,738          46,793       3,579,022       1,946,751       2,743,022
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       8,243,074      24,268,116         431,987      32,079,203      23,771,107      28,011,938
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,384,471       3,283,854
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA requests comments on the assumptions and burden estimates that 
are used within this analysis.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and 
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' (67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) require agency 
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small 
entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if 
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. FRA has not determined whether 
this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, FRA seeks comment on 
the potential small business impacts of the proposed requirements in 
this NPRM. FRA prepared an IRFA, which is included below, to aid the 
public in commenting on the potential small business impacts of the 
proposed requirements in this NPRM.
1. Reasons for Considering Agency Action
    FRA is initiating the proposed rulemaking to enable railroads to 
make technological advancements to their PTC systems more efficiently, 
with FRA's continued oversight, by improving and streamlining the RFA 
process under 49 CFR 236.1021. Without the proposed rule, each host 
railroad would be required to submit independently an RFA, with the 
information required under 49 CFR 236.1021(d)(1)-(7), several times per 
year and wait for FRA to approve each RFA prior to implementing

[[Page 82417]]

enhancements or necessary changes to existing FRA-certified technology.
    In addition, FRA is proposing to improve the reporting requirement 
under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) by, for example, increasing the reporting 
frequency from annual to biannual, updating the provision to use 
certain statutory terminology for consistency, and expanding the 
reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related 
information, so FRA can oversee PTC systems' performance and 
reliability more effectively. To reduce the burden on host railroads, 
FRA has developed an Excel-based form (Form FRA F 6180.152) in which 
all the information could be succinctly input and sent to FRA 
electronically.
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for, 
the Proposed Rule
    The objective of this proposed rule is to establish an improved 
process to enable the industry to make technological advancements to 
FRA-certified PTC systems more efficiently, and with FRA's continued 
oversight. Instead of the existing approval process under Sec.  
236.1021, FRA proposes to require host railroads to comply with a 
streamlined process, which includes providing certain safety assurances 
and analysis. This improved process is expected to result in cost 
savings for both the host railroads and the government. Furthermore, 
FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC 
system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, which would 
benefit both the industry and FRA.
    FRA is also proposing to expand the reporting requirement under 
Sec.  236.1029(h) to enable FRA to oversee PTC systems' performance and 
reliability effectively. The expanded reporting requirement would 
increase the costs to host railroads, but that minimal cost would be 
offset by the cost savings associated with FRA's proposed changes to 
Sec.  236.1021.
    The Secretary has broad statutory authority to ``prescribe 
regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety'' under 
49 U.S.C. 20103 and regarding PTC technology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g). 
This proposed rule will reduce the burden on railroads while not 
adversely affecting railroad safety. In this proposed rule, FRA 
proposes to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on 
regulated entities by reducing the complexity and number of RFAs host 
railroads must submit regarding certain enhancements and necessary 
changes to their FRA-certified PTC systems under Sec.  236.1021 and 
providing more clarity and precision regarding the reporting 
requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h), using a form.
3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of 
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires a review of 
proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities, 
unless the Secretary certifies that the rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business concern 
that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has 
authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and 
stipulates in its size standards that a ``small entity'' in the 
railroad industry is a for-profit ``line-haul railroad'' that has fewer 
than 1,500 employees, a ``short line railroad'' with fewer than 500 
employees, or a ``commuter rail system'' with annual receipts of less 
than seven million dollars. See ``Size Eligibility Provisions and 
Standards,'' 13 CFR part 121, subpart A.
    The proposed rule would directly apply to all host railroads 
subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157, including, in relevant part, 5 Class II or 
III, short line, or terminal railroads, and 23 intercity passenger 
railroads or commuter railroads, some of which may be small entities.
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the Class 
of Small Entities That Will be Subject to the Requirements and the Type 
of Professional Skill Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record
    The proposed RFA process would allow railroads to make enhancements 
and necessary changes to their PTC systems more efficiently. FRA 
understands that only 5 of the current PTC-mandated host railroads are 
small entities; however, because this proposed rule would reduce the 
regulatory costs and hourly burdens on these railroads, the proposed 
changes would result in a positive impact on those railroads.
    FRA is also proposing to amend the reporting requirement under 
Sec.  236.1029(h) by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual, 
clarifying the types of statistics and information the reports must 
include, and expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive 
performance-related information.\50\ Though this expanded reporting 
requirement would double the number of submissions and increase the 
hourly burden, the proposed changes are necessary to enable FRA to 
oversee the performance and reliability of railroads' PTC systems 
effectively. FRA estimates that the additional costs associated with 
the increased reporting requirement will be more than offset by the 
proposed changes to Sec.  236.1021. Furthermore, FRA assumes that as 
host railroads become more familiar with the reporting requirements 
proposed under Sec.  236.1029(h), the hourly burden per submission will 
be reduced from 12 hours to 10 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ In addition, with respect to tenant railroads, FRA's 
proposed changes to Sec.  236.1029(h) are generally consistent with 
the existing regulatory requirement specifying that a tenant 
railroad must report a PTC system failure or cut out to ``a 
designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and 
practicable.'' See Sec.  236.1029(b)(4) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA expects that the proposed reporting requirement tasks will be 
completed by one Professional and Administrative employee per host 
railroad and require a basic understanding of Microsoft Excel.
    To calculate the individual costs for small entities, FRA divided 
the total cost for each year by the number of estimated host railroads. 
FRA assumes that the hourly burden to submit an RFA is independent of 
an entity's size because the RFA depends upon the PTC system and not 
the individual railroad making the submission. The total cost for all 
host railroads in year one would be $43,385. FRA estimates that the 
individual cost to each host railroad would be approximately $1,240. 
The estimated ten-year cost per host railroad that FRA considers a 
small entity would be approximately $7,997, discounted at 7 percent, or 
$9,247, discounted at 3 percent. Though the proposed rule would impose 
costs on those host railroads that are small entities, it would also 
result in cost savings.
    To calculate the individual cost savings for small entities, FRA 
divided the total cost savings for each year by the number of estimated 
host railroads. The total annual cost savings in the first year would 
be $737,538. FRA estimates that the individual cost savings for each 
host railroad would be $21,073. The estimated ten-year cost savings per 
host railroad that FRA considers a small entity would be $149,476, 
discounted at 7 percent, or $173,984, discounted at 3 percent. FRA 
requests comments on the burden that small entities would face under 
this proposed rule.

