Positive Train Control Systems, 85462-85487 [2024-24559]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
85462
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
proposed regulations to make phenethyl
bromide a list I chemical under the CSA
would have on industry.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Handling of Confidential or Proprietary
Information
49 CFR Part 236
Confidential or proprietary
information may be submitted as part of
a comment regarding this advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking. Please
see the ‘‘POSTING OF PUBLIC
COMMENTS’’ section above for a
discussion of the identification and
redaction of confidential business
information and personally identifying
information.
Regulatory Analyses
This ANPRM was developed in
accordance with the principles of
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ and E.O. 14094,
‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review.’’
Because this action is an ANPRM, the
requirement of E.O. 12866 to assess the
costs and benefits of this action does not
apply.
Furthermore, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply
to this action because, at this stage, it is
an ANPRM and not a ‘‘rule’’ as defined
in 5 U.S.C. 601. Following review of the
comments received in response to this
ANPRM, if DEA proceeds with a notice
of proposed rulemaking regarding this
matter, DEA will conduct all relevant
analyses as required by statute or E.O.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on October 10, 2024, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
DEA. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024–24616 Filed 10–25–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
Federal Railroad Administration
[Docket No. FRA–2023–0064]
RIN 2130–AC95
Positive Train Control Systems
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
FRA is proposing to amend
certain regulations governing positive
train control (PTC) systems. Since
December 31, 2020, by law, PTC
systems have generally governed rail
operations on PTC-mandated main
lines, which encompass nearly 59,000
route miles today. Through FRA’s
oversight and continued engagement
with the industry, FRA has found that
its existing PTC regulations do not
adequately address temporary situations
during which PTC technology is not
enabled, including after certain
initialization failures or in cases where
a PTC system needs to be temporarily
disabled to facilitate repair,
maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or
capital projects. FRA expects PTC
systems to be reliable and robust,
further reducing the occurrence of
initialization failures and outages. This
NPRM proposes to establish strict
parameters and operating restrictions
under which railroads may continue to
operate safely in certain necessary
scenarios when PTC technology is
temporarily not governing rail
operations. The purpose of this NPRM
is to enable continued, safe operations
and improve rail safety by facilitating
prompt repairs, upgrades, and
restoration of PTC system service.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by December 27, 2024. 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:
Comments: Comments related to
Docket No. FRA–2023–0064 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–2023–0064), and
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (2130–AC95). All
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, Staff Director, Signal, Train
Control, and Crossings Division,
telephone: 816–516–7168, email:
Gabe.Neal@dot.gov; or Stephanie
Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone:
202–834–0609, email:
Stephanie.Anderson@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC
Regulations
B. Public Participation Prior to the
Issuance of the NPRM
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by
Executive Order 14094
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
F. Environmental Impact
G. Environmental Justice
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Energy Impact
J. Privacy Act Statement
K. Tribal Consultation
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4)
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 FRAcertified PTC system on: (1) its main
lines over which poison- or toxic-byinhalation 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
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
Currently, 37 host railroads 3—
including 7 Class I railroads,4 24 entities
that provide regularly scheduled
intercity or commuter rail passenger
transportation (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘intercity passenger railroads or
commuter railroads,’’ respectively), and
6 Class II or III, short line, or terminal
railroads—are directly subject to the
statutory mandate. On December 29,
2020, FRA announced that railroads had
fully implemented FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC systems on all PTCmandated main lines.5 49 U.S.C.
20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(7).
Today, PTC technology is governing
rail operations on nearly 59,000 route
miles. Based on FRA’s oversight of PTC
technology since FRA last amended its
PTC regulations in 2021, FRA identified
three aspects of its existing PTC
regulations that warrant revision to
address ongoing challenges. Overall, the
proposed amendments would benefit
the railroad industry, the public, and
FRA by facilitating repairs,
maintenance, upgrades, and capital
improvements; expanding certain
railroad informational requirements;
reducing costs; and enabling the safe,
1 See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public
Law 110–432, section 104, 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 (Oct. 29, 2015);
the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act,
Public Law 114–94, section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312
(Dec. 4, 2015); and the Passenger Rail Expansion
and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law 117–58,
section 22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 2021),
codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also
49 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 As this proposed rule primarily focuses on host
railroads, FRA references the current number of
PTC-mandated host railroads (37). 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).
4 FRA acknowledges that one Class I railroad
(Canadian Pacific Railway) recently acquired a
second Class I railroad (Kansas City Southern
Railway). However, for purposes of FRA’s PTC
regulations and related oversight, FRA is currently
counting these railroads separately, as they
presently submit separate PTC filings and have
indicated they will do so unless and until they fully
integrate their PTC systems.
5 Federal Railroad Administration, FRA
Announces Landmark Achievement with Full
Implementation of Positive Train Control (Dec. 29,
2020), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/
fra.dot.gov/files/2020-12/fra1920.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
reliable, and resilient movement of
people and goods, while preserving rail
safety.
This NPRM proposes to establish
strict parameters and operating
restrictions under which railroads may
continue to operate safely in three
specific scenarios when PTC technology
is temporarily not governing rail
operations:
1. When non-revenue passenger
equipment needs to operate to a
maintenance facility or yard, for the sole
purpose of repairing or exchanging PTC
technology;
2. When a PTC system needs to be
temporarily disabled to facilitate repair,
maintenance, an infrastructure upgrade,
or a capital project; and
3. When a system-level or widescale
problem occurs resulting in multiple
trains’ PTC systems failing to initialize.
FRA’s objective in this rulemaking is
to establish clear, uniform processes,
rather than addressing issues that arise
in a reactive and piecemeal manner.
FRA expects that establishing
predictable, prescriptive processes will
both enable continued operations and
improve railroad safety by facilitating
prompt repairs, upgrades, and
restoration of PTC system service and
eliminating uncertainty and
inconsistent application of FRA’s
regulations. FRA’s proposed parameters
and operating restrictions in this NPRM
are intended to be sufficiently strict to
ensure that railroads and PTC system
suppliers and vendors proactively
identify and remedy problems before
they arise and immediately correct any
problems that may surface despite
proactive measures.
First, FRA is proposing to establish an
exception, under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6),
to permit, under certain conditions,
non-revenue passenger equipment to
operate to maintenance facilities or
yards, without being governed by PTC
technology. This NPRM proposes to
extend the exception currently afforded
to certain freight movements to
movements of non-revenue passenger
equipment, including equipment that is
owned or controlled by an intercity
passenger railroad or commuter
railroad.
This proposed exception would
enable non-revenue passenger
equipment, including a locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train without
passengers onboard, to operate to a
maintenance facility or yard for the sole
purpose of repairing or exchanging 6 a
6 FRA’s existing regulations, including 49 CFR
236.1029(b)(6), refer to repairing or exchanging a
PTC system or component. To clarify, FRA notes
that ‘‘exchange’’ is intended to refer to the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85463
PTC system or component. Commuter
railroads have informed FRA this
proposed exception would be beneficial
and necessary, as it would enable them,
for example, to operate a PTC-equipped
locomotive, where the onboard PTC
technology is not functioning and
requires repair, to a maintenance facility
or yard to repair or exchange the PTC
system. To ensure rail safety, FRA is
proposing to impose six conditions on
each movement of non-revenue
passenger equipment subject to this
exception, including speed and distance
restrictions, the requirement to establish
an absolute block (meaning no other
traffic may be present in the area), and
other protections of the route.
Second, FRA proposes to improve the
existing process, under 49 CFR
236.1021(m), that railroads currently
utilize to request and obtain FRA’s
approval to disable their PTC systems
temporarily when necessary to facilitate
repair, maintenance, infrastructure
upgrades, and capital projects. This
NPRM proposes to add paragraph (m)(4)
to existing § 236.1021 to focus on this
specific type of request for amendment
(RFA) to PTC systems (i.e., where a
temporary PTC system outage is
proposed), as it is different from the
other types of RFAs that railroads
submit under § 236.1021 and requires
additional FRA oversight.
FRA proposes to require railroads to
provide additional, essential
information in an RFA that seeks to
temporarily disable a PTC system to
enable FRA to evaluate more fully the
scope, circumstances, and necessity of a
proposed temporary outage and
properly determine whether granting
the request is in the public interest and
consistent with railroad safety. For
example, this NPRM proposes to impose
nine additional content requirements for
this specific type of RFA, including
certain justifications, safety analyses,
mitigations, and other documentation to
demonstrate the proposed outage is as
narrow in scope, impact, and duration,
as possible.
Third, FRA proposes to reintroduce as
a permanent provision a version of a
temporary provision regarding PTC
system initialization failures, which
expired on December 31, 2022.7 The
expired regulatory provision previously
permitted any train, including an
individual train, to keep operating
subject to certain restrictions, if the train
failed to initialize for any reason prior
to the train’s departure from its initial
terminal. In FRA’s 2014 final rule, FRA
industry’s practice of, for example, swapping out a
defective component for a functioning component.
7 See 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(2).
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85464
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
authorized this provision temporarily,
recognizing that ‘‘there may be issues
that could be identified and resolved in
the early days following PTC system
implementation and revenue service
operation.’’ 8 In 2014, FRA also observed
that ‘‘[e]xperience over these
intervening years will provide more
empirical data on PTC system
reliability, and may be a basis for FRA
to revisit this issue at a later date should
circumstances warrant.’’ 9
FRA’s intention in this NPRM, by
proposing to reintroduce an updated
version of this provision, is to address
only system-level outages or failures
that result in multiple trains’ PTC
systems failing to initialize, impacting
the trains of the host railroad and often
most, if not all, of its tenant railroads.
Currently, if a PTC system fails to
initialize, trains are generally prohibited
from operating, which has resulted in
situations where passengers could be
stranded, and vital freight shipments
halted.
Although PTC technology is generally
reliable and robust, it is a complex
technology, composed of many
subsystems and dependent on external
networks, and it continues to experience
unplanned outages. For example,
railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC
System Performance 10 show that PTC
technology failed to initialize on
approximately 236 intercity passenger
or commuter trains and 894 freight
trains in 2023.11 Additionally, based on
voluntary reporting by railroads, FRA is
aware of eight (8) system-level outages
that occurred in 2023 that caused
multiple trains to fail to initialize.
FRA is proposing to impose two tiers
of operating restrictions that would
become increasingly restrictive as time
passes, to ensure both that railroads
utilize any operating flexibility only
when necessary and that railroads and
their vendors and suppliers identify and
resolve issues promptly. FRA expects
this will help strike the appropriate
balance between enabling continued
operations subject to speed restrictions,
pending resolution of a PTC failure, and
restoring PTC systems as quickly as
possible. In short, if a PTC system fails
to initialize, impacting multiple trains,
FRA proposes to permit railroads to
continue operating for 24 hours, subject
to the operating restrictions, including
speed limits, that previously applied to
initialization failures and that currently
apply to en route failures.12 After the
first 24 hours, FRA proposes to impose
a significant speed limit of restricted
speed, among other restrictions, both to
help ensure rail safety and to propel the
industry to act quickly to restore PTC
system service.
FRA analyzed the economic impact of
this proposed rule over a 10-year period
and estimated its benefits and costs,
which are shown in the table below.
The total estimated 10-year net benefits
would be $81.8 million (discounted at 2
percent), and the annualized net
benefits would be $9.1 million
(discounted at 2 percent). The industry
benefits associated with FRA’s proposal
to amend three provisions—i.e., to
introduce a new exception for certain
non-revenue passenger equipment
movements, improve the RFA process
regarding temporary PTC system
outages, and permit continued
operations following certain
initialization failures, subject to
operating restrictions—would outweigh
the industry costs and government
administrative costs associated with
FRA’s proposal to expand the content
requirements for RFAs related to
temporary outages.
TABLE A—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS
[2023 Dollars] 1
Present
value 2%
($)
Present
value 3%
($)
Present
value 7%
($)
Industry Benefits ........................................................
Total Costs .................................................................
Industry Costs ............................................................
Government Administrative Costs .............................
83,534,444
1,760,775
1,514,075
246,700
80,105,191
1,688,492
1,451,919
236,573
68,518,285
1,444,258
1,241,905
202,353
9,299,600
196,021
168,557
27,464
9,390,772
197,943
170,209
27,734
9,755,462
205,630
176,819
28,811
Net Benefits 2 ......................................................
81,773,669
78,416,699
67,074,027
9,103,579
9,192,829
9,549,832
Category
Annualized
2%
($)
Annualized
3%
($)
Annualized
7%
($)
1 Numbers
in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and benefits are calculated in this
analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present
value at the particular discount rate is: 1/(1+r)t, where ‘‘r’’ is the discount rate, and ‘‘t’’ is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used in
this analysis.
2 Net Benefits = Industry Benefits ¥ (Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and operating PTC systems.
II. Background
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
8 79
FR 49693, 49706 (Aug. 22, 2014).
9 Id.
10 Form FRA F 6180.152, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2130–0553; 49
U.S.C. 20157(m) (as amended by the Passenger Rail
Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law
117–58, section 22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15,
2021)).
11 The referenced initialization failures exclude
any initialization failures where the source or cause
was the onboard subsystem, as proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
necessary to implement the statutory
mandate, including regulations
specifying the essential technical
functionalities of PTC systems and how
FRA certifies PTC systems.13 The
Secretary delegated to the Administrator
of the Federal Railroad Administration
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),
§ 236.1029(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures
from receiving the flexibility afforded under
proposed § 236.1029(g), as they typically impact
one train. FRA is citing to the relevant initialization
failures where the source or cause was, for example,
the back office, wayside, or communications
subsystems because those types of issues would
generally impact more than one train and would be
within the scope of this proposed provision.
12 An en route failure is a situation where a
controlling locomotive experiences a ‘‘PTC system
failure or the PTC system is otherwise cut out while
en route (i.e., after the train has departed its initial
terminal).’’ 49 CFR 236.1029(b) (emphasis added).
FRA’s current regulations provide that when an en
route failure occurs, a train may continue operating
in accordance with certain restrictions, including
speed limits that are based on the underlying signal
or train control system still in effect, outlined under
49 CFR 236.1029(b)(1) through (6).
13 Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16,
2008), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
FRA published its first final PTC rule on
January 15, 2010, which is set forth, as
amended, under 49 CFR part 236,
subpart I.14 FRA’s PTC regulations
under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I,
prescribe ‘‘minimum, performancebased 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 published in
2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2021.15
Most recently, on July 27, 2021, FRA
amended its PTC regulations to improve
the process by which railroads submit,
and FRA reviews, RFAs to railroads’
FRA-certified PTC systems and their
associated PTC Safety Plans (PTCSPs),
and to establish more robust reporting
requirements to enable FRA to oversee
the reliability and performance of
railroads’ PTC systems effectively. Also,
in January 2023, FRA announced that it
issued a guidance document addressing
requirements related to the submission
of requests for waivers, applications to
modify or discontinue a signal system,
and other special approval requests to
FRA, and FRA underscored the
importance of ensuring that railroads’
filings contain sufficient, nonconfidential information for the public
to review and on which to comment.16
In this proposed rule, FRA proposes
to revise three sections, 49 CFR
236.1006, 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
FRA regularly engages with host
railroads, tenant railroads, PTC system
vendors and suppliers, industry
associations, and labor organizations, as
part of FRA’s oversight of railroads’
14 75
FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010).
75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285
(May 14, 2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81
FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016); and 86 FR 40154 (July
27, 2021).