[[Page 82418]]

5. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
    FRA is not aware of any relevant Federal rule that duplicates, 
overlaps with, or conflicts with the proposed rule. As described in 
this NPRM, the existing and proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(h) (proposed 
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance, Form FRA F 6180.152) 
constitutes a permanent reporting requirement, whereas the Statutory 
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control 
No. 2130-0553) under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) is a temporary reporting 
requirement and expires on approximately December 31, 2021. FRA invites 
all interested parties to submit comments, data, and information 
demonstrating the potential economic impact on small entities that will 
result from the adoption of this proposed rule. FRA particularly 
encourages small entities potentially impacted by the proposed 
amendments to participate in the public comment process. FRA will 
consider all comments received during the public comment period for 
this NPRM when making a final determination of the rule's economic 
impact on small entities.
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    FRA is proposing this rulemaking to alleviate burdens on industry 
and improve the process associated with changes and upgrades to FRA-
certified PTC systems and the associated PTCSPs. FRA's proposed changes 
to Sec.  236.1021 are expected to result in cost savings for both the 
host railroads and the government. Furthermore, FRA proposes to permit 
host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint 
RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, which will benefit both the industry 
and FRA. The main alternative to this rulemaking would be to maintain 
the status quo.
    In the absence of this proposed rule, railroads would continue to 
submit information under Sec.  236.1029(h) that may not be sufficient 
for FRA to oversee PTC systems' performance and reliability 
effectively. FRA notes the NPRM proposes to establish a new form \51\ 
to report the required information under Sec.  236.1029(h), which will 
help clarify and facilitate this reporting requirement for the 
industry. The alternative of not issuing the proposed rule would also 
forgo the more efficient process of allowing host railroads to submit 
joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, and to implement certain changes 
to their PTC systems under the proposed streamlined process under Sec.  
236.1021(l) and (m), which would reduce the overall burden of FRA's PTC 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 
6180.152).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are 
being submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Please note that any new or revised 
requirements, as proposed in this NPRM, are marked by asterisks (*) in 
the table below. The sections that contain the proposed and current 
information collection requirements under OMB Control No. 2130-0553 
\52\ and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See also 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 2019) (60-day ICR notice); 
85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020) (30-day ICR notice). On June 5, 2020, 
OMB approved the revised ICR, entitled ``PTC and Other Signal 
Systems'' under OMB Control No. 2130-0553, for a period of three 
years, expiring on June 30, 2023.
    \53\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2019 STB 
Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group 
hourly wage rate that includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For 
Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost amounts to 
$120 per hour. For Professional/Administrative staff, this cost 
amounts to $77 per hour.
    \54\ A railroad's final Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA 
F 6180.165) will be due on January 31, 2021, assuming the railroad 
fully implements an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system by 
the statutory deadline of December 31, 2020.
    \55\ A railroad's final Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 
6180.166) will be due on March 31, 2021, assuming it fully 
implements an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system by the 
statutory deadline of December 31, 2020.
    \56\ The temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures 
(Form FRA F 6180.177) expires on approximately December 31, 2021 per 
49 U.S.C. 20157(j).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Total annual
       CFR section/subject              Respondent universe         Total annual responses         Average time per       Total annual     dollar cost
                                                                                                       response           burden hours   equivalent \53\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
235.6(c)--Expedited application    42 railroads................  10 expedited applications...  5 hours.................              50           $3,850
 for approval of certain changes
 described in this section.
--Copy of expedited application    42 railroads................  10 copies...................  30 minutes..............               5              385
 to labor union.
--Railroad letter rescinding its   42 railroads................  1 letter....................  6 hours.................               6              462
 request for expedited
 application of certain signal
 system changes.
--Revised application for certain  42 railroads................  1 application...............  5 hours.................               5              385
 signal system changes.
--Copy of railroad revised         42 railroads................  1 copy......................  30 minutes..............              .5               39
 application to labor union.
236.1--Railroad maintained signal  700 railroads...............  25 plan changes.............  15 minutes..............             6.3              485
 plans at all interlockings,
 automatic signal locations, and
 controlled points, and updates
 to ensure accuracy.
236.15--Designation of automatic   700 railroads...............  10 timetable instructions...  30 minutes..............               5              385
 block, traffic control, train
 stop, train control, cab signal,
 and PTC territory in timetable
 instructions.
236.18--Software management        2 railroads.................  2 plans.....................  160 hours...............             320           24,640
 control plan--New railroads.
236.23(e)--The names,              700 railroads...............  2 modifications.............  1 hour..................               2              154
 indications, and aspects of
 roadway and cab signals shall be
 defined in the carrier's
 Operating Rule Book or Special
 Instructions. Modifications
 shall be filed with FRA within
 30 days after such modifications
 become effective.
236.587(d)--Certification and      742 railroads...............  4,562,500 train departures..  5 seconds...............           6,337          487,949
 departure test results.
236.905(a)--Railroad Safety        2 railroads.................  2 RSPPs.....................  40 hours................              80            6,160
 Program Plan (RSPP)--New
 railroads.
236.913(a)--Filing and approval    742 railroads...............  1 joint plan................  2,000 hours.............           2,000          240,000
 of a joint Product Safety Plan
 (PSP).
(c)(1)--Informational filing/      742 railroads...............  0.5 filings/approval          50 hours................              25            1,925
 petition for special approval.                                   petitions.
(c)(2)--Response to FRA's request  742 railroads...............  0.25 data calls/documents...  5 hours.................               1               77
 for further data after
 informational filing.

[[Page 82419]]

 
(d)(1)(ii)--Response to FRA's      742 railroads...............  0.25 data calls/documents...  1 hour..................            0.25               19
 request for further information
 within 15 days after receipt of
 the Notice of Product
 Development (NOPD).
(d)(1)(iii)--Technical             742 railroads...............  0.25 technical consultations  5 hours.................             1.3              100
 consultation by FRA with the
 railroad on the design and
 planned development of the
 product.
(d)(1)(v)--Railroad petition to    742 railroads...............  0.25 petitions..............  1 hour..................            0.25               19
 FRA for final approval of NOPD.
(d)(2)(ii)--Response to FRA's      742 railroads...............  1 request...................  50 hours................              50            3,850
 request for additional
 information associated with a
 petition for approval of PSP or
 PSP amendment.
(e)--Comments to FRA on railroad   742 railroads...............  0.5 comments/letters........  10 hours................               5              385
 informational filing or special
 approval petition.
(h)(3)(i)--Railroad amendment to   742 railroads...............  2 amendments................  20 hours................              40            3,080
 PSP.
(j)--Railroad field testing/       742 railroads...............  1 field test document.......  100 hours...............             100            7,700
 information filing document.
236.917(a)--Railroad retention of  13 railroads with PSP.......  13 PSP safety results.......  160 hours...............           2,080          160,160
 records: results of tests and
 inspections specified in the PSP.
(b)--Railroad report that          13 railroads................  1 report....................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 frequency of safety-relevant
 hazards exceeds threshold set
 forth in PSP.
(b)(3)--Railroad final report to   13 railroads................  1 report....................  10 hours................              10              770
 FRA on the results of the
 analysis and countermeasures
 taken to reduce the frequency of
 safety-relevant hazards.
236.919(a)--Railroad Operations    13 railroads................  1 OMM update................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 and Maintenance Manual (OMM).
(b)--Plans for proper              13 railroads................  1 plan update...............  40 hours................              40            3,080
 maintenance, repair, inspection,
 and testing of safety-critical
 products.
(c)--Documented hardware,          13 railroads................  1 revision..................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 software, and firmware revisions
 in OMM.
236.921 and 923(a)--Railroad       13 railroads................  1 program...................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 Training and Qualification
 Program.
236.923(b)--Training records       13 railroads................  350 records.................  10 minutes..............              58            4,466
 retained in a designated
 location and available to FRA
 upon request.
Form FRA F 6180.165--Quarterly     35 railroads................  11.7 reports/forms..........  23.22 hours.............             271           20,867
 PTC Progress Report (49 U.S.C.
 20157(c)(2)) \54\.
Form FRA F 6180.166--Annual PTC    35 railroads................  11.7 reports/forms..........  40.12 hours.............             468           36,036
 Progress Report (49 U.S.C.
 20157(c)(1) and 49 CFR
 236.1009(a)(5)) \55\.
Form FRA F 6180.177--Statutory     38 railroads................  144 reports/forms...........  1 hour..................             144           11,088
 Notification of PTC System
 Failures (Under 49 U.S.C.
 20157(j)(4)) \56\.
236.1001(b)--A railroad's          38 railroads................  1 rule or instruction.......  40 hours................              40            4,800
 additional or more stringent
 rules than prescribed under 49
 CFR part 236, subpart I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(i)-(ii)--A          The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
 railroad's submission of
 estimated traffic projections
 for the next 5 years, to support
 a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA,
 not to implement a PTC system
 based on reductions in rail
 traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(4)(iii)--A railroad's request  7 Class I railroads.........  1 exception request.........  40 hours................              40            3,080
 for a de minimis exception, in a
 PTCIP or an RFA, based on a
 minimal quantity of PIH
 materials traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(5)--A railroad's request to    The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
 remove a line from its PTCIP
 based on the sale of the line to
 another railroad and any related
 request for FRA review from the
 acquiring railroad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)(1)(i)--A railroad's request    38 railroads................  45 rerouting extension        8 hours.................             360           27,720
 to temporarily reroute trains                                    requests.
 not equipped with a PTC system
 onto PTC-equipped tracks and
 vice versa during certain
 emergencies.
(g)(1)(ii)--A railroad's written   38 railroads................  45 written or telephonic      2 hours.................              90            6,930
 or telephonic notice of the                                      notices.
 conditions necessitating
 emergency rerouting and other
 required information under
 236.1005(i).
(g)(2)--A railroad's temporary     38 railroads................  720 requests................  8 hours.................           5,760          443,520
 rerouting request due to planned
 maintenance not exceeding 30
 days.
(h)(1)--A response to any request  38 railroads................  10 requests.................  2 hours.................              20            1,540
 for additional information from
 FRA, prior to commencing
 rerouting due to planned
 maintenance.
(h)(2)--A railroad's request to    38 railroads................  160 requests................  8 hours.................           1,280           98,560
 temporarily reroute trains due
 to planned maintenance exceeding
 30 days.
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)--A          262 railroads...............  5 reports...................  16 hours................              80            6,160
 progress report due by December
 31, 2020, and by December 31,
 2022, from any Class II or III
 railroad utilizing a temporary
 exception under this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(5)(vii)--A railroad's request  The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 to utilize different yard
 movement procedures, as part of
 a freight yard movements
 exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 82420]]