16 88 FR 1448 (Jan. 10, 2023); Federal Railroad
Administration, Guidance on Submitting Requests
for Waivers, Block Signal Applications, and Other
Approval Requests to FRA (Dec. 2022), available at
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/
2022-12/Guidance%20on%20Submitting%20
Waiver%20Special%20Approval%20Other%20
Requests%20for%20Approval%20
to%20FRA%20%28Dec%202022%29%20final.pdf.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
15 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
operation 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 5.5.
From November 2023 to February
2024, FRA met with the following four
industry associations and their member
railroads to discuss the objectives of this
NPRM and solicit their feedback: the
American Public Transportation
Association (APTA), the American
Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association (ASLRRA), the Association
of American Railroads (AAR), and the
Commuter Rail Coalition (CRC).
Representatives from the following 35
Class I railroads, commuter and
passenger railroads, and short line and
regional railroads, listed alphabetically,
attended one or more of the AAR,
APTA,17 ASLRRA, and CRC meetings
referenced immediately above: Alaska
Railroad; Altamont Corridor Express;
BNSF Railway (BNSF); Canadian
National Railway (CN); Canadian Pacific
Kansas City Limited (CPKC); Capital
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(CMTY); Central Florida Rail Corridor
(CFRC); CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX);
Denton County Transportation
Authority; Genesee & Wyoming Inc.
(G&W); Long Island Rail Road (LIRR);
Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC);
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA); Metro-North
Railroad (Metro-North); National
Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak); New Jersey Transit (NJT);
New Mexico Rail Runner Express;
Norfolk Southern Railway (NS); North
County Transit District (NCTD);
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter
Railroad Corporation (Metra); Northern
Indiana Commuter Transportation
District (NICD); Northstar Commuter
Rail; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board (Caltrain); Regional
Transportation District (Denver RTDC);
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART); Sound Transit; South Florida
Regional Transportation Authority
(SFRTA); Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA);
Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (Metrolink); TEXRail; TriCounty Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon (TriMet); Trinity
Railway Express (TRE); Union Pacific
Railroad (UP); Utah Transit Authority
17 In addition to FRA’s meeting with APTA, FRA
met with the following two user groups in February
2024, as coordinated through APTA: the Enhanced
Automatic Train Control (E–ATC) User Group and
the Interoperable Electronic Train Management
System (I–ETMS) User Group.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85465
(UTA FrontRunner); and Virginia
Railway Express (VRE).
In addition, for the same purpose,
FRA met with the following 10 labor
organizations in February 2024: the
American Train Dispatchers Association
(ATDA); the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of
the Rail Conference of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET); the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employes Division of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED);
the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(BRS); the Brotherhood of Railway
Carmen Division, Transportation
Communications International Union
(BRC); the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers
(IAM); the International Association of
Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and
Transportation Workers—
Transportation Division (SMART–TD);
the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW); the
Transport Workers Union of America
(TWU); and the Transportation Trades
Department, AFL–CIO (TTD).
In general, the four industry
associations and 35 railroads strongly
supported the three objectives of this
NPRM. The labor organizations FRA
met with supported FRA’s objective of
enabling operations while maintaining
rail safety, but they expressed concern
that regulatory flexibility might have the
unintended consequence of degrading
safety or delaying repairs to PTC
technology. Accordingly, with all
feedback in mind, FRA drafted its
proposed requirements and restrictions
in 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6),
236.1021(m)(4), and 236.1029(g) to
prioritize rail safety, address limited
circumstances for facilitating repairs,
maintenance, and infrastructure
upgrades, and enable the safe, reliable,
and resilient movement of passengers,
commuters, and freight.
As the detailed feedback the
associations, railroads, and labor
organizations provided during the
meetings was directed at a specific
proposal in this NPRM, FRA discusses
the feedback in the appropriate portions
of Section III (Section-by-Section
Analysis) of this NPRM.
The proposals in this NPRM are based
on FRA’s own review and analysis and,
in part, on the feedback provided during
the meetings in 2023 and 2024,
specified above. FRA seeks comments
on all proposals made in this NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85466
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 236.1006 Equipping
Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory
Existing paragraph (b) in § 236.1006
contains a list of exceptions to the
general requirement under paragraph (a)
that each locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train that operates on any
PTC-governed track segment ‘‘be
controlled by a locomotive equipped
with an onboard PTC apparatus that is
fully operative and functioning in
accordance with the applicable PTCSP
approved under this subpart.’’ 49 CFR
236.1006(a), (b)(1) through (5).
FRA proposes to add a new exception,
under proposed paragraph (b)(6), to
permit non-revenue passenger
equipment to operate to maintenance
facilities or yards, without being
governed by PTC technology, under
certain conditions. Currently, a similar
exception is available only to freight
railroads under existing paragraph (b)(5)
of this section. The purpose of new
proposed paragraph (b)(6) is to extend
that type of exception to movements of
certain non-revenue passenger
equipment, which would include
equipment owned or controlled by an
intercity passenger railroad or
commuter railroad.
The sole purpose of new proposed
paragraph (b)(6) is to enable nonrevenue passenger equipment, including
a locomotive, locomotive consist, or
train, to operate to a maintenance
facility or yard for the purpose of
repairing or exchanging a PTC system.
During FRA’s APTA and CRC meetings
in February 2024, several commuter
railroads, including CMTY, MARC,
Metro-North, NICD, and NJT,
commented that this proposed
exception would be beneficial and
necessary, as it would enable them, for
example, to operate a PTC-equipped
locomotive, where the onboard PTC
technology is not functioning and
requires repair, to a maintenance facility
or yard to repair or exchange the PTC
system or component. Without this
proposed provision, intercity passenger
railroads and commuter railroads would
need to utilize rescue trains or, in other
words, use an operative, PTC-equipped
locomotive, locomotive consist, or train
to move the non-operative, PTCequipped equipment to a maintenance
facility or yard. This proposed provision
will enable a railroad to repair the
equipment more efficiently, thus
helping improve rail safety.
During FRA’s meetings in February
2024, commuter railroads cited often
experiencing issues with transporting
equipment requiring repair to their
maintenance facilities, including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
unavailability of equipment and
cascading schedule delays, and they
supported this proposed exception,
even though it would potentially
constrain some operations. For example,
the introductory text of proposed
paragraph (b)(6) makes it clear that this
proposed exception would apply only to
non-revenue movements, meaning no
intercity passenger or commuter rail
service could be provided while moving
this equipment not governed by a PTC
system.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through
(v) and (vii) outline the six additional
conditions FRA proposes an intercity
passenger railroad or commuter railroad
must satisfy while utilizing this
proposed exception. First, proposed
paragraph (b)(6)(i) would limit the
speed of the locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train to a maximum of 49
miles per hour (mph), which is
significantly slower than the normal
maximum authorized speed for
passenger equipment, which generally
ranges between 79 mph and 150 mph.
Second, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(ii)
would require an absolute block 18 to be
established in front of the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train. This would
help ensure safety by essentially
eliminating the possibility of a train-totrain collision. During FRA’s February
2024 meetings, CMTY, SMART, and
UTA FrontRunner commented that they
currently use absolute blocks in similar
circumstances and supported the
proposal of this condition.
Third, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iii)
specifies that there cannot be any
working limits established under part
214 of this chapter on any part of the
route. FRA proposes to eliminate the
risk of an incursion into an established
work zone by not permitting work zones
or any roadway workers at all on the
route the non-revenue passenger
equipment uses to reach the
maintenance facility or yard to repair or
exchange its PTC technology. To be
clear, roadway workers may not perform
any work on the route where the nonrevenue passenger equipment operates
subject to this proposed exception, until
after the equipment arrives at its
destination, the maintenance facility or
yard.
Fourth, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iv)
specifies that the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train could
operate in non-revenue service no
farther than the next forward location
designated in the railroad’s PTCSP for
18 Under
49 CFR 236.709, an absolute block is
defined as a ‘‘block in which no train is permitted
to enter while it is occupied by another train.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the repair or exchange 19 of PTC
technology. During FRA’s meeting with
labor organizations in February 2024,
BLET and BRS commented that they
were concerned a railroad might utilize
this proposed exception to avoid
repairing the PTC system or to delay
repairing the PTC system by operating
the equipment to a more distant repair
location than available.
Relatedly, during a meeting in
February 2024, NICD observed that the
structure of commuter rail operations
would inherently prevent railroads from
overusing any exception or provision
that involves speed restrictions because
of the negative impact that has on their
operations. For example, even a single
train operating at a slower speed can
create scheduling issues and cascading
delays for commuter trains. In addition,
FRA expects that its proposed
conditions, including the imposition of
a speed restriction, the prohibition
against work zones, and an absolute
block requirement, would prevent
overuse of this exception. Also, FRA
crafted proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iv)
with BLET and BRS’s comments in
mind, and this proposed condition
would explicitly prohibit the nonrevenue passenger equipment from
operating farther than the next forward
designated location in the railroad’s
FRA-approved PTCSP.
Fifth, similar to a condition in the
existing freight version of this exception
in paragraph (b)(5) of this section,
proposed (b)(6)(v) would require the
railroad to protect the route against
conflicting operations and establish and
comply with sufficient operating rules
to protect against a train-to-train
collision and the movement of a train
through a switch left in the wrong or
improper position. This condition
would further reduce the possibility of
a train-to-train collision as it would
address traffic on intersecting tracks.
Furthermore, to protect against the
movement of a train through a switch
left in the wrong or improper position,
a railroad’s operating rules could, for
example, explain that the railroad
utilizes a system or technology capable
of monitoring switches. If a railroad
does not have such a system or
technology, a switch’s position must be
manually verified before any movement
over the switch points. To accomplish
this, a switch tender must check the
switch, or the train crew must stop and
then confirm the switch position before
operating over the switch.
19 To clarify, FRA notes that ‘‘exchange’’ is
intended to refer to the industry’s practice of, for
example, swapping out a defective component for
a functioning component.
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
During an FRA meeting in February
2024, SFRTA inquired whether FRA
intends to limit the distance of the
movement of non-revenue passenger
equipment in this proposed exception,
as it does in the freight railroad
exception in existing paragraph (b)(5).
FRA notes that the purpose of the two
exceptions is different: the purpose of
the freight exception in paragraph (b)(5)
is to facilitate freight switching and
freight transfer train service, including
in revenue service, in or near yards,
whereas the purpose of the proposed
paragraph (b)(6) exception would be to
enable non-revenue passenger
equipment to reach maintenance
facilities or yards, without being
governed by PTC technology, for the
specific purpose of repairing or
exchanging a PTC system. The
commuter railroad SMART commented
that it would not be possible to identify
a specific distance that applies to all
cases because the distance to each
intercity passenger or commuter
railroad’s maintenance facilities and
yards, based on the starting point, is
unique. FRA agrees, as the applicable
distance varies greatly based on case-bycase circumstances. Accordingly, rather
than imposing an exact distance limit,
FRA expects that the five conditions in
proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through
(v) would sufficiently define the scope
of this exception.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vi)
provides that FRA may, in its discretion,
approve alternative criteria and
conditions, in a PTCSP or an RFA to a
PTCSP, if the railroad demonstrates that
the alternative criteria and conditions
would provide an equivalent or greater
level of safety than the default criteria
and conditions. FRA is proposing to add
this paragraph to mirror that
discretionary element of the freight yard
movements exception in existing
paragraph (b)(5)(vii). Proposed
paragraph (b)(6)(vi) provides the
opportunity for railroads to propose
alternative applications of this
exception to FRA for review and
approval. An intercity passenger
railroad or commuter railroad must
obtain FRA’s approval only if it seeks to
use alternative exception criteria or
conditions under proposed paragraph
(b)(6)(vi), whereas the standard
exception for non-revenue passenger
equipment movements would be
immediately available for use for any
movement that meets all default criteria
and conditions in proposed paragraphs
(b)(6)(i) through (v).20
20 FRA notes that railroads would report any use
of the proposed exception under 49 CFR
236.1006(b)(6) in their Quarterly Reports of PTC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vii)
imposes a notification requirement that
a railroad must satisfy before moving
non-revenue passenger equipment
pursuant to this exception. Specifically,
this paragraph proposes that before
utilizing the default exception under
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (v) or the
discretionary exception under
paragraph (b)(6)(vi), the railroad must
notify each person involved with the
movement of the non-revenue passenger
equipment, including any dispatchers
and train crews, in addition to any
roadway workers who may no longer
work on that segment during the
movement subject to this exception.
Section 236.1021 Discontinuances,
Material Modifications, and
Amendments
On December 31, 2022, the regulatory
provision under 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(3)
expired, which previously permitted a
railroad to temporarily disable its PTC
system when necessary to perform PTC
system repair or maintenance, after
notifying an FRA regional office. As
§ 236.1029(g)(3) has expired, a simple
notification to FRA no longer suffices,
and a railroad must obtain FRA’s
approval through an RFA pursuant to 49
CFR 236.1021(m) before a railroad
temporarily disables its PTC system and
continues rail operations.
The purpose of existing § 236.1021, in
relevant part, is to prohibit a railroad
from making certain changes to its PTC
system or disabling or discontinuing its
PTC system, unless the railroad first
submits an RFA to its PTC system with
certain information and obtains FRA’s
approval.
This NPRM proposes to add a new
paragraph (m)(4) to § 236.1021 to clarify
that the RFA process under existing
paragraph (m) applies to a case where a
railroad seeks to temporarily disable its
PTC system, and to continue operations
during that time, to facilitate repair,
maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or
capital projects. During FRA’s meetings
with AAR, APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and
their member railroads in November
2023 and February 2024 to discuss this
NPRM, these four associations and
several railroads, including all Class I
railroads, Alaska Railroad, Amtrak,
G&W, Metra, Metro-North, Metrolink,
and SFRTA, expressed general support
for FRA’s proposal to revise existing
paragraph (m) to acknowledge explicitly
that it covers RFAs to PTC systems
involving temporary outages.
System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB
Control No. 2130–0553), as either a ‘‘cut out’’ or
‘‘initialization failure’’ depending on the
circumstances and based on the definitions under
49 CFR 236.1003.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85467
Specifically, proposed paragraph
(m)(4) clarifies that a host railroad must
utilize the RFA process under paragraph
(m) to request and obtain FRA’s
approval of a temporary PTC system
outage, during which train movements
may continue, including a short-term
outage related to repair, maintenance,
an infrastructure upgrade, or a capital
project.21 To provide non-exhaustive
examples of what a temporary PTC
system outage includes, proposed
paragraph (m)(4) clarifies that the term
includes, but is not limited to, any
scenario when the onboard PTC
apparatus or subsystem, wayside
subsystem, communications subsystem,
or back office subsystem would be
disabled. FRA interprets the term
‘‘disabled’’ broadly and acknowledges
the industry also uses the verb
‘‘disengage’’ interchangeably in this
context.
Consistent with the current process
under existing paragraph (m), proposed
paragraph (m)(4)(i) provides that a
railroad may temporarily disable PTC
technology pursuant to this paragraph
only after it obtains approval from the
Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad
Systems and Technology.
Based on FRA’s experience reviewing
RFAs involving temporary outages
throughout 2023 and 2024 to date, FRA
found that the current content
requirements for RFAs to PTC systems
under existing paragraph (m)(2) do not
yield sufficient information for FRA to
assess the full scope and circumstances
of each proposed temporary outage.
Accordingly, proposed paragraphs
(m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I) identify nine
additional content elements this type of
RFA must include, in addition to the
standard content requirements under
paragraph (m)(2), which apply to a
broader cross-section of RFAs to PTC
systems and PTCSPs.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A)
would require this specific type of RFA
to describe the necessity for the
proposed temporary outage. For
example, in 2023 and 2024, railroads
have filed RFAs seeking to temporarily
disable a PTC system to facilitate the
installation of automatic train control or
a new interlocking, or to execute an
upgrade of a computer-aided dispatch
system, a back office server migration or
replacement, or an electrical
infrastructure upgrade. This section of
the RFA would explain why temporarily
21 Several railroads have expressed that their
chief concern is a path forward for undertaking
non-PTC-related capital projects that necessitate
temporarily disabling the PTC system, and FRA is
using the general term ‘‘capital projects’’ in this
NPRM to avoid any ambiguity and clarify that this
process applies to such projects.
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85468
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
disabling a PTC system is technically
necessary to perform that type of repair,
maintenance, infrastructure upgrade, or
capital project.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(B)
would require the RFA to describe the
physical limits and PTC system
functions that would be affected by the
proposed temporary outage. This
section of the RFA would require an
analysis that demonstrates the affected
physical limits and affected functions
pose the least risk to railroad safety,
compared to other options. To assess the
RFA, FRA needs to understand the exact
location(s) that will be impacted,
including milepost limits and other
descriptors. Identifying the precise PTC
system functions that would be
impacted is also essential for FRA to
understand the scope of the temporary
outage, as an outage might impact only
a narrow set of PTC system capabilities.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(C)
would require the RFA to include an
explanation about how the proposed
temporary outage is in the public
interest and consistent with railroad
safety. Existing § 236.1021(f) requires
FRA to determine whether granting a
request is in the public interest and
consistent with railroad safety, and it is
important for an RFA to provide such
information.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(D)
would require the railroad to provide
the proposed timeframe of the
temporary outage and an analysis that
demonstrates the proposed period poses
the least risk to railroad safety,
compared to other times. This proposal
mirrors a similar requirement under
former § 236.1029(g)(3)(ii), which
expired in December 2022. FRA has
seen railroads prudently identify the
timeslot of a specific day of the week
with the least traffic, which is what FRA
expects this content requirement will
help ensure in future RFAs.
As a note, FRA has also seen cases
where a railroad avoids needing to
submit and obtain FRA’s approval of an
RFA involving a temporary outage, as
the railroad either ceases all operations
until it finishes the relevant work, or the
railroad selects a time when no trains
will operate. FRA commends railroads
for structuring their projects that way
and expects railroads to submit an RFA,
seeking to disable its PTC system
temporarily with continued rail service,
under proposed paragraph (m)(4) only
when ceasing operations would not be
feasible.
Relatedly, proposed paragraph
(m)(4)(ii)(E) would require the RFA to
include both a justification and an
analysis that show how the proposed
duration of the temporary outage is the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
minimum time necessary to complete
the pertinent work, test the PTC system,
and place the PTC system back into
service without undue delay. FRA
highlights that proposed paragraph
(m)(4) is intended to address short-term
outages only, and FRA will deny an
RFA that seeks to disable a PTC system
for an unreasonable, extensive period.
In general, PTC-mandated main lines
must be governed by PTC technology,
given the presence of intercity passenger
rail, commuter rail, or certain freight
transportation. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C.
20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b),
236.1006(a). Railroads must show how
the length of the proposed temporary
outage is the minimum amount of time
needed based on the circumstances,
which could include outlining a precise
schedule and the number of hours
involved in each phase and
justifications for each timeframe.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(F)
would require the RFA to outline the
type and frequency of rail operations
that would continue during the
proposed temporary outage, including
those of the host railroad and each
tenant railroad.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(G)
would require the RFA to identify the
applicable speed limit of any train that
would operate during the proposed
temporary outage, and any other
operating restrictions in place to ensure
rail safety. For example, a properly
drafted RFA will outline the railroad’s
proposed reduced speed for each type of
freight train, based on the commodity
transported, and each intercity
passenger or commuter train, compared
to the normal authorized speeds.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(H)
would require the railroad to specify in
its RFA the additional safety measures
that the host railroad and each tenant
railroad must comply with during the
proposed temporary outage, to ensure
each type of PTC-preventable accident
or incident does not occur. Specifically,
such safety measures must be designed
to prevent a train-to-train collision, an
over-speed derailment, an incursion
into an established work zone, and a
movement of a train through a switch
left in the wrong position. It is integral
that FRA understands exactly how the
railroad will mitigate and eliminate the
risk of each type of PTC-preventable
accident and incident during the shortterm PTC system outage. For example,
a railroad might propose to utilize an
absolute block to mitigate and eliminate
the risk of a train-to-train collision,
enforce speed limits through the use of
other technology, suspend the
establishment of work zones, and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
protect switches through other specific
means.
Finally, proposed paragraph
(m)(4)(ii)(I) would require the railroad to
confirm in its RFA that each impacted
railroad (including the host railroad and
any applicable tenant railroads) will
notify all applicable dispatchers, train
crews, and roadway workers about the
temporary PTC system outage (if FRA
authorizes it), including the specific
location and duration of the temporary
outage, the additional safety measures
with which the railroad must comply,
and any actions the individual must
take during the temporary outage. FRA
expects that the proposed specific
information an RFA must contain under
proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A)
through (H) would aid the railroad in
these notifications. The railroad may
make these notifications in accordance
with the railroad’s operating rules and
practices, which may require, for
example, such information to be
provided via track bulletins, dispatcher
bulletins, or special instructions.
Also, FRA notes that its 45-day
review-and-decision period under
existing paragraph (m) begins when a
railroad properly files a complete RFA
with all information required under
paragraph (m). To be clear, the 45-day
clock will not begin on that initial filing
date, if an RFA to a PTC system,
involving a temporary outage, fails to
include any of the contents explicitly
required under existing paragraphs
(m)(2)(i) through (iv) or the additional
content requirements FRA is proposing
in paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I).22
Instead, consistent with the current
§ 236.1021(m) process, the 45-day clock
begins on the date the railroad or
railroads properly submit any remaining
information required under existing
paragraph (m)(2)(i) through (iv) and
proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A)
through (I). FRA expects this will help
ensure a railroad submits a complete
RFA, with all required information, in
its initial filing.
In addition, FRA acknowledges that it
currently publishes a notice in the
Federal Register when a railroad
submits an RFA to its PTC system under
existing § 236.1021(m) and invites
public comment on the RFA. See 49
CFR 236.1021(e). During FRA’s meeting
with labor organizations in February
2024, TTD requested confirmation that
FRA will not eliminate the opportunity
for the public to comment on these
RFAs. FRA confirmed during that
22 Consistent with FRA’s current practice, if an
RFA is missing required information, an FRA PTC
specialist will contact the railroad via email to
inform the railroad of the missing, required
content(s).
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
meeting that RFAs submitted pursuant
to proposed paragraph (m)(4), like all
RFAs submitted pursuant to paragraph
(m), will be announced in the Federal
Register, and the public will be afforded
an opportunity to review and comment
on such RFAs. That notice and
comment requirement under
§ 236.1021(e) is outside the scope of this
NPRM and will remain part of FRA’s
regulations. As a reminder, FRA’s
December 2022 guidance document
underscores the importance of ensuring
that railroads’ filings contain sufficient,
non-confidential information for the
public to review and on which to
comment.23
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and
Failures
Currently, paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3), entitled ‘‘Temporary exceptions,’’ of
this section set forth expired
regulations. Specifically, existing
paragraph (g) indicates that paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) were in effect from
October 21, 2014, through December 31,
2022. FRA proposes to replace existing
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) with new
provisions that deal directly with
initialization failures. FRA’s existing
regulations, at 49 CFR 236.1003, define
‘‘initialization failure’’ as ‘‘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.’’ 24 In relevant part, nowexpired paragraph (g)(2) previously
permitted any train to continue
operating subject to certain speed limits,
potentially indefinitely, if a PTC system
failed to initialize for any reason.
FRA recognizes that unplanned
outages and other technical issues
continue to occur, causing PTC systems
to fail to initialize, based on FRA’s
oversight and railroads’ Quarterly
Reports of PTC System Performance.25
Railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC
23 88 FR 1448 (Jan. 10, 2023); Federal Railroad
Administration, Guidance on Submitting Requests
for Waivers, Block Signal Applications, and Other
Approval Requests to FRA (Dec. 2022), available at
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/
2022-12//Guidance%20/on%20/Submitting%20/
Waiver%20/Special%20Approval%20/
Other%20Requests%20/for%20Approval%20/
to%20FRA%20%28/Dec%202022%29%/20final./
pdf.
24 The definition under 49 CFR 236.1003 also
clarifies, ‘‘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 PTC-governed
territory.’’
25 Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB Control No. 2130–
0553; 49 U.S.C. 20157(m).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
System Performance show, for example,
that PTC technology failed to initialize
on approximately 236 intercity
passenger or commuter trains and 894
freight trains in 2023.26 Additionally,
FRA, based on voluntary reporting by
railroads, is aware of eight (8) systemlevel outages that occurred in 2023 that
caused trains to fail to initialize.
During FRA’s meetings in November
2023 and February 2024, AAR, APTA,
ASLRRA, CRC, and many railroads 27
conveyed strong support for FRA’s
proposal to reintroduce requirements
analogous to the provision that expired
in 2022. Consistent with FRA’s own
observations, AAR, APTA, ASLRRA,
CRC, and their member railroads
underscored the need for FRA to
establish a process to enable railroads to
continue operating safely, following
certain initialization failures, because
otherwise freight, intercity passenger,
and commuter trains will be unable to
depart from their initial terminals or
other locations and provide necessary
transportation.
Specifically, FRA’s intention in this
NPRM is to address only system-level
outages or failures that result in
multiple trains’ PTC systems failing to
initialize, like when a back office server
goes down, impacting the trains of the
host railroad and most, if not all, of its
tenant railroads. Accordingly, FRA
proposes to provide a caveat in
proposed paragraph (g)(4), which would
specify that the relief under paragraph
(g)(1), discussed below, does not apply
to a single train that experiences an
onboard PTC system failure when
attempting to initialize. The purpose of
proposed paragraph (g) is to address
issues affecting multiple trains.
During FRA’s meeting with labor
organizations in February 2024, BLET,
BRS, and TTD acknowledged that FRA’s
objective in proposed paragraph (g) is to
enable operations while maintaining rail
safety, but they expressed concern for
the potential unintended consequence
of degrading safety or delaying repairs
to PTC technology. FRA agrees that it is
important to structure proposed
26 The referenced initialization failures exclude
any initialization failures where the source or cause
was the onboard subsystem, as proposed paragraph
(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures from
receiving the flexibility afforded under proposed
paragraph (g). FRA is citing to the relevant
initialization failures where the source or cause
was, for example, the back office, wayside, or
communications subsystems because those types of
issues would generally impact more than one train
and would be within the scope of this proposed
provision.
27 Including, for example, Alaska Railroad,
Amtrak, BNSF, Caltrain, CN, CPKC, CSX, Denver
RTDC, G&W, MARC, MBTA, Metra, Metrolink,
NICD, NJT, NS, OmniTRAX, TEXRail, TRE, UP,
UTA FrontRunner, VRE, and Watco.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85469
paragraph (g) to ensure railroads,
vendors, and suppliers identify and fix
any issues causing initialization failures
immediately.
To ensure this provision is utilized
only when necessary and railroads and
their vendors and suppliers identify and
promptly resolve the root cause of
initialization failures, FRA is proposing
to impose two tiers of operating
requirements that would become
increasingly restrictive over time. FRA
expects this will help strike the
appropriate balance between enabling
continued operations, subject to
restrictions, and restoring PTC systems
as quickly as possible.
First, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i)
provides that when a PTC system fails
to initialize as defined in § 236.1003, a
train may proceed, during the first 24
hours, only as prescribed under existing
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of
§ 236.1029. FRA is proposing to require
railroads to utilize the current operating
restrictions set forth in existing
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) because
railroads, including train crews, are
accustomed to complying with those
speed limits and other restrictions when
they experience en route failures, and
those restrictions are based on the
underlying signal or train control
system still in effect. During FRA’s
meetings, the following railroads
explicitly recommended this approach,
based on industry’s longstanding use of
these operating restrictions when PTC
technology fails or is otherwise cut out
en route: Alaska Railroad, Amtrak,
BNSF, CN, CPKC, CSX, G&W, MARC,
Metra, Metrolink, NICD, NS, and UP.
Second, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(ii)
states that after the first 24 hours, the
train may proceed only as prescribed
under paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of
this section and must not exceed
restricted speed as defined in
§ 236.1003. FRA proposes to require
compliance with existing paragraphs
(b)(4) through (6) as they contain other
applicable restrictions and
communication requirements.28
However, instead of the standard speed
restrictions under existing paragraph
(b), this stricter tier of operating
restrictions would limit any train that
utilizes this provision beyond 24 hours
to restricted speed, which is defined as
a ‘‘speed that will permit stopping
28 Specifically, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4) through (6)
require notifying the designated railroad officer of
the failure or cut out as soon as safe and practicable,
impose further operating restrictions if the PTC
system is the exclusive method of delivering
mandatory directives, and prohibit operating farther
than the next forward designated location for the
repair or exchange of onboard PTC apparatuses, if
the failure or cut out was the result of a defective
onboard PTC apparatus.
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85470
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
within one-half the range of vision, but
not exceeding 20 miles per hour.’’ 29
During FRA’s meetings with APTA,
CRC, and their member railroads in
February 2024, several commuter
railroads, including Denver RTD,
MARC, Metra, NICD, NJT, TEXRail,
TRE, and UTA FrontRunner supported
FRA’s intention to propose a two-tiered
framework. For example, MARC and
NICD noted that the unplanned outages
they recently experienced were resolved
in approximately two hours, which
means those trains, in a similar scenario
under this proposed framework, would
be subject to the standard operating
restrictions under existing paragraph
(b). Furthermore, these commuter
railroads expressed appreciation that
this proposed framework—with more
flexibility on day one—would enable
them to transport commuters to their
destination if PTC technology fails
midday and trains are unable to
initialize the PTC system for the
remainder of the day. Without this
proposed provision, if a train’s PTC
system fails midday and is not restored
by the evening rush hour, commuters
attempting to return home would be
forced to rely on alternative modes of
transportation, with little to no notice.
These eight commuter railroads also
recognized that a clear, tiered
approach—which introduces additional
restrictions, including restricted speed,
24 hours after the onset of the technical
issue—would enable railroads to
communicate effectively with their
customers if the railroad finds that an
issue cannot be remedied within the
first 24 hours. Commuter railroads
emphasized the importance of being
able to provide advance notice to their
customers about the speed restrictions
that would apply the following day, as
that could result in service reductions.
Several stakeholders, including
ASLRRA, ATD, NJT, and UTA
FrontRunner, stressed that the operating
restrictions FRA proposes in paragraph
(g) should be as simple, straightforward,
and objective as possible given the
complexity of other PTC regulations.