 
236.1007(b)(1)--For any high-      The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 speed service over 90 miles per
 hour (mph), a railroad's PTC
 Safety Plan (PTCSP) must
 additionally establish that the
 PTC system was designed and will
 be operated to meet the fail-
 safe operation criteria in
 Appendix C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)--An HSR-125 document           38 railroads................  1 HSR-125 document..........  3,200 hours.............           3,200          384,000
 accompanying a host railroad's
 PTCSP, for operations over 125
 mph.
(c)(1)--A railroad's request for   38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  8,000 hours.............           2,667          205,359
 approval to use foreign service
 data, prior to submission of a
 PTCSP.
(d)--A railroad's request in a     38 railroads................  1 request...................  1,000 hours.............           1,000          120,000
 PTCSP that FRA excuse compliance
 with one or more of this
 section's requirements.
236.1009(a)(2)--A PTCIP if a       264 railroads...............  1 PTCIP.....................  535 hours...............             535           64,200
 railroad becomes a host railroad
 of a main line requiring the
 implementation of a PTC system,
 including the information under
 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR
 236.1011.
(a)(3)--Any new PTCIPs jointly     264 railroads...............  1 joint PTCIP...............  267 hours...............             267           32,040
 filed by a host railroad and a
 tenant railroad.
(b)(1)--A host railroad's          264 railroads...............  1 document..................  8 hours.................               8              616
 submission, individually or
 jointly with a tenant railroad
 or PTC system supplier, of an
 unmodified Type Approval.
(b)(2)--A host railroad's          264 railroads...............  1 PTCDP.....................  2,000 hours.............           2,000          154,000
 submission of a PTCDP with the
 information required under 49
 CFR 236.1013, requesting a Type
 Approval for a PTC system that
 either does not have a Type
 Approval or has a Type Approval
 that requires one or more
 variances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--A host railroad's submission  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015.
 of a PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)(3)--Any request for full or    38 railroads................  10 confidentiality requests.  8 hours.................              80            6,160
 partial confidentiality of a
 PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent
 (NPI), PTCDP, or PTCSP.
(h)--Any responses or documents    38 railroads................  36 interviews and documents.  4 hours.................             144           11,088
 submitted in connection with
 FRA's use of its authority to
 monitor, test, and inspect
 processes, procedures,
 facilities, documents, records,
 design and testing materials,
 artifacts, training materials
 and programs, and any other
 information used in the design,
 development, manufacture, test,
 implementation, and operation of
 the PTC system, including
 interviews with railroad
 personnel.
(j)(2)(iii)--Any additional        38 railroads................  1 set of additional           400 hours...............             400           30,800
 information provided in response                                 information.
 to FRA's consultations or
 inquiries about a PTCDP or PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1011(a)-(b)--PTCIP content     The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.
 requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any public comment on         38 railroads................  2 public comments...........  8 hours.................              16            1,232
 PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1013, PTCDP and NPI content    The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.
 requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1015--Any new host railroad's  264 railroads...............  1 PTCSP.....................  8,000 hours.............           8,000          616,000
 PTCSP meeting all content
 requirements under 49 CFR
 236.1015.
(g)--A PTCSP for a PTC system      38 railroads................  0.3 PTCSPs..................  3,200 hours.............           1,067           82,159
 replacing an existing certified
 PTC system.
(h)--A quantitative risk           38 railroads................  0.3 assessments.............  800 hours...............             267           20,559
 assessment, if FRA requires one
 to be submitted.
236.1017(a)--An independent third- 38 railroads................  0.3 assessments.............  1,600 hours.............             533           63,960
 party assessment, if FRA
 requires one to be conducted and
 submitted.
(b)--A railroad's written request  38 railroads................  0.3 written requests........  8 hours.................               3              231
 to confirm whether a specific
 entity qualifies as an
 independent third party.
--Further information provided to  38 railroads................  0.3 sets of additional        20 hours................               7              539
 FRA upon request.                                                information.
(d)--A request not to provide      38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  20 hours................               7              539
 certain documents otherwise
 required under Appendix F for an
 independent, third-party
 assessment.
(e)--A request for FRA to accept   38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  32 hours................              11              847
 information certified by a
 foreign regulatory entity for
 purposes of 49 CFR 236.1017 and/
 or 236.1009(i).
236.1019(b)--A request for a       38 railroads................  1 MTEA......................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 passenger terminal main line
 track exception (MTEA).
(c)(1)--A request for a limited    38 railroads................  1 request and/or plan.......  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 operations exception (based on
 restricted speed, temporal
 separation, or a risk mitigation
 plan).
(c)(2)--A request for a limited    10 railroads................  1 request...................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 operations exception for a non-
 Class I, freight railroad's
 track.
(c)(3)--A request for a limited    7 railroads.................  1 request...................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 operations exception for a Class
 I railroad's track.

[[Page 82421]]

 
(d)--A railroad's collision        38 railroads................  0.3 collision hazard          50 hours................              17            1,309
 hazard analysis in support of an                                 analysis.
 MTEA, if FRA requires one to be
 conducted and submitted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any temporal separation       The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1).
 procedures utilized under the 49
 CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1021(a)-(d)--Any RFA to a      38 railroads................  10 RFAs.....................  160 hours...............           1,600          123,200
 railroad's PTCIP or PTCDP.
(e)--Any public comments, if an    5 interested parties........  10 RFA public comments......  16 hours................             160           12,320
 RFA includes a request for
 approval of a discontinuance or
 material modification of a
 signal or train control system
 and a Federal Register notice is
 published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(l)--Any jointly filed RFA to a    The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)-(d) and (m).
 PTCDP or PTCSP (* Note: This is
 a new proposed paragraph to
 authorize host railroads to file
 joint RFAs in certain cases, but
 such RFAs are already required
 under FRA's existing regulations
 *).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(m)--Any RFA to a railroad's       38 railroads................  15 RFAs.....................  80 hours................           1,200           92,400
 PTCSP (* Note: Revised
 requirement. This is a new
 proposed paragraph with a
 simplified process governing
 RFAs to PTCSPs *).
236.1023(a)--A railroad's PTC      38 railroads................  2 updated lists.............  8 hours.................              16            1,232
 Product Vendor List, which must
 be continually updated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(1)--All contractual            The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 arrangements between a railroad
 and its hardware and software
 suppliers or vendors for certain
 immediate notifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(2)-(3)--A vendor's or          10 vendors or suppliers.....  10 notifications............  8 hours.................              80            6,160
 supplier's notification, upon
 receipt of a report of any
 safety-critical failure of its
 product, to any railroads using
 the product.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)(1)-(2)--A railroad's process   The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 and procedures for taking action
 upon being notified of a safety-
 critical failure or a safety-
 critical upgrade, patch,
 revision, repair, replacement,
 or modification, and a
 railroad's configuration/
 revision control measures, set
 forth in its PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--A railroad's submission, to   38 railroads................  2.5 notifications...........  16 hours................              40            3,080
 the applicable vendor or
 supplier, of the railroad's
 procedures for action upon
 notification of a safety-
 critical failure, upgrade,
 patch, or revision to the PTC
 system and actions to be taken
 until it is adjusted, repaired,
 or replaced.
(e)--A railroad's database of all  38 railroads................  38 database updates.........  16 hours................             608           46,816
 safety-relevant hazards, which
 must be maintained after the PTC
 system is placed in service.
(e)(1)--A railroad's notification  38 railroads................  8 notifications.............  8 hours.................              64            4,928
 to the vendor or supplier and
 FRA if the frequency of a safety-
 relevant hazard exceeds the
 threshold set forth in the PTCDP
 and PTCSP, and about the
 failure, malfunction, or
 defective condition that
 decreased or eliminated the
 safety functionality.
(e)(2)--Continual updates about    38 railroads................  1 update....................  8 hours.................               8              616
 any and all subsequent failures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f)--Any notifications that must   The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h).
 be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR
 236.1023.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)--A railroad's and vendor's or  38 railroads................  0.5 reports.................  40 hours................              20            1,540
 supplier's report, upon FRA
 request, about an investigation
 of an accident or service
 difficulty due to a
 manufacturing or design defect
 and their corrective actions.
(h)--A PTC system vendor's or      10 vendors or suppliers.....  20 reports..................  8 hours.................             160           12,320
 supplier's reports of any safety-
 relevant failures, defective
 conditions, previously
 unidentified hazards,
 recommended mitigation actions,