Furthermore, FRA recognizes that
predictability and transparency are vital
when it comes to a process that will
govern whether and how intercity
passenger, commuter, and freight rail
transportation may continue.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) imposes a
notification requirement that a railroad
must, as early as is possible, ensure
workers are aware of PTC system-level
outages and corresponding operating
restrictions. Specifically, proposed
29 49 CFR 236.1003 (citing to the definition in
subpart G, at 49 CFR 236.812).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
paragraph (g)(2) requires each railroad
operating in accordance with (g)(1) to
notify, as early as is possible, all
dispatchers, train crews, and roadway
workers about PTC system-level outages
or failures that result in multiple trains’
PTC systems failing to initialize, which
result in trains proceeding in
accordance with operating restrictions.
Railroads must ensure job safety
briefings reflect such operations.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3) proposes to
require railroads to attempt to initialize
the PTC system again, when the reason
it is not initializing is loss of
communications or lack of navigational
information, like temporary lack of
access to the Global Positioning System
(GPS)TM. FRA is aware of multiple PTC
systems that rely on GPS, like I–ETMS
and the Incremental Train Control
System. Specifically, proposed
paragraph (g)(3) would require,
notwithstanding the relief under
paragraph (g)(1), that when a PTC
system fails to initialize due to loss of
communications or lack of navigational
information, the train must attempt to
initialize the PTC system again at the
next forward, available location. The
next forward, available location,
depending on the circumstances, could
be a segment of a main line, a siding, a
yard, or a station, whichever is closest.
In addition, FRA acknowledges that
PTC systems are comprised of many
subsystems and are often interfaced
with other technology. For example, at
an AAR meeting in November 2023, CN
emphasized that the nature of a system
of subsystems, like PTC technology,
means there is always the possibility of
an outage, as a PTC system relies or
depends on the proper functioning of
many subsystems. Similarly, FRA is also
aware that PTC systems have failed to
initialize due to a failure of an
interfaced system, like a dispatching
system or an electronic storage system.
Accordingly, FRA wants to clarify that
proposed paragraphs (g)(1) through (5)
of this section likewise apply to cases in
which a PTC system fails to initialize
due to an issue or failure arising from
a subsystem or an interfaced system.
In addition, FRA wants to offer a
clarification about the application of
proposed paragraphs (g)(1) to (5) to the
Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement
System II (ACSES II). An initialization
failure is defined in existing § 236.1003
as ‘‘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.’’ Section
236.1003 specifies that for the types of
PTC systems that do not initialize by
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
design, like ACSES II, a failed departure
test is considered an initialization
failure, unless the PTC system
successfully passes the departure test
during a subsequent attempt in the same
location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. ACSES II typically
encompasses automatic train control
(ATC), and FRA wants to emphasize
that the FRA-certified PTC system,
however, is ACSES II.30 If ACSES II fails
to initialize (i.e., fails its departure test),
an ACSES II-equipped train may utilize
the relief outlined in proposed
paragraph (g) of § 236.1029. By contrast,
however, if ATC fails its departure test,
a railroad must comply with all
applicable signal and train control
prohibitions and restrictions in other
subparts of part 236. FRA wants to
address this nuance to clarify that
proposed paragraph (g) does not
supersede other existing signal and train
control regulations that directly govern
ATC.
Finally, proposed paragraph (g)(5)
recognizes that FRA may impose
additional operating restrictions and
other conditions to address recurring
issues that result in multiple trains’ PTC
systems failing to initialize. For
example, under proposed paragraph
(g)(5), FRA could require the applicable
railroads and PTC system vendors and
suppliers to take certain actions or
satisfy additional reporting
requirements, as they resolve the
recurring issues. In addition, proposed
paragraph (g)(4) would clarify that FRA
reserves the right to deny the relief
under proposed paragraph (g)(1) for
recurring issues that result in multiple
trains’ PTC systems failing to initialize.
Although the relief under proposed
paragraph (g)(1) is generally selfexecuting, FRA may choose to intervene
under proposed paragraph (g)(5) and
deny such relief if, for example, a
railroad and/or its applicable PTC
system vendor and supplier are not
sufficiently correcting a recurrent
problem.
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended
by Executive Order 14094
This proposed rule is a nonsignificant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094, Modernizing Regulatory
Review,31 and DOT Order 2100.6A
(‘‘Rulemaking and Guidance
Procedures’’). FRA made this
30 Or in NJT’s case, the Advanced Speed
Enforcement System II (ASES II).
31 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 11, 2023), available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/
04/11/2023-07760/modernizing-regulatory-review.
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
FRA complied with OMB Circular A–
4 when accounting for benefits, costs,
and cost savings relative to a baseline
condition. Typically, a baseline
represents a best judgement about what
the world would be like in the absence
of the regulatory interventions.32
In this analysis, discount rates are
used to account for differences in the
timing of the estimated benefits and
costs. Benefits and costs that accrue
further in the future are more heavily
discounted than those impacts that
occur today. Discounting reflects
individuals’ general preference to
receive benefits sooner rather than later
(and defer costs) and recognizes that
costs incurred today are more expensive
than future costs because businesses
must forgo an expected rate of return on
investment of that capital.33 OMB
recommends using a discount rate of 2
percent.34 This represents the real
(inflation-adjusted) rate of return on
long-term Federal Government debt over
the last 30 years, calculated between
1993 and 2022, and is considered a
reasonable approximation of the social
rate of time preference.
FRA analyzed the economic impact of
this proposed rule over a 10-year period
and estimated its costs and benefits, as
shown in the table below. The total
estimated 10-year net benefits of this
proposed rule would be $81.8 million
(discounted at 2 percent), and the
annualized net benefits would be $9.1
million (discounted at 2 percent). The
industry benefits associated with FRA’s
proposal to amend three provisions—
i.e., to introduce a new exception for
85471
certain non-revenue passenger
equipment movements, improve the
RFA process regarding temporary PTC
system outages, and permit continued
operations following certain
initialization failures, subject to
operating restrictions—would outweigh
the industry costs and government
administrative costs associated with
FRA’s proposal to expand the content
requirements for RFAs related to
temporary outages.
The following table shows the
estimated 10-year benefits, net benefits,
and costs of the proposed rule. The total
10-year estimated benefits would be
$83.5 million (discounted at 2 percent),
with annualized benefits at $9.3 million
(discounted at 2 percent). The total 10year estimated costs would be $1.8
million (discounted at 2 percent), with
annualized costs at $0.2 million
(discounted at 2 percent).
TABLE B—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS
[2023 Dollars] 1
Category
Industry Benefits ........................................................
Total Costs 2 ...............................................................
Industry Costs ............................................................
Government Administrative Costs .............................
Net Benefits 3 ......................................................
Present
value 2%
($)
Present
value 3%
($)
Present
value 7%
($)
83,534,444
1,760,775
1,514,075
246,700
81,773,669
80,105,191
1,688,492
1,451,919
236,573
78,416,699
68,518,285
1,444,258
1,241,905
202,353
67,074,027
Annualized
2%
($)
9,299,600
196,021
168,557
27,464
9,103,579
Annualized
3%
($)
9,390,772
197,943
170,209
27,734
9,192,829
Annualized
7%
($)
9,755,462
205,630
176,819
28,811
9,549,832
1 Numbers in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and benefits are calculated in this
analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present
value at the particular discount rate is: 1/(1+r)t, where ‘‘r’’ is the discount rate, and ‘‘t’’ is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used in
this analysis.
2 Total Costs = Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs.
3 Net Benefits = Industry Benefits—(Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and operating PTC systems.
1. Ten-Year Benefits
Proposed 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
FRA analyzed the potential industry
benefits of the three proposed
amendments. Overall, the three
proposed amendments would benefit
the railroad industry, the public, and
FRA by facilitating repairs,
maintenance, upgrades, and capital
improvements; expanding certain
railroad informational requirements;
reducing costs; and enabling the safe,
reliable, and resilient movement of
people and goods, while preserving rail
safety.
32 U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Circular A–4 (Nov. 9, 2023), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
The proposed exception under
§ 236.1006(b)(6) would enable nonrevenue passenger equipment, including
a locomotive, locomotive consist, or
train without passengers onboard, to
operate to a maintenance facility or yard
for the sole purpose of repairing or
exchanging a PTC system. To ensure rail
safety, FRA is proposing to impose five
conditions on each movement of nonrevenue passenger equipment subject to
this exception, including speed and
distance restrictions, the requirement to
establish an absolute block, and other
protections of the route.
In assessing the potential benefits of
the proposed provision, FRA focused on
the impact on train operations in the
absence of this proposed rule. The
methodology employed involved
estimating the transportation costs
associated with relocating nonoperative, PTC-equipped passenger
equipment to a maintenance facility or
yard to repair or exchange the PTC
technology. For example, without this
proposed provision, intercity passenger
railroads and commuter railroads would
need to use an operative, PTC-equipped
locomotive, locomotive consist, or train
to move the non-operative, PTCequipped equipment to a maintenance
facility or yard.
CircularA-4.pdf. See Section 4, Developing an
Analytic Baseline, pages 11–14.
33 U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Circular A–4 (Nov. 9, 2023). See Section 12,
Discount Rates, pages 75–82.
34 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85472
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Based on consultation with FRA
subject matter experts, FRA calculated
the potential benefits for train
operations, under proposed
§ 236.1006(b)(6), by multiplying the
expected number of impacted passenger
equipment by the transportation cost of
moving that equipment to a
maintenance facility or yard. FRA
estimated a range of $3,000 to $4,000 to
transport this type of equipment, or an
average cost of $3,500 per piece of
equipment, similar to the amount
utilized in another FRA NPRM 35 to
estimate the transportation cost of
moving an empty car. FRA estimates
that the transportation cost savings of
moving this equipment is the estimated
number of non-revenue passenger
equipment that may use this proposed
exception (i.e., 30 per year or 1 per
intercity passenger or commuter
railroad 36), multiplied by the expected
transportation cost of $3,500, resulting
in an overall transportation cost savings
of $105,000 annually. Given the
uncertainty about the amount of affected
equipment and the five safety
conditions or restrictions that FRA is
proposing a railroad must comply with
while utilizing this exception, FRA is
seeking input from the public on
whether the cost of these five safety
conditions, which FRA did not calculate
due to insufficient data, might reduce
the calculated net benefits.
Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates
that this proposed provision would
result in potential benefits of $1 million,
at the 2-percent discount, or on an
annual basis, $107,100, at the 2 percent
discount.
TABLE C—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM PERMITTING NON-REVENUE PASSENGER EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE TO
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES OR YARDS WITHOUT PTC—10-YEAR BENEFIT
Undiscounted
benefit
($)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Year
Present
value 2%
($)
Present
value 3%
($)
Present
value 7%
($)
1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................................................
6 .......................................................................................................................
7 .......................................................................................................................
8 .......................................................................................................................
9 .......................................................................................................................
10 .....................................................................................................................
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
102,941
100,923
98,944
97,004
95,102
93,237
91,409
89,616
87,859
105,000
101,942
98,973
96,090
93,291
90,574
87,936
85,375
82,888
80,474
105,000
98,131
91,711
85,711
80,104
74,864
69,966
65,389
61,111
57,113
Total ..........................................................................................................
Annualized ................................................................................................
1,050,000
........................
962,035
107,100
922,541
108,150
789,099
112,350
Proposed 49 CFR 236.1021(m)(4)
Under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4), a
railroad seeking to temporarily disable
its PTC system, for certain purposes, can
request FRA’s approval through the
standard RFA process under existing
§ 236.1021(m). There have been no
accidents or incidents associated with
railroads’ RFAs for temporary PTC
system outages from 2022 to early 2024,
the relevant period during which FRA
began approving such outages by
regulation.
Based on past RFA filings from 2022
to early 2024 involving temporary PTC
system outages, FRA estimates that
railroads will file approximately 15
RFAs, on average on an annual basis,
under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4) in the
future. FRA estimates that two-thirds of
railroads’ RFAs would involve a PTC
system outage lasting for a few hours,
while one-third would seek to disable
PTC technology for a period of days,
given the different nature of underlying
capital improvement or maintenance
projects. FRA used the Bureau of
35 87
FR 43467 (July 21, 2022).
FRA is counting any intercity passenger
railroad or commuter railroad, including tenant
railroads that provide such service, as the proposed
exception is not limited to host railroads.
36 Here,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) 2021
fare rates for intercity passenger and
commuter rail transportation—i.e., a
$72.10 average rate for Amtrak and a
$6.30 average rate for commuter
railroads. FRA estimated weighted fare
rates by using those average 2021 BTS
fare rates and analyzing past, pertinent
RFAs to estimate that the average fare
rate would be approximately $11 for
each intercity passenger railroad or
commuter railroad that submits an RFA
pursuant to § 236.1021(m)(4) in the
future.37
Similarly, FRA analyzed the average
number of passengers or commuters per
train movement 38 during a temporary
PTC system outage by analyzing past
RFAs and found that each train carries,
on average, approximately 200
passengers or commuters. Likewise,
FRA analyzed the average number of
train movements during a temporary
PTC system outage by analyzing past
RFAs and estimating the expected
number of filings by type of railroad.
Based on past RFAs, FRA estimates that
on average, 5 trains operate during a
freight railroad’s temporary PTC system
outage; 12 trains operate during an
intercity passenger or commuter
railroad’s PTC system outage that lasts
24 hours or less; and 1,700 trains
operate during an intercity passenger or
commuter railroad’s PTC system outage
that lasts longer (days). For freight
railroads, the average cost per train
movement is $250, based on previous
FRA estimates.
Then, the expected annual number of
RFAs, involving temporary PTC system
outages, is multiplied by: (1) the average
number of train movements during the
temporary outage; (2) the average cost
per fare or train movement; and (3) the
average number of passengers or
commuters per train (for intercity
passenger or commuter railroads), and is
then adjusted for reduced speed.39 As
shown in the tables below, the 15
relevant RFAs that FRA expects to
receive annually would result in
$8,578,734 in total benefits,
undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this
37 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Transportation Economic
Trends (2022), available at https://data.bts.gov/
stories/s/5h3f-jnbe#transportation-fares.
38 By ‘‘train movement,’’ FRA is referring to the
movement or operation of a train.
39 In its decision letters approving such RFAs,
FRA typically requires railroads to comply with the
operating restrictions under 49 CFR 236.1029(b),
which limit the speed of trains depending on the
underlying signal or train control system.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
calculation did not include variable
operating costs such as fuel expenses
and other operational costs.
Determining these costs is challenging
when assessing benefits. Therefore, the
estimated benefits could be reduced by
these variable operating costs, although
the exact amount is unclear.40
Additionally, FRA is seeking comments
on this economic analysis, its
85473
underlying assumptions, and any
additional benefits that could be
quantified, like the potential impact to
ridership from avoiding related train
delays or cancelations.
TABLE D—RFA FILINGS INVOLVING TEMPORARY PTC SYSTEM OUTAGES—BENEFITS
Estimated
number of
RFAs per year
Average
number of
train
movements
during outage
Average
cost per fare
or train
movement
($)
Average
number of
passengers
per train
RFA average
benefit
(adjusted for
reduced
speed)
($)
PTC System Outages (Hours)—Freight Railroads ..............
PTC System Outages (Hours)—Passenger or Commuter
Railroads ..........................................................................
PTC System Outages (Days)—Passenger or Commuter
Railroads ..........................................................................
2
5
250
N/A
2,076
10
12
11
200
197,165
3
1,700
11
200
8,379,494
Total ..............................................................................
15
........................
........................
........................
8,578,734
Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates
railroads will submit approximately 150
RFAs under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4)
with potential benefits of $78.6 million,
at the 2-percent discount, or $8.8
million, at the 2-percent discount, on an
annual basis.
TABLE E—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM CONTINUOUS TRAIN OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RFAS FOR TEMPORARY PTC
SYSTEM OUTAGES—10-YEAR BENEFIT
Undiscounted
($)
Year
Present
value 3%
($)
Present
value 7%
($)
1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................................................
6 .......................................................................................................................
7 .......................................................................................................................
8 .......................................................................................................................
9 .......................................................................................................................
10 .....................................................................................................................
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,410,524
8,245,612
8,083,933
7,925,425
7,770,024
7,617,671
7,468,305
7,321,867
7,178,301
8,578,734
8,328,868
8,086,280
7,850,757
7,622,094
7,400,092
7,184,555
6,975,296
6,772,132
6,574,886
8,578,734
8,017,509
7,492,999
7,002,803
6,544,675
6,116,519
5,716,373
5,342,405
4,992,902
4,666,263
Total ..........................................................................................................
Annualized ................................................................................................
85,787,345
........................
78,600,396
8,750,309
75,373,696
8,836,097
64,471,182
9,179,246
Proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(g)
The proposed exception under
§ 236.1029(g) would reintroduce a
revised version of a provision regarding
PTC system initialization failures that
expired on December 31, 2022. This
proposed exception would be beneficial
even with the conditions and
restrictions outlined under this
proposed provision.
In assessing the potential benefits of
this proposed provision, FRA focused
on the impact on train operations in the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Present
value 2%
($)
40 Another method for assessing the benefits
regarding this proposed provision is to calculate the
revenue per ton-mile, provided that information
regarding the number of miles that would be
utilized is available for the affected railroads. Since
FRA does not currently possess that level of
information, the methodology described above was
employed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
absence of this proposed rule. Currently,
if a PTC system fails to initialize, trains
are generally prohibited from operating,
which could result in situations where
passengers are stranded and vital freight
shipments halted, as the prior regulatory
process expired on December 31, 2022.
Based on consultation with FRA subject
matter experts, FRA estimates the
number of future PTC system
initialization failures by analyzing
railroads’ initialization failures in
calendar year 2023, as reported to FRA
in railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC
System Performance 41 and projecting to
the future. In total, based on past data,
FRA expects freight railroads to
experience approximately 900
initialization failures per year and
intercity passenger or commuter
railroads to experience approximately
200 initialization failures per year in the
future.42 Then, the expected annual
number of initialization failures is
multiplied by: (1) the average cost of
$11 per fare for intercity passenger or
41 Form FRA F 6180.152 (OMB Control No. 2130–
0553), under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR
236.1029(h). These reports include information
about railroads’ initialization failures.
42 The estimated 1,100 initialization failures
exclude any initialization failures where the source
or cause is the onboard subsystem, as proposed
§ 236.1029(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures
from receiving the flexibility afforded under
proposed § 236.1029(g), as they typically impact
one train. FRA’s estimate refers to the number of
initialization failures where the source or cause is,
for example, the back office, wayside, or
communications subsystems because those types of
issues would generally impact more than one train
and would be within the scope of this proposed
provision.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85474
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
commuter railroads and $250 per train
movement for freight railroads; and (2)
the average number of passengers or
commuters per train of 200 (for intercity
passenger or commuter railroads), and is
then adjusted for the reduced speed,
based on the proposed speed
restrictions under 49 CFR 236.1029(g).
As shown in the table below, FRA’s
proposal to permit the operation of
approximately 1,100 trains that FRA
expects might experience PTC system
initialization failures would result in
$433,520 in total benefits,
undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this
calculation did not include variable
operating costs such as fuel expenses
and other operational costs. Therefore,
the estimated benefit could be reduced
by these variable operating costs,
although the exact amount is unclear.
Additionally, FRA is seeking comments
on this economic analysis, its
underlying assumptions, and any
additional benefits that could be
quantified, like the potential impact on
ridership from avoiding related train
delays or cancelations.
TABLE F—ENABLING THE OPERATION OF TRAINS IMPACTED BY INITIALIZATION FAILURES—BENEFITS
Estimated
trains
impacted
annually
Railroad type
Average cost
per fare or
train
movement
Average
number of
passengers
per train
Average
benefit
(adjusted
for reduced
speed)
($)
Freight ..............................................................................................................
Intercity Passenger or Commuter ....................................................................
900
200
250
11
N/A
200
$159,220
274,300
Total ..........................................................................................................
1,100
........................
........................
433,520
Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates
that proposed § 236.1029(g) would
result in potential benefits of $4.0
million, or on an annualized basis,
$442,190, discounted at 2 percent.
TABLE G—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM CONTINUOUS TRAIN OPERATIONS DUE TO PROCESS REGARDING CERTAIN
INITIALIZATION FAILURES—10-YEAR BENEFIT
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Year
Freight
railroads
($)
Passenger
railroads
($)
Undiscounted
benefit
($)
a
b
c=a+b
Present
value 2%
($)
Present
value 3%
($)
Present
value 7%
($)
1 ...............................................................................
2 ...............................................................................
3 ...............................................................................
4 ...............................................................................
5 ...............................................................................
6 ...............................................................................
7 ...............................................................................
8 ...............................................................................
9 ...............................................................................
10 .............................................................................
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
425,020
416,686
408,516
400,505
392,652
384,953
377,405
370,005
362,750
433,520
420,893
408,634
396,732
385,177
373,958
363,066
352,491
342,225
332,257
433,520
405,159
378,653
353,881
330,730
309,094
288,873
269,974
252,313
235,806
Total ..................................................................
Annualized ........................................................
1,592,200
....................
2,743,000
....................
4,335,200
......................
3,972,013
442,190
3,808,954
446,526
3,258,003
463,866
In addition to these direct benefits,
there are potential societal benefits to
the proposals in the NPRM. For
example, there are possible fuel and
emission savings from people not using
alternative transportation modes like
traditional buses or cars that use fuel or
non-carbon technologies like batteries,
which would be necessary if the
proposals in this NPRM did not exist,
and railroads were not allowed to
operate trains in certain circumstances.
Freight trains are generally known for
their fuel efficiency compared to fuelpowered trucks, and intercity passenger
or commuter trains are more efficient
than driving fuel-powered vehicles,
potentially resulting in lower carbon
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
emissions. Specifically, a single freight
train can be up to 75% more fuelefficient than a fuel-powered truck.43
Similarly, passenger trains are up to
46% more efficient than driving fuelpowered vehicles.44 However, policies
promoting electric vehicle use may lead
to increased adoption of electric
vehicles, which could reduce the
anticipated emission benefits.
43 Federal Railroad Administration, FRA
Announces Climate Challenge to Meet Net-Zero
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 (Apr. 22, 2022),
available at https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/
press-releases/federal-railroad-administrationannounces-climate-challenge-meet-net-zero-0.
44 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Ten-Year Costs
FRA analyzed the potential industry
costs of the proposed amendments,
which would: (1) permit non-revenue
passenger equipment to operate to
maintenance facilities or yards, without
being governed by PTC technology and
with no passengers onboard, for the sole
purpose of repairing or exchanging a
PTC system, under certain conditions;
(2) improve the existing process
railroads utilize to request and obtain
FRA’s approval to disable their PTC
systems temporarily—when necessary
to facilitate repair, maintenance,
infrastructure upgrades, and capital
projects—by requiring railroads to
provide additional, essential
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85475
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
information in their requests to amend
their PTC systems; and (3) reintroduce
a limited version of a provision
regarding PTC system initialization
failures, which expired on December 31,
2022, under certain conditions.
Of the three proposed amendments,
FRA analyzed the cost of railroads filing
RFAs regarding temporary PTC system
outages under proposed
§ 236.1021(m)(4), which contains
additional content requirements to
enable FRA to assess the full scope and
circumstances of each proposed
temporary outage. Since the other two
proposed provisions, under
§§ 236.1006(b)(6) and 236.1029(g),
would establish an exception or process
with certain conditions, there may be
Based on consultation with FRA
subject matter experts, FRA calculated
the total cost for filing an RFA by
multiplying the number of submissions
by its associated hourly burden. The
hourly burden is then multiplied by the
wage rate of an Executive, Official, &
Staff Assistant employee. For this
analysis, FRA used the fully burdened
wage rate of $118.46 to calculate both
costs (i.e., the cost of submitting a new
RFA and the cost of submitting a revised
RFA).45 This wage rate includes factors
such as salary, benefits, and overhead
costs associated with employing staff
members involved in the RFA filing
process.
minimal potential costs tied to these
proposed provisions. However, FRA
expects the potential benefits of these
proposed provisions to outweigh any
potential costs they might present. FRA
welcomes comments on the potential
impact.
Also, FRA acknowledges that a
proposal to establish a new exception
for non-revenue passenger equipment
and reintroduce a limited version of an
expired process might appear to present
safety risks, if not properly addressed.
Accordingly, FRA’s proposed rule
contains multiple operating restrictions
and other protections to help mitigate or
eliminate any associated risks and help
preserve or improve rail safety.
TABLE H—COSTS OF RFAS TO PTC SYSTEMS INVOLVING TEMPORARY OUTAGES
Hourly
wage rate
($)
Number of
RFAs per year
Number of
hours per RFA
Total cost of
RFAs per year
($)
a
b
c
d=a*b*c
New RFAs ........................................................................................................
Revised RFAs ..................................................................................................
118.46
118.46
15
1
90
45
159,921
5,331
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
165,252
The following table provides the 10year cost to the railroad industry
associated with the filing of an RFA
involving a temporary PTC system
outage under proposed
§ 236.1021(m)(4). FRA estimates that the
total cost to the railroad industry would
be $1.5 million, or $168,557 annualized,
discounted at 2 percent.
TABLE I—TOTAL COSTS OF RFAS ABOUT TEMPORARY PTC SYSTEM OUTAGES
Cost of new
RFAs per
year
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Year
Cost of
revised RFAs
per year
($)
Undiscounted
cost of RFAs
($)
Present
value 2%
($)
Present
value 3%
($)
Present
value 7%
($)
1 .........................................................................
2 .........................................................................
3 .........................................................................
4 .........................................................................
5 .........................................................................
6 .........................................................................
7 .........................................................................
8 .........................................................................
9 .........................................................................
10 .......................................................................
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
162,011
158,835
155,720
152,667
149,674
146,739
143,862
141,041
138,275
165,252
160,439
155,766
151,229
146,824
142,548
138,396
134,365
130,451
126,652
165,252
154,441
144,337
134,895
126,070
117,822
110,114
102,910
96,178
89,886
Total ............................................................
Annualized ..................................................
159,921
......................
5,331
......................
1,652,517
........................
1,514,075
168,557
1,451,919
170,209
1,241,905
176,819
Additionally, alongside the railroad
industry’s cost of filing RFAs under
proposed § 236.1021(m)(4), there are
governmental costs associated with the
filing of these RFAs. The following table
shows the annual estimated government
costs for reviewing railroads’ RFAs
pertaining to temporary PTC system
outages and issuing related decision
letters.
45 Throughout this document, the dollar
equivalent cost or benefit for the industry is derived
from the Surface Transportation Board’s 2023 Full
Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate
employee group hourly wage rate, which includes
an additional 75 percent for fringe benefits and
overhead. For instance, the 2023 hourly wage rate
of $67.69 is burdened by 75 percent ($67.69 × 1.75
= $118.46).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85476
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE J—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FROM RFA REVIEW AND APPROVAL—ANNUAL COSTS
Average
number of
employees
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Attorney
Hourly wage
rate
($) 46
Number of
hours per RFA
Estimated
RFAs per year
Total cost ($)
a
b
c
d=a*b*c
Safety Specialist (GS–13)—All locations ..............
Safety Specialist (GS–14)—All locations ..............
Safety Specialist (GS–14)—All locations ..............
Safety Specialist Supervisor (GS–15)—DC Metro
Safety Specialist Senior Executive—DC Metro ....
(GS–15)—DC Metro ..............................................
1
1
1
1
1
1
98.77
116.71
116.71
147.96
175.00
147.96
6
3
2
1
1
2
15
15
15
15
15
15
8,889
5,252
3,501
2,219
2,625
4,439
Annual Total Cost .........................................................
........................
........................
15
15
26,926
The followingtable shows the 10-year
estimated government costs for
reviewing RFAs pertaining to temporary
PTC system outages and issuing related
decision letters. FRA expects it would
cost approximately $246,700 over the
10-year period, or $27,464 annualized,
discounted at 2 percent, to review and
approve or deny these RFAs, as shown
in the following table.
TABLE K—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FROM RFA REVIEW AND APPROVAL—10-YEAR COSTS
Undiscounted
government
administrative
cost
($)
Year
Present
value 2%
($)
Present
value 3%
($)
Present
value 7%
($)
1 .................................................................................................................
2 .................................................................................................................
3 .................................................................................................................
4 .................................................................................................................
5 .................................................................................................................
6 .................................................................................................................
7 .................................................................................................................
8 .................................................................................................................
9 .................................................................................................................
10 ...............................................................................................................
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,398
25,880
25,373
24,875
24,387
23,909
23,440
22,981
22,530
26,926
26,142
25,380
24,641
23,923
23,226
22,550
21,893
21,255
20,636
26,926
25,164
23,518
21,979
20,542
19,198
17,942
16,768
15,671
14,646
Total ....................................................................................................
Annualized ..........................................................................................
269,258
..............................
246,700
27,464
236,573
27,734
202,353
28,811
3. Results
The industry benefits associated with
FRA’s proposal to amend three
provisions—i.e., to introduce a new
exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment movements,
improve the RFA process regarding
temporary PTC system outages, and
permit continued operations following
certain initialization failures, subject to
operating restrictions—would outweigh
the industry costs and government
administrative costs associated with
FRA’s proposal to expand the content
requirements for RFAs related to
temporary outages.
The following table shows the
estimated 10-year costs, benefits, and
net benefits of the proposed rule. The
total estimated 10-year net benefits
would be $81.8 million (discounted at 2
percent) and annualized net benefits
would be $9.1 million (discounted at 2
percent).
TABLE L—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS
[2023 Dollars]
Present
value 2%
($)
Present
value 3%
($)
Present
value 7%
($)
Industry Benefits ........................................................
Total Costs .................................................................
Industry Costs ............................................................
Government Administrative Costs .............................
83,534,444
1,760,775
1,514,075
246,700
80,105,191
1,688,492
1,451,919
236,573
68,518,285
1,444,258
1,241,905
202,353
9,299,600
196,021
168,557
27,464
9,390,772
197,943
170,209
27,734
9,755,462
205,630
176,819
28,811
Net Benefits ........................................................
81,773,669
78,416,699
67,074,027
9,103,579
9,192,829
9,549,832
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Category
46 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, ‘‘2023
General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables,’’
available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2023/generalschedule/. The base salary is burdened with an
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Annualized
2%
($)
Annualized
3%
($)
Annualized
7%
($)
additional 75 percent to account for fringe benefits
and overhead.