 and any affected railroads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k)--A report of a failure of a    The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233.
 PTC system resulting in a more
 favorable aspect than intended
 or other condition hazardous to
 the movement of a train,
 including the reports required
 under part 233.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1029(b)(4)--A report of an en  150 host and tenant           1,000 reports...............  30 minutes..............             500           38,500
 route failure, other failure, or   railroads.
 cut out to a designated railroad
 officer of the host railroad.
(h)--Form FRA F 6180.152--         38 railroads................  76 reports..................  12 hours................             912           70,224
 Biannual Report of PTC System
 Performance (*Revised
 requirement and new form*).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 82422]]

 
236.1033--Communications and       The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
 security requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1035(a)-(b)--A railroad's      38 railroads................  10 requests.................  40 hours................             400           30,800
 request for authorization to
 field test an uncertified PTC
 system and any responses to
 FRA's testing conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1037(a)(1)-(2)--Records        The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
 retention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(3)-(4)--Records retention....  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)--Results of inspections and    38 railroads................  800 records.................  1 hour..................             800           61,600
 tests specified in a railroad's
 PTCSP and PTCDP.
(c)--A contractor's records        20 contractors..............  1,600 records...............  10 minutes..............             267           20,559
 related to the testing,
 maintenance, or operation of a
 PTC system maintained at a
 designated office.
(d)(3)--A railroad's final report  38 railroads................  8 final reports.............  160 hours...............           1,280           98,560
 of the results of the analysis
 and countermeasures taken to
 reduce the frequency of safety-
 related hazards below the
 threshold set forth in the PTCSP.
236.1039(a)-(c), (e)--A            38 railroads................  2 OMM updates...............  10 hours................              20            1,540
 railroad's PTC Operations and
 Maintenance Manual (OMM), which
 must be maintained and available
 to FRA upon request.
(d)--A railroad's identification   38 railroads................  1 identified new component..  1 hour..................               1               77
 of a PTC system's safety-
 critical components, including
 spare equipment.
236.1041(a)-(b) and 236.1043(a)--  38 railroads................  2 programs..................  10 hours................              20            1,540
 A railroad's PTC Training and
 Qualification Program (i.e., a
 written plan).
236.1043(b)--Training records      150 host and tenant           150 PTC training record       1 hour..................             150           11,550
 retained in a designated           railroads.                    databases.
 location and available to FRA
 upon request.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  N/A.........................  4,567,923 responses.........  N/A.....................          49,116        4,107,626
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan 
Wells, Information Clearance Officer, at 202-493-0440 or via email at 
[email protected].

D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' requires FRA to develop an 
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations having ``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.'' Id. 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 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 analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined this 
proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States 
or their political subdivisions; on the relationship between the 
Federal government and the States or their political subdivisions; or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. In addition, FRA has determined this proposed 
rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and 
local governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements 
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    This proposed rule could have preemptive effect by the operation of 
law under a provision of the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 
1970, repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106 
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 ``essentially local safety or security hazard'' 
exception to section 20106.
    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 under Federal railroad safety statutes, specifically 49 U.S.C. 
20106. Accordingly, FRA has determined that preparation of a federalism 
summary impact statement for this proposed rule is not required.