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
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. 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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1. Reasons for Considering Agency
Action
Through FRA’s oversight and
continued engagement with the
industry, FRA has found that its existing
PTC regulations do not adequately
address temporary situations during
which PTC technology is not enabled,
including after certain initialization
failures or in cases where a PTC system
needs to be temporarily disabled to
facilitate repair, maintenance,
infrastructure upgrades, or capital
projects. This NPRM proposes to
establish parameters and operating
restrictions under which railroads may
continue to operate safely in certain
scenarios when PTC technology is
temporarily not governing rail
operations. Overall, the proposed
amendments would benefit the railroad
industry, the public, and FRA by
facilitating repairs, maintenance,
upgrades, and capital improvements;
expanding certain railroad
informational requirements; reducing
costs; and enabling the safe, reliable,
and efficient movement of people and
goods, while preserving rail safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
2. A Succinct Statement of the
Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for,
the Proposed Rule
FRA is proposing to revise three PTC
regulations based on the statutory
general authority of the Secretary. 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). The Secretary delegated this
authority to the Federal Railroad
Administrator. 49 CFR 1.89(b).
This proposed rule would provide
flexibility to certain train movements
and improve existing processes, which
would result in net benefits to railroads.
The industry benefits associated with
FRA’s proposal to amend
§§ 236.1006(b), 236.1021(m) and
236.1029(g)—i.e., to introduce a new
exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment movements,
improve the RFA process regarding
temporary PTC system outages, and
permit continued operations following
certain initialization failures, subject to
operating restrictions—would outweigh
the industry costs and government
administrative costs associated with
FRA’s proposal to expand the content
requirements for RFAs related to
temporary outages under § 236.1021(m),
while also maintaining rail safety.
FRA’s objective in this rulemaking is
to establish clear, uniform processes,
rather than addressing issues that arise
in a reactive and piecemeal manner.
FRA expects that establishing
predictable, prescriptive processes will
both enable continued operations and
improve railroad safety by eliminating
uncertainty and inconsistent application
of FRA’s regulations and facilitating
prompt repairs, upgrades, and
restoration of PTC system service. FRA’s
proposed parameters and operating
restrictions in this NPRM are intended
to be sufficiently strict to ensure that
railroads and PTC system suppliers and
vendors proactively identify and
remedy problems before they arise and
immediately correct any problems that
may surface despite proactive measures.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85477
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 37 host railroads subject to
49 U.S.C. 20157—including 7 Class I
railroads, 24 intercity passenger
railroads or commuter railroads, and 6
Class II or III, short line, or terminal
railroads. Only 5 of the current PTCmandated host railroads are 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 amendments would
improve the process railroads use to file
an RFA involving a temporary PTC
system outage. Those entities would be
subject to the requirements of this
proposed rule and would also benefit
from the additional flexibility associated
with this proposed rule.
FRA expects that a railroad’s RFA
pursuant to proposed § 236.1021(m)(4)
would be completed by an executive or
senior manager and require analytical
and writing skills.
To calculate the individual costs for
small entities, FRA divided the total
annualized cost 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
annualized cost for all host railroads
would be $168,557, discounted at 2
percent. FRA estimates that the
annualized cost to each host railroad
would be approximately $4,556,
discounted at 2 percent. Although the
proposed rule would impose costs on
those host railroads that are small
entities, benefits would also accrue.
To calculate the individual benefit for
small entities, FRA divided the total
annualized benefits by the number of
estimated host railroads. The total
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85478
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
annualized benefits for all host railroads
would be $9.3 million, discounted at 2
percent. FRA estimates that the
annualized benefit for each host railroad
would be $251,341, discounted at 2
percent. FRA requests comments on the
economic impact that small entities
would face under this proposed rule.
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. This proposed rule intends to
improve the process associated with
RFAs for temporary PTC system
outages, establish a new exception for
certain non-revenue passenger
equipment, and reintroduce a limited
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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.
Jkt 265001
would not be afforded the same type of
exception currently available to freight
railroads under § 236.1006(b). In
addition, without this rule, railroads
would not be able to operate in certain
scenarios when PTC technology is
temporarily not governing rail
operations under proposed
§ 236.1029(g).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
FRA is submitting the information
collection requirements in this proposed
rule to OMB 47 under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.48 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 and the estimated time to
fulfill each requirement are as follows:
Total annual
responses
Average time per
response
Total annual
burden hours
Total cost
equivalent
in USD
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
(D = C * wage
rates)
42 railroads ...........
10 expedited applications.
5.00 hours .............
50.00 hours ...........
$4,456.50
42 railroads ...........
10 copies ..............
30.00 minutes .......
5.00 hours .............
445.65
42 railroads ...........
1 letter ...................
6.00 hours .............
6.00 hours .............
534.78
42 railroads ...........
1 application ..........
5.00 hours .............
5.00 hours .............
445.65
42 railroads ...........
1 copy ...................
30.00 minutes .......
0.50 hours .............
44.57
700 railroads .........
25 plan changes ...
15.00 minutes .......
6.25 hours .............
557.06
700 railroads .........
10 timetable instructions.
30.00 minutes .......
5.00 hours .............
445.65
2 railroads .............
2 plans ..................
160.00 hours .........
320.00 hours .........
28,521.60
700 railroads .........
2 modifications ......
1.00 hour ...............
2.00 hours .............
178.26
742 railroads .........
5.00 seconds ........
6,336.81 hours ......
564,799.88
2 railroads .............
4,562,500 train departures.
2 RSPPs ...............
40.00 hours ...........
80.00 hours ...........
7,130.40
742 railroads .........
1 joint plan ............
2,000.00 hours ......
2,000.00 hours ......
236,920.00
742 railroads .........
0.5 filings/approval
petitions.
50.00 hours ...........
25.00 hours ...........
2,228.25
47 FRA will be using the OMB control number
2130–0553 for this information collection.
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
6. A Description of Significant
Alternatives to the Rule
The proposed amendments in this
rulemaking would benefit the railroad
industry, the public, and FRA by
facilitating repairs, maintenance,
upgrades, and capital improvements;
expanding certain railroad
informational requirements; reducing
costs; and enabling the safe, reliable,
and resilient movement of people and
goods, while preserving rail safety.
The main alternative to this
rulemaking would be to maintain the
status quo. The alternative of not issuing
the proposed rule would forgo
improving the process under
§ 236.1021(m) that host railroads use to
submit RFAs for temporary PTC system
outages. In the absence of this proposed
rule, non-revenue passenger equipment
Respondent
universe
CFR section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
version of a provision that previously
expired.
48 44
PO 00000
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85479
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Total annual
responses
Average time per
response
Total annual
burden hours
Total cost
equivalent
in USD
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
(D = C * wage
rates)
0.25 data calls/documents.
0.25 data calls/documents.
5.00 hours .............
1.25 hour ...............
111.41
1.00 hour ...............
0.25 hours .............
22.28
742 railroads .........
0.25 technical consultations.
5.00 hours .............
1.25 hour ...............
111.41
742 railroads .........
0.25 petitions ........
1.00 hour ...............
0.25 hours .............
22.28
742 railroads .........
1 request ...............
50.00 hours ...........
50.00 hours ...........
4,456.50
742 railroads .........
0.5 comments/letters.
10.00 hours ...........
5.00 hours .............
445.65
742 railroads .........
742 railroads .........
20.00 hours ...........
100.00 hours .........
40.00 hours ...........
100.00 hours .........
3,565.20
8,913.00
13 railroads with
PSP.
2 amendments ......
1 field test/document.
13 PSP safety results.
160.00 hours .........
2,080.00 hours ......
185,390.40
13 railroads ...........
1 report .................
40.00 hours ...........
40.00 hours ...........
3,565.20
13 railroads ...........
1 report .................
10.00 hours ...........
10.00 hours ...........
891.30
13 railroads ...........
1 OMM update ......
40.00 hours ...........
40.00 hours ...........
3,565.20
13 railroads ...........
1 plan update ........
40.00 hours ...........
40.00 hours ...........
3,565.20
13 railroads ...........
1 revision ..............
40.00 hours ...........
40.00 hours ...........
3,565.20
13 railroads ...........
1 program .............
40.00 hours ...........
40.00 hours ...........
3,565.20
13 railroads ...........
350 records ...........
10.00 minutes .......
58.33 hours ...........
5,198.95
38 railroads ...........
1 rule or instruction
40.00 hours ...........
40.00 hours ...........
4,738.40
Respondent
universe
CFR section
—(c)(2) Response to FRA’s request for
further data after informational filing.
—(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 safetycritical 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.
236.1001(b)—A railroad’s additional or
more stringent rules than prescribed
under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I.
742 railroads .........
742 railroads .........
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
236.1005(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.
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
1 exception request.
40.00 hours ...........
40.00 hours ...........
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
3,565.20
85480
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
CFR section
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
—(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 to FRA 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.
Total annual
responses
Average time per
response
Total annual
burden hours
Total cost
equivalent
in USD
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
(D = C * wage
rates)
38 railroads ...........
45 routing extension requests.
8.00 hours .............
360.00 hours .........
32,086.80
38 railroads ...........
45 written or telephonic notices.
2.00 hours .............
90.00 hours ...........
8,021.70
38 railroads ...........
720 requests .........
8.00 hours .............
5,760.00 hours ......
513,388.80
38 railroads ...........
10 responses ........
2.00 hours .............
20.00 hours ...........
1,782.60
38 railroads ...........
160 requests .........
8.00 hours .............
1,280.00 hours ......
114,086.40
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.
The paperwork requirement is no longer applicable.
—(b)(5)(vii) A railroad’s request to utilize different yard movement procedures, as part of a freight yard movements exception—.
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.
—(b)(6) Establishing a new exception to
permit non-revenue passenger equipment to operate to maintenance facilities or yards, without being governed
by PTC technology, under certain
conditions (*New proposed
provision*).
There is no paperwork requirement associated with this proposed provision.
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 failsafe operation criteria in appendix C.
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
38 railroads ...........
1 HSR–125 document.
3,200.00 hours ......
3,200.00 hours ......
379,072.00
38 railroads ...........
0.33 requests ........
8,000.00 hours ......
2,640.00 hours ......
235,303.20
38 railroads ...........
1 request ...............
1,000.00 hours ......
1,000.00 hours ......
118,460.00
264 railroads .........
1 PTCIP ................
535.00 hours .........
535.00 hours .........
63,376.10
264 railroads .........
1 joint PTCIP ........
267.00 hours .........
267.00 hours .........
31,628.82
264 railroads .........
1 document ...........
8.00 hours .............
8.00 hours .............
713.04
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
CFR section
—(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.
264 railroads .........
—(d) A host railroad’s submission of a
PTCSP.
—(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.
236.1011(a) through (b)—PTCIP content requirements.
—(e) Any public comment on PTCIPs,
NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
236.1013—PTCDP and NPI content requirements.
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 thirdparty 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.
—(d) A request not to provide certain
documents otherwise required under
appendix F for an independent, thirdparty 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
85481
Total annual
responses
Average time per
response
Total annual
burden hours
Total cost
equivalent
in USD
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
(D = C * wage
rates)
1 PTCDP ...............
2,000.00 hours ......
2,000.00 hours ......
178,260.00
The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1015.
38 railroads ...........
10 confidentiality
requests.
8.00 hours .............
80.00 hours ...........
7,130.40
38 railroads ...........
36 interviews and
documents.
4.00 hours .............
144.00 hours .........
12,834.72
38 railroads ...........
1 set of additional
information.
400.00 hours .........
400.00 hours .........
35,652.00
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.
38 railroads ...........
2 public comments
8.00 hours .............
16.00 hours ...........
1,426.08
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.
264 railroads .........
1 PTCSP ...............
8,000.00 hours ......
8,000.00 hours ......
713,040
38 railroads ...........
0.33 PTCSPs ........
3,200.00 hours ......
1,056.00 hours ......
94,121.28
38 railroads ...........
0.33 assessments
800.00 hours .........
264.00 hours .........
23,530.32
38 railroads ...........
0.33 assessments
1,600.00 hours ......
528.00 hours .........
62,546.88
38 railroads ...........
0.33 written requests.
8.00 hours .............
2.64 hours .............
235.30
38 railroads ...........
6.60 hours .............
588.26
38 railroads ...........
0.33 sets of addi20.00 hours ...........
tional information.
0.33 requests ........ 20.00 hours ...........
6.60 hours .............
588.26
38 railroads ...........
0.33 requests ........
32.00 hours ...........
10.56 hours ...........
941.21
38 railroads ...........
1 MTEA .................
160.00 hours .........
160.00 hours .........
14,260.80
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85482
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
CFR section
—(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.
—(d) A railroad’s collision hazard analysis in support of an MTEA, if FRA
requires one to be conducted and
submitted.
—(l) Any jointly filed RFA to a PTCDP
or PTCSP.
—(m) Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCSP ..
—(m)(4) Any RFA to a railroad’s PTC
system that involves a proposed temporary PTC system outage (*New
proposed provision*).
—(m) A railroad’s revised RFA, if needed.
236.1023(a)—A railroad’s PTC Product
Vendor List, which must be continually updated.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
Total cost
equivalent
in USD
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
(D = C * wage
rates)
160.00 hours .........
160.00 hours .........
14,260.80
10 railroads ...........
1 request ...............
160.00 hours .........
160.00 hours .........
14,260.80
7 railroads .............
1 request ...............
160.00 hours .........
160.00 hours .........
14,260.80
38 railroads ...........
0.33 collision hazard analyses.
50.00 hours ...........
16.50 hours ...........
1,470.65
The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1019(c)(1).
38 railroads ...........
10 RFAs ................
160.00 hours .........
1,600.00 hours ......
142,608.00
5 Interested parties
10 RFA public
comments.
16.00 hours ...........
160.00 hours .........
14,260.80
The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1021(a) through (d) and (m).
38 railroads ...........
38 railroads ...........
15 RFAs ................
15 RFAs ................
80.00 hours ...........
90.00 hours ...........
1,200.0 hours ........
1,350.0 hours ........
106,956.00
159,921.00
38 railroads ...........
1 revised RFA .......
45.00 hours ...........
45.00 hours ...........
5,330.70
38 railroads ...........
2 updated lists ......
8.00 hours .............
16.00 hours ...........
1,426.08
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.
10 vendors or suppliers.
—(c)(1) through (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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Total annual
burden hours
1 request and/or
plan.
—(b)(1) The railroad shall specify within
its PTCSP all contractual arrangements between a railroad and its
hardware and software suppliers or
vendors for certain immediate notifications.
—(b)(2) through (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.
Average time per
response
38 railroads ...........
—(e) Any temporal separation procedures utilized under the 49 CFR
236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.
236.1021(a) through (d)—An 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.
Total annual
responses
10 notifications ......
8.00 hours .............
80.00 hours ...........
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
7,130.40
85483
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
—(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 safetyrelevant 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—Form FRA F
6180.179—Errors and Malfunctions
Notification.
—(e)(2) Continual updates about any
and all subsequent failures.
—(f) Any notifications that must be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR
236.1023.
—(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—Form FRA F
6180.179—Errors and Malfunctions
Notification.
—(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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Total annual
responses
Average time per
response
Total annual
burden hours
Total cost
equivalent
in USD
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
(D = C * wage
rates)
38 railroads ...........
2.50 notifications ...
16.00 hours ...........
40.00 hours ...........
3,565.20
38 railroads ...........
38 database updates.
16.00 hours ...........
608.00 hours .........
54,191.04
38 railroads ...........
8 notifications ........
7.50 hours .............
60.00 hours ...........
5,347.80
38 railroads ...........
1 update ................
8.00 hours .............
8.00 hours .............
713.04
Respondent
universe
CFR section
The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1023(e)(1), (g), and (h)(1)(2).
38 railroads ...........
0.50 reports ...........
40.00 hours ...........
20.00 hours ...........
1,782.60
10 vendors ............
20 reports ..............