[[Page 82423]]

E. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. This proposed rule is purely domestic in nature and is not 
expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business 
overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

F. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed rule consistent with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council 
of Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 
parts 1500-1508, and FRA's NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 
771, and determined that it is categorically excluded from 
environmental review and therefore does not require the preparation of 
an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement 
(EIS). Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an 
agency's NEPA implementing regulations that do not normally have a 
significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require 
either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 1508.4. Specifically, FRA has 
determined that this proposed rule is categorically excluded from 
detailed environmental review pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15), 
``Promulgation of rules, the issuance of policy statements, the waiver 
or modification of existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary 
approvals that do not result in significantly increased emissions of 
air or water pollutants or noise.''
    This proposed rule does not directly or indirectly impact any 
environmental resources and would not result in significantly increased 
emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the proposed 
rule is likely to result in safety benefits. In analyzing the 
applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual 
circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed 
environmental review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that no 
such unusual circumstances exist with respect to this proposed rule and 
the proposal meets the requirements for categorical exclusion under 23 
CFR 771.116(c)(15).
    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking 
has no potential to affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA 
has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project 
resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See 
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-670, 
80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' and DOT 
Order 5610.2B, dated November 18, 2020, require DOT agencies to 
consider environmental justice principles by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT 
Order instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order 
12898, Executive Order 13771, and requirements within the DOT Order in 
rulemaking activities, as appropriate. FRA has evaluated this proposed 
rule and has determined it would not cause disproportionately high and 
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations 
or low-income populations.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on 
State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other 
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements 
specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general notice of 
proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any 
rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the 
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually 
for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule 
for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the 
agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the effect on 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This 
proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of 
$100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

I. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' requires 
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any 
``significant energy action.'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has 
evaluated this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 and determined 
that this proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' within 
the meaning of Executive Order 13211.
    Executive Order 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic 
Growth,'' requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine 
whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically 
produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural 
gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. 82 FR 16093 (Mar. 31, 2017). 
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule under Executive Order 13783 and 
determined that this rule would not burden the development or use of 
domestically produced energy resources.

J. Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and 
response, DOT encourages commenters to provide their name, or the name 
of their organization; however, submission of names is completely 
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely 
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments 
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the 
agency for alternate submission instructions.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236

    Penalties, Positive train control, Railroad safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 236, as follows:

[[Page 82424]]

PART 236--RULES, STANDARDS, AND INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE 
INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF SIGNAL AND 
TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND APPLIANCES

0
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, 20501-20505, 20701-20703, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 
U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
0
2. Amend Sec.  236.1003 in paragraph (b) by adding the definitions of 
``Cut out'', ``Initialization failure'', and ``Malfunction'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  236.1003   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Cut out means any disabling of a PTC system, subsystem, or 
component en route, including when the PTC system cuts out on its own 
or a person cuts out the system, unless the cut out was necessary to 
exit PTC-governed territory and enter non-PTC territory.
* * * * *
    Initialization failure means any instance when a PTC system fails 
to activate on a locomotive or train, unless the PTC system 
successfully activates during a subsequent attempt in the same location 
or before entering PTC-governed territory. For the types of PTC systems 
that do not initialize by design, a failed departure test is considered 
an initialization failure for purposes of the reporting requirement 
under Sec.  236.1029(h), unless the PTC system successfully passes the 
departure test during a subsequent attempt in the same location or 
before entering PTC-governed territory.
* * * * *
    Malfunction means any instance when a PTC system, subsystem, or 
component fails to perform the functions mandated under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the applicable host railroad's PTCSP.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  236.1021 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) introductory text, and (d)(4);
0
b. Removing paragraph (d)(7); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (l) and (m).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  236.1021  Discontinuances, material modifications, and 
amendments.