7.50 hours .............
150.00 hours .........
13,370
The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1023(e)(1), (g), and (h)(1)(2) and 49 CFR
233.7.
—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.
150 host and tenant railroads.
—(g) Reintroducing a provision regarding initialization failures that previously expired in December 2022,
and establishing operating restrictions
under which railroads may continue
to operate safely when a PTC system
fails to initialize (* New proposed requirement *).
In this proposed provision, there is no paperwork requirement. However, under an existing regulation,
FRA requires host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC systems to submit Quarterly Reports of
PTC System Performance, using Form FRA F 6180.152, under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR
236.1029(h). These reports include information about railroads’ initialization failures.
—(h) Form FRA F 6180.152—Report of
PTC System Performance.
38 railroads ...........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
1,000 reports .........
148 reports ............
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30.00 minutes .......
32.00 hours ...........
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
500.00 hours .........
4,736.00 hours ......
28OCP1
44,565
422,119.68
85484
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe
CFR section
Average time per
response
Total annual
burden hours
Total cost
equivalent
in USD
(A)
(B)
(C = A * B)
(D = C * wage
rates)
236.1031(a)–(d)—A railroad’s Request
for Expedited Certification.
FRA anticipates that there will be zero requests for expedited certification during this 3-year ICR.
236.1033—Communications and security requirements.
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009 and 236.1015.
236.1035(a) through (b)—A railroad’s
38 railroads ...........
request for authorization to field test
an uncertified PTC system and any
responses to FRA’s testing conditions.
236.1037(a)(1) through (2)—Records
retention.
—(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) through (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 safety-critical components,
including spare equipment.
236.1041(a) through (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.
Total ................................................
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
40.00 hours ...........
400.00 hours .........
35,652.00
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).
38 railroads ...........
800 records ...........
1.00 hour ...............
800.00 hours .........
71,304.00
20 contractors .......
1,600 records ........
10.00 minutes .......
266.67 hours .........
23,768.30
38 railroads ...........
8 final reports ........
160.00 hours .........
1,280 hours ...........
114,086.40
38 railroads ...........
2 OMM updates ....
10.00 hours ...........
20.00 hours ...........
1,782.60
38 railroads ...........
1 identified new
component.
1.00 hour ...............
1.00 hour ...............
89.13
38 railroads ...........
2 programs ............
10.00 hours ...........
20.00 hours ...........
1,782.60
150 host and tenant railroads.
150 PTC training
records.
1.00 hour ...............
150.00 hours .........
13,369.50
742 railroads and
10 vendors.
4,567,839 responses.
N/A ........................
53,309 hours .........
5,014,416
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
10 requests ...........
The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009 and 236.1015.
—(a)(3) through (4) Records retention ..
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Total annual
responses
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 or to request a
copy of the paperwork package
submitted to OMB should contact Ms.
Arlette Mussington, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
arlette.mussington@dot.gov or
telephone: (571) 609–1285, or Ms.
Joanne Swafford, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at email:
joanne.swafford@dot.gov or telephone:
(757) 897–9908.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
FRA is not authorized to impose a
penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements that
do not display a current OMB control
number, if required.
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 Executive
Order 13132 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
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. 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
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 through 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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
85485
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. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations’’ requires DOT
agencies to achieve environmental
justice as part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects, including
interrelated social and economic effects,
of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and
low-income populations. DOT Order
5610.2C (‘‘U.S. Department of
Transportation Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’) instructs DOT agencies to
address compliance with Executive
Order 12898 and requirements within
DOT Order 5610.2C in rulemaking
activities, as appropriate, and also
requires consideration of the benefits of
transportation programs, policies, and
other activities where minority
populations and low-income
populations benefit, at a minimum, to
the same level as the general population
as a whole when determining impacts
on minority and low-income
populations.49 FRA has evaluated this
49 Executive Order 14096 ‘‘Revitalizing Our
Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice,’’
issued on April 26, 2023, supplements Executive
Order 12898, but is not currently referenced in DOT
Order 5610.2C.
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
85486
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule under Executive Orders
12898 and 14096 and DOT Order
5610.2C and has determined it would
not cause disproportionate and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on communities with environmental
justice concerns.
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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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). As FRA acknowledged in section
IV, there are societal benefits to the
proposals in this NPRM. For example,
there are possible fuel savings and
carbon emission savings 50 from people
not using alternative transportation
modes like buses or cars, which would
be necessary if the proposed flexibilities
in this NPRM did not exist and railroads
were not allowed to operate trains in
certain circumstances. FRA evaluated
this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13211 and determined that this
50 As noted above, passenger trains are up to 46%
more efficient than driving and 34% more efficient
than flying. Also, a single freight train can be up
to 75% more fuel-efficient than a truck.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ within the meaning of
Executive Order 13211, based on
currently available information.
However, FRA welcomes comments on
the extent to which this proposed rule
would result in fuel and emission
savings.
1. The authority citation for part 236
continues to read as follows:
■
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.
K. Tribal Consultation
FRA has evaluated this NPRM in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.’’ 51
The proposed rule would not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian Tribal governments, and would
not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, the
funding and consultation requirements
of Executive Order 13175 do not apply,
and a Tribal summary impact statement
is not required.
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4)
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a
summary of this rulemaking can be
found in the Abstract section of the
Department’s Unified Agenda entry for
this rulemaking at: https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&
RIN=2130-AC95.
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:
51 65
PO 00000
FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PART 236—RULES, STANDARDS, AND
INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE
INSTALLATION, INSPECTION,
MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF
SIGNAL AND TRAIN CONTROL
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND
APPLIANCES
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 § 236.1006 by adding
paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
■
§ 236.1006 Equipping locomotives
operating in PTC territory.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) Exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment movements. This
exception is available to enable only
non-revenue passenger equipment,
including a locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train without passengers, to
operate to a maintenance facility or yard
for the purpose of repairing or
exchanging a PTC system. Such nonrevenue equipment may operate to a
maintenance facility or yard without
being governed by PTC technology, as
otherwise required under this part, only
if it meets the criteria in this paragraph
(b)(6) and the following conditions:
(i) The speed of the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train must not
exceed 49 miles per hour;
(ii) An absolute block must be
established in front of the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train;
(iii) There cannot be any working
limits established under part 214 of this
chapter or any roadway workers on any
part of the route;
(iv) The locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train must operate no farther
than the next forward location
designated in the railroad’s PTCSP for
the repair or exchange of PTC
technology; and
(v) The railroad must protect the route
of the locomotive, locomotive consist, or
train against conflicting operations and
establish and comply with sufficient
operating rules to protect against a trainto-train collision and the movement of
a train through a switch left in the
improper position.
(vi) FRA may, in its discretion,
approve exception criteria and
conditions other than those outlined in
paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(6)(i) through
(v) of this section, in a PTCSP or an
RFA, if the proposed criteria and
conditions provide an equivalent or
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
greater level of safety than these default
criteria and conditions.
(vii) Before utilizing the default
exception under paragraphs (b)(6)(i)
through (v) of this section or the
discretionary exception under
paragraph (b)(6)(vi) of this section, the
railroad must notify each person
involved with the movement of the nonrevenue passenger equipment, including
any dispatchers and train crews, and
any roadway workers who may no
longer work on that segment during the
movement subject to this exception.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 236.1021 by adding
paragraph (m)(4) to read as follows:
§ 236.1021 Discontinuances, material
modifications, and amendments.
*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(4) A host railroad must utilize the
RFA process under this paragraph (m) to
request and obtain FRA’s approval of a
temporary PTC system outage, during
which train movements may continue,
including a short-term outage related to
repair, maintenance, an infrastructure
upgrade, or a capital project. A
temporary PTC system outage includes,
but is not limited to, any scenario when
the onboard PTC apparatus or
subsystem, wayside subsystem,
communications subsystem, or back
office subsystem would be disabled to
perform a repair, maintenance, an
infrastructure upgrade, or a capital
project.
(i) A railroad may temporarily disable
PTC technology pursuant to paragraph
(m)(4) of this section only after it
obtains approval from the Director of
FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems and
Technology.
(ii) In addition to the content
requirements outlined in paragraph
(m)(2) of this section, an RFA that seeks
to disable a PTC system temporarily
must also contain the following
information:
(A) The technical necessity for the
proposed temporary outage to perform
the repair, maintenance, infrastructure
upgrade, or capital project;
(B) The physical limits and PTC
system functions that would be affected
by the proposed temporary outage, and
an analysis that demonstrates the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Oct 25, 2024
Jkt 265001
affected physical limits and affected
functions pose the least risk to railroad
safety, compared to other options;
(C) An explanation about how the
proposed temporary outage is in the
public interest and consistent with
railroad safety;
(D) The proposed timeframe of the
temporary outage, and an analysis that
demonstrates the proposed period of
time poses the least risk to railroad
safety, compared to other times;
(E) A justification and an analysis that
show how the proposed duration of the
temporary outage is the minimum time
necessary to complete the pertinent
work, test the PTC system, and place the
PTC system back into service without
undue delay;
(F) The type and frequency of rail
operations that would continue during
the proposed temporary outage,
including those of the host railroad and
each tenant railroad;
(G) The applicable speed limit of any
train that would operate during the
proposed temporary outage and the
speed limit prior to any proposed
temporary outage, and any other
operating restrictions;
(H) The additional safety measures
the host railroad and each tenant
railroad must comply with during the
proposed temporary outage, to ensure
each type of PTC-preventable accident
or incident does not occur. Specifically,
such safety measures must be designed
to prevent a train-to-train collision, an
over-speed derailment, an incursion
into an established work zone, and a
movement of a train through a switch
left in the wrong position; and
(I) A confirmation that before
initiating the proposed temporary
outage (if FRA authorizes it), each
impacted railroad will notify all
applicable dispatchers, train crews, and
roadway workers about the temporary
PTC system outage, including the
specific location and duration of the
temporary outage, the additional safety
measures with which the railroad must
comply, and any actions the individual
must take during the temporary outage.
■ 4. Amend § 236.1029 by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
85487
(g) Initialization failures. (1) Except as
stated under paragraph (g)(3) or (4) of
this section, when a PTC system fails to
initialize as defined in § 236.1003, a
train may proceed only according to the
following operating restrictions:
(i) For the first 24 hours, the train may
proceed only as prescribed under
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section; and
(ii) After the first 24 hours, the train
may proceed only as prescribed under
paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this
section, and must not exceed restricted
speed as defined in § 236.1003.
(2) Each railroad operating in
accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this
section will notify, as early as is
possible, all dispatchers, train crews,
and roadway workers about PTC
system-level outages or failures that
result in multiple trains’ PTC systems
failing to initialize, thus resulting in
trains proceeding in accordance with
operating restrictions. Railroads must
ensure that job safety briefings reflect
such operations.
(3) Notwithstanding the relief under
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, when a
PTC system fails to initialize due to loss
of communications or lack of
navigational information, the train must
attempt to initialize the PTC system at
the next forward, available location,
including a main line, siding, yard, or
station, whichever is closest.
(4) The relief under paragraph (g)(1) of
this section does not apply to a single
train that experiences an onboard PTC
system failure at the initial terminal.
The purpose of this paragraph (g) is to
address issues affecting multiple trains.
(5) FRA reserves the right to impose
additional operating restrictions and
other conditions to address recurring
issues that result in multiple trains’ PTC
systems failing to initialize and to deny
the relief under paragraph (g)(1) of this
section for recurring issues that result in
multiple trains’ PTC systems failing to
initialize.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
§ 236.1029
PTC system use and failures.
[FR Doc. 2024–24559 Filed 10–25–24; 8:45 am]
*
*
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
PO 00000
*
Frm 00033
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM
28OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85462-85487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24559]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 236
[Docket No. FRA-2023-0064]
RIN 2130-AC95
Positive Train Control Systems
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend certain regulations governing
positive train control (PTC) systems. Since December 31, 2020, by law,
PTC systems have generally governed rail operations on PTC-mandated
main lines, which encompass nearly 59,000 route miles today. Through
FRA's oversight and continued engagement with the industry, FRA has
found that its existing PTC regulations do not adequately address
temporary situations during which PTC technology is not enabled,
including after certain initialization failures or in cases where a PTC
system needs to be temporarily disabled to facilitate repair,
maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or capital projects. FRA expects
PTC systems to be reliable and robust, further reducing the occurrence
of initialization failures and outages. This NPRM proposes to establish
strict parameters and operating restrictions under which railroads may
continue to operate safely in certain necessary scenarios when PTC
technology is temporarily not governing rail operations. The purpose of
this NPRM is to enable continued, safe operations and improve rail
safety by facilitating prompt repairs, upgrades, and restoration of PTC
system service.
DATES: Written comments must be received by December 27, 2024. 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:
Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2023-0064 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-2023-0064), and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2130-AC95). 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, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168, email:
[email protected]; or Stephanie Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone:
202-834-0609, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations
B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by Executive Order 14094
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
F. Environmental Impact
G. Environmental Justice
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Energy Impact
J. Privacy Act Statement
K. Tribal Consultation
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)
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 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
[[Page 85463]]
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,
section 104, 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 (Oct. 29, 2015); the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, section
11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312 (Dec. 4, 2015); and the Passenger Rail
Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law 117-58, section
22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 2021), codified as amended at 49
U.S.C. 20157. See also 49 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, 37 host railroads \3\--including 7 Class I railroads,\4\
24 entities that provide regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail
passenger transportation (hereinafter referred to as ``intercity
passenger railroads or commuter railroads,'' respectively), and 6 Class
II or III, short line, or terminal railroads--are directly subject to
the statutory mandate. On December 29, 2020, FRA announced that
railroads had fully implemented FRA-certified and interoperable PTC
systems on all PTC-mandated main lines.\5\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR
236.1005(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As this proposed rule primarily focuses on host railroads,
FRA references the current number of PTC-mandated host railroads
(37). 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).
\4\ FRA acknowledges that one Class I railroad (Canadian Pacific
Railway) recently acquired a second Class I railroad (Kansas City
Southern Railway). However, for purposes of FRA's PTC regulations
and related oversight, FRA is currently counting these railroads
separately, as they presently submit separate PTC filings and have
indicated they will do so unless and until they fully integrate
their PTC systems.
\5\ Federal Railroad Administration, FRA Announces Landmark
Achievement with Full Implementation of Positive Train Control (Dec.
29, 2020), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-12/fra1920.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, PTC technology is governing rail operations on nearly 59,000
route miles. Based on FRA's oversight of PTC technology since FRA last
amended its PTC regulations in 2021, FRA identified three aspects of
its existing PTC regulations that warrant revision to address ongoing
challenges. Overall, the proposed amendments would benefit the railroad
industry, the public, and FRA by facilitating repairs, maintenance,
upgrades, and capital improvements; expanding certain railroad
informational requirements; reducing costs; and enabling the safe,
reliable, and resilient movement of people and goods, while preserving
rail safety.
This NPRM proposes to establish strict parameters and operating
restrictions under which railroads may continue to operate safely in
three specific scenarios when PTC technology is temporarily not
governing rail operations:
1. When non-revenue passenger equipment needs to operate to a
maintenance facility or yard, for the sole purpose of repairing or
exchanging PTC technology;
2. When a PTC system needs to be temporarily disabled to facilitate
repair, maintenance, an infrastructure upgrade, or a capital project;
and
3. When a system-level or widescale problem occurs resulting in
multiple trains' PTC systems failing to initialize.