    (a) No changes, as defined by this section, to a PTCIP or PTCDP may 
be made unless:
    (1) The railroad files a request for amendment (RFA) to the 
applicable PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator; and
    (2) The Associate Administrator approves the RFA.
* * * * *
    (c) In lieu of a separate filing under part 235 of this chapter, a 
railroad may request approval of a discontinuance or material 
modification of a signal or train control system by filing an RFA to 
its PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator.
    (d) FRA will not approve an RFA to a PTCIP or PTCDP unless the 
request includes:
* * * * *
    (4) The changes to the PTCIP or PTCDP, as applicable;
* * * * *
    (l) Any RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP pursuant to this section may be 
submitted jointly with other host railroads utilizing the same type of 
PTC system. However, only host railroads with the same PTC System 
Certification classification under Sec.  236.1015(e) may jointly file 
an RFA to their PTCSPs. Any joint RFA to multiple host railroads' 
PTCSPs must include the information required under paragraph (m) of 
this section. The joint RFA must also include the written confirmation 
and statement specified under paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this 
section from each host railroad jointly filing the RFA.
    (m) No changes, as specified under paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this 
section, may be made to an FRA-certified PTC system or an FRA-approved 
PTCSP unless the host railroad first complies with the following 
process:
    (1) The host railroad revises its PTCSP to account for each 
proposed change to its PTC system and summarizes such changes in a 
chronological table of revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP;
    (2) The host railroad electronically submits the following 
information in an RFA to the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad 
Systems, Technology, and Automation:
    (i) A summary of the proposed changes to any safety-critical 
elements of a PTC system, including a summary of how the changes to the 
PTC system would affect its safety-critical functionality, how any new 
hazards have been addressed and mitigated, whether each change is a 
planned change that was previously included in all required analysis 
under Sec.  236.1015 or an unplanned change, and the reason for the 
proposed changes, including whether the changes are necessary to 
address or resolve an emergency or urgent issue;
    (ii) Any associated software release notes;
    (iii) A confirmation that the host railroad has notified any 
applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes, any associated 
effect on the tenant railroads' operations, and any actions the tenant 
railroads must take in accordance with the configuration control 
measures set forth in the host railroad's PTCSP;
    (iv) A statement from the host railroad's Chief Engineer and Chief 
Operating Officer, or executive officers of similar qualifications, 
verifying that the modified PTC system would meet all technical 
requirements under this subpart, provide an equivalent or greater level 
of safety than the existing PTC system, and not adversely impact 
interoperability with any tenant railroads; and
    (v) Any other information that FRA requests; and
    (3) A host railroad shall not make any changes, as specified under 
paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, to its PTC system until the 
Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and 
Automation approves the RFA.
    (i) FRA will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the RFA 
within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under paragraph 
(m)(2) of this section.
    (ii) FRA reserves the right to notify a railroad that changes may 
proceed prior to the 45-day mark, including in an emergency or under 
other circumstances necessitating a railroad's immediate implementation 
of the proposed changes to its PTC system.
    (iii) FRA may require a railroad to modify its RFA or its PTC 
system to the extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the 
requirements of this part.
    (iv) Following any FRA denial of an RFA, each applicable railroad 
is prohibited from making the proposed changes to its PTC system until 
the railroad both sufficiently addresses FRA's questions, comments, and 
concerns and obtains FRA's approval. Consistent with paragraph (l) of 
this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system, 
including the same certification classification under Sec.  
236.1015(e), may jointly submit information to address FRA's questions, 
comments, and concerns following any denial of an RFA under this 
section.
0
4. Amend Sec.  236.1029 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  236.1029   PTC system use and failures.

* * * * *
    (h) Biannual Report of PTC System Performance. (1) Each host 
railroad

[[Page 82425]]

subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or this subpart shall electronically submit 
a Biannual Report of PTC System Performance on Form FRA F 6180.152, 
containing the following information for the applicable reporting 
period, separated by the host railroad, each applicable tenant 
railroad, and each PTC-governed track segment (e.g., territory, 
subdivision, district, main line, branch, or corridor), consistent with 
the railroad's PTC Implementation Plan:
    (i) The total number of PTC system initialization failures, and 
subtotals identifying the number of initialization failures where the 
source or cause was the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, 
communications subsystem, back office subsystem, or a non-PTC 
component;
    (ii) The total number of PTC system cut outs, and subtotals 
identifying the number of cut outs where the source or cause was the 
onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, back 
office subsystem, or a non-PTC component;
    (iii) The total number of PTC system malfunctions, and subtotals 
identifying the number of malfunctions where the source or cause was 
the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, 
back office subsystem, or a non-PTC component;
    (iv) The number of intended enforcements by the PTC system and any 
other instances in which the PTC system prevented an accident or 
incident;
    (v) The number of scheduled attempts at initialization of the PTC 
system;
    (vi) The number of trains governed by the PTC system; and
    (vii) The number of train miles governed by the PTC system.
    (2) A host railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance 
(Form FRA F 6180.152) shall also include a summary of any actions the 
host railroad and its tenant railroads are continually taking to 
improve the performance and reliability of the PTC system.
    (3) Each host railroad shall electronically submit a Biannual 
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA by the 
following due dates: July 31 (covering the period from January 1 to 
June 30), and January 31 (covering the period from July 1 to December 
31 of the prior calendar year).
    (4) Each tenant railroad that operates on a host railroad's PTC-
governed main line(s), unless the tenant railroad is currently subject 
to an exception under Sec.  236.1006(b)(4) or (5), shall submit the 
information required under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section to 
each applicable host railroad by July 15 (for the report covering the 
period from January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for the report 
covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar 
year).

    Issued in Washington, DC
Quintin C. Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27097 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.