FRA's objective in this rulemaking is to establish clear, uniform
processes, rather than addressing issues that arise in a reactive and
piecemeal manner. FRA expects that establishing predictable,
prescriptive processes will both enable continued operations and
improve railroad safety by facilitating prompt repairs, upgrades, and
restoration of PTC system service and eliminating uncertainty and
inconsistent application of FRA's regulations. FRA's proposed
parameters and operating restrictions in this NPRM are intended to be
sufficiently strict to ensure that railroads and PTC system suppliers
and vendors proactively identify and remedy problems before they arise
and immediately correct any problems that may surface despite proactive
measures.
First, FRA is proposing to establish an exception, under 49 CFR
236.1006(b)(6), to permit, under certain conditions, non-revenue
passenger equipment to operate to maintenance facilities or yards,
without being governed by PTC technology. This NPRM proposes to extend
the exception currently afforded to certain freight movements to
movements of non-revenue passenger equipment, including equipment that
is owned or controlled by an intercity passenger railroad or commuter
railroad.
This proposed exception would enable non-revenue passenger
equipment, including a locomotive, locomotive consist, or train without
passengers onboard, to operate to a maintenance facility or yard for
the sole purpose of repairing or exchanging \6\ a PTC system or
component. Commuter railroads have informed FRA this proposed exception
would be beneficial and necessary, as it would enable them, for
example, to operate a PTC-equipped locomotive, where the onboard PTC
technology is not functioning and requires repair, to a maintenance
facility or yard to repair or exchange the PTC system. To ensure rail
safety, FRA is proposing to impose six conditions on each movement of
non-revenue passenger equipment subject to this exception, including
speed and distance restrictions, the requirement to establish an
absolute block (meaning no other traffic may be present in the area),
and other protections of the route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ FRA's existing regulations, including 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(6),
refer to repairing or exchanging a PTC system or component. To
clarify, FRA notes that ``exchange'' is intended to refer to the
industry's practice of, for example, swapping out a defective
component for a functioning component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, FRA proposes to improve the existing process, under 49 CFR
236.1021(m), that railroads currently utilize to request and obtain
FRA's approval to disable their PTC systems temporarily when necessary
to facilitate repair, maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, and capital
projects. This NPRM proposes to add paragraph (m)(4) to existing Sec.
236.1021 to focus on this specific type of request for amendment (RFA)
to PTC systems (i.e., where a temporary PTC system outage is proposed),
as it is different from the other types of RFAs that railroads submit
under Sec. 236.1021 and requires additional FRA oversight.
FRA proposes to require railroads to provide additional, essential
information in an RFA that seeks to temporarily disable a PTC system to
enable FRA to evaluate more fully the scope, circumstances, and
necessity of a proposed temporary outage and properly determine whether
granting the request is in the public interest and consistent with
railroad safety. For example, this NPRM proposes to impose nine
additional content requirements for this specific type of RFA,
including certain justifications, safety analyses, mitigations, and
other documentation to demonstrate the proposed outage is as narrow in
scope, impact, and duration, as possible.
Third, FRA proposes to reintroduce as a permanent provision a
version of a temporary provision regarding PTC system initialization
failures, which expired on December 31, 2022.\7\ The expired regulatory
provision previously permitted any train, including an individual
train, to keep operating subject to certain restrictions, if the train
failed to initialize for any reason prior to the train's departure from
its initial terminal. In FRA's 2014 final rule, FRA
[[Page 85464]]
authorized this provision temporarily, recognizing that ``there may be
issues that could be identified and resolved in the early days
following PTC system implementation and revenue service operation.''
\8\ In 2014, FRA also observed that ``[e]xperience over these
intervening years will provide more empirical data on PTC system
reliability, and may be a basis for FRA to revisit this issue at a
later date should circumstances warrant.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(2).
\8\ 79 FR 49693, 49706 (Aug. 22, 2014).
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA's intention in this NPRM, by proposing to reintroduce an
updated version of this provision, is to address only system-level
outages or failures that result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing
to initialize, impacting the trains of the host railroad and often
most, if not all, of its tenant railroads. Currently, if a PTC system
fails to initialize, trains are generally prohibited from operating,
which has resulted in situations where passengers could be stranded,
and vital freight shipments halted.
Although PTC technology is generally reliable and robust, it is a
complex technology, composed of many subsystems and dependent on
external networks, and it continues to experience unplanned outages.
For example, railroads' Quarterly Reports of PTC System Performance
\10\ show that PTC technology failed to initialize on approximately 236
intercity passenger or commuter trains and 894 freight trains in
2023.\11\ Additionally, based on voluntary reporting by railroads, FRA
is aware of eight (8) system-level outages that occurred in 2023 that
caused multiple trains to fail to initialize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Form FRA F 6180.152, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Control No. 2130-0553; 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) (as amended by the
Passenger Rail Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law
117-58, section 22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 2021)).
\11\ The referenced initialization failures exclude any
initialization failures where the source or cause was the onboard
subsystem, as proposed Sec. 236.1029(g)(3) excludes such
initialization failures from receiving the flexibility afforded
under proposed Sec. 236.1029(g), as they typically impact one
train. FRA is citing to the relevant initialization failures where
the source or cause was, for example, the back office, wayside, or
communications subsystems because those types of issues would
generally impact more than one train and would be within the scope
of this proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA is proposing to impose two tiers of operating restrictions that
would become increasingly restrictive as time passes, to ensure both
that railroads utilize any operating flexibility only when necessary
and that railroads and their vendors and suppliers identify and resolve
issues promptly. FRA expects this will help strike the appropriate
balance between enabling continued operations subject to speed
restrictions, pending resolution of a PTC failure, and restoring PTC
systems as quickly as possible. In short, if a PTC system fails to
initialize, impacting multiple trains, FRA proposes to permit railroads
to continue operating for 24 hours, subject to the operating
restrictions, including speed limits, that previously applied to
initialization failures and that currently apply to en route
failures.\12\ After the first 24 hours, FRA proposes to impose a
significant speed limit of restricted speed, among other restrictions,
both to help ensure rail safety and to propel the industry to act
quickly to restore PTC system service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ An en route failure is a situation where a controlling
locomotive experiences a ``PTC system failure or the PTC system is
otherwise cut out while en route (i.e., after the train has departed
its initial terminal).'' 49 CFR 236.1029(b) (emphasis added). FRA's
current regulations provide that when an en route failure occurs, a
train may continue operating in accordance with certain
restrictions, including speed limits that are based on the
underlying signal or train control system still in effect, outlined
under 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(1) through (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule over a 10-
year period and estimated its benefits and costs, which are shown in
the table below. The total estimated 10-year net benefits would be
$81.8 million (discounted at 2 percent), and the annualized net
benefits would be $9.1 million (discounted at 2 percent). The industry
benefits associated with FRA's proposal to amend three provisions--
i.e., to introduce a new exception for certain non-revenue passenger
equipment movements, improve the RFA process regarding temporary PTC
system outages, and permit continued operations following certain
initialization failures, subject to operating restrictions--would
outweigh the industry costs and government administrative costs
associated with FRA's proposal to expand the content requirements for
RFAs related to temporary outages.
Table A--Total 10-Year Discounted Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits
[2023 Dollars] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Present Present
Category value 2% value 3% value 7% Annualized Annualized Annualized
($) ($) ($) 2% ($) 3% ($) 7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Benefits.............. 83,534,444 80,105,191 68,518,285 9,299,600 9,390,772 9,755,462
Total Costs.................... 1,760,775 1,688,492 1,444,258 196,021 197,943 205,630
Industry Costs................. 1,514,075 1,451,919 1,241,905 168,557 170,209 176,819
Government Administrative Costs 246,700 236,573 202,353 27,464 27,734 28,811
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits \2\........... 81,773,669 78,416,699 67,074,027 9,103,579 9,192,829 9,549,832
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and
benefits are calculated in this analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into
equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present value at the particular discount rate is:
1/(1+r)\t\, where ``r'' is the discount rate, and ``t'' is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used
in this analysis.
\2\ Net Benefits = Industry Benefits - (Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the
net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and
operating PTC systems.
II. Background
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 how FRA certifies PTC
systems.\13\ The Secretary delegated to the Administrator of the
Federal Railroad Administration 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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),
[[Page 85465]]
FRA published its first final PTC rule on January 15, 2010, which is
set forth, as amended, under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I.\14\ 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 published in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2021.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010).
\15\ 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); and
86 FR 40154 (July 27, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, on July 27, 2021, FRA amended its PTC regulations to
improve the process by which railroads submit, and FRA reviews, RFAs to
railroads' FRA-certified PTC systems and their associated PTC Safety
Plans (PTCSPs), and to establish more robust reporting requirements to
enable FRA to oversee the reliability and performance of railroads' PTC
systems effectively. Also, in January 2023, FRA announced that it
issued a guidance document addressing requirements related to the
submission of requests for waivers, applications to modify or
discontinue a signal system, and other special approval requests to
FRA, and FRA underscored the importance of ensuring that railroads'
filings contain sufficient, non-confidential information for the public
to review and on which to comment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 88 FR 1448 (Jan. 10, 2023); Federal Railroad
Administration, Guidance on Submitting Requests for Waivers, Block
Signal Applications, and Other Approval Requests to FRA (Dec. 2022),
available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/Guidance%20on%20Submitting%20Waiver%20Special%20Approval%20Other%20Requests%20for%20Approval%20to%20FRA%20%28Dec%202022%29%20final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this proposed rule, FRA proposes to revise three sections, 49
CFR 236.1006, 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
FRA regularly engages with host railroads, tenant railroads, PTC
system vendors and suppliers, industry associations, and labor
organizations, as part of FRA's oversight of railroads' operation 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 5.5.
From November 2023 to February 2024, FRA met with the following
four industry associations and their member railroads to discuss the
objectives of this NPRM and solicit their feedback: the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association (ASLRRA), the Association of American Railroads
(AAR), and the Commuter Rail Coalition (CRC).
Representatives from the following 35 Class I railroads, commuter
and passenger railroads, and short line and regional railroads, listed
alphabetically, attended one or more of the AAR, APTA,\17\ ASLRRA, and
CRC meetings referenced immediately above: Alaska Railroad; Altamont
Corridor Express; BNSF Railway (BNSF); Canadian National Railway (CN);
Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited (CPKC); Capital Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (CMTY); Central Florida Rail Corridor (CFRC);
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX); Denton County Transportation Authority;
Genesee & Wyoming Inc. (G&W); Long Island Rail Road (LIRR); Maryland
Area Rail Commuter (MARC); Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
(MBTA); Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North); National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak); New Jersey Transit (NJT); New Mexico Rail Runner
Express; Norfolk Southern Railway (NS); North County Transit District
(NCTD); Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
(Metra); Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICD);
Northstar Commuter Rail; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(Caltrain); Regional Transportation District (Denver RTDC); Sonoma-
Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART); Sound Transit; South Florida Regional
Transportation Authority (SFRTA); Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA); Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (Metrolink); TEXRail; Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon (TriMet); Trinity Railway Express (TRE); Union
Pacific Railroad (UP); Utah Transit Authority (UTA FrontRunner); and
Virginia Railway Express (VRE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In addition to FRA's meeting with APTA, FRA met with the
following two user groups in February 2024, as coordinated through
APTA: the Enhanced Automatic Train Control (E-ATC) User Group and
the Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) User
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, for the same purpose, FRA met with the following 10
labor organizations in February 2024: the American Train Dispatchers
Association (ATDA); the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and
Trainmen, a Division of the Rail Conference of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET); the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employes Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(BMWED); the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS); the Brotherhood
of Railway Carmen Division, Transportation Communications International
Union (BRC); the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers (IAM); the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail,
and Transportation Workers--Transportation Division (SMART-TD); the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); the Transport
Workers Union of America (TWU); and the Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO (TTD).
In general, the four industry associations and 35 railroads
strongly supported the three objectives of this NPRM. The labor
organizations FRA met with supported FRA's objective of enabling
operations while maintaining rail safety, but they expressed concern
that regulatory flexibility might have the unintended consequence of
degrading safety or delaying repairs to PTC technology. Accordingly,
with all feedback in mind, FRA drafted its proposed requirements and
restrictions in 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6), 236.1021(m)(4), and 236.1029(g)
to prioritize rail safety, address limited circumstances for
facilitating repairs, maintenance, and infrastructure upgrades, and
enable the safe, reliable, and resilient movement of passengers,
commuters, and freight.
As the detailed feedback the associations, railroads, and labor
organizations provided during the meetings was directed at a specific
proposal in this NPRM, FRA discusses the feedback in the appropriate
portions of Section III (Section-by-Section Analysis) of this NPRM.
The proposals in this NPRM are based on FRA's own review and
analysis and, in part, on the feedback provided during the meetings in
2023 and 2024, specified above. FRA seeks comments on all proposals
made in this NPRM.
[[Page 85466]]
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 236.1006 Equipping Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory
Existing paragraph (b) in Sec. 236.1006 contains a list of
exceptions to the general requirement under paragraph (a) that each
locomotive, locomotive consist, or train that operates on any PTC-
governed track segment ``be controlled by a locomotive equipped with an
onboard PTC apparatus that is fully operative and functioning in
accordance with the applicable PTCSP approved under this subpart.'' 49
CFR 236.1006(a), (b)(1) through (5).
FRA proposes to add a new exception, under proposed paragraph
(b)(6), to permit non-revenue passenger equipment to operate to
maintenance facilities or yards, without being governed by PTC
technology, under certain conditions. Currently, a similar exception is
available only to freight railroads under existing paragraph (b)(5) of
this section. The purpose of new proposed paragraph (b)(6) is to extend
that type of exception to movements of certain non-revenue passenger
equipment, which would include equipment owned or controlled by an
intercity passenger railroad or commuter railroad.
The sole purpose of new proposed paragraph (b)(6) is to enable non-
revenue passenger equipment, including a locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train, to operate to a maintenance facility or yard for the
purpose of repairing or exchanging a PTC system. During FRA's APTA and
CRC meetings in February 2024, several commuter railroads, including
CMTY, MARC, Metro-North, NICD, and NJT, commented that this proposed
exception would be beneficial and necessary, as it would enable them,
for example, to operate a PTC-equipped locomotive, where the onboard
PTC technology is not functioning and requires repair, to a maintenance
facility or yard to repair or exchange the PTC system or component.
Without this proposed provision, intercity passenger railroads and
commuter railroads would need to utilize rescue trains or, in other
words, use an operative, PTC-equipped locomotive, locomotive consist,
or train to move the non-operative, PTC-equipped equipment to a
maintenance facility or yard. This proposed provision will enable a
railroad to repair the equipment more efficiently, thus helping improve
rail safety.
During FRA's meetings in February 2024, commuter railroads cited
often experiencing issues with transporting equipment requiring repair
to their maintenance facilities, including unavailability of equipment
and cascading schedule delays, and they supported this proposed
exception, even though it would potentially constrain some operations.
For example, the introductory text of proposed paragraph (b)(6) makes
it clear that this proposed exception would apply only to non-revenue
movements, meaning no intercity passenger or commuter rail service
could be provided while moving this equipment not governed by a PTC
system.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (v) and (vii) outline the six
additional conditions FRA proposes an intercity passenger railroad or
commuter railroad must satisfy while utilizing this proposed exception.
First, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(i) would limit the speed of the
locomotive, locomotive consist, or train to a maximum of 49 miles per
hour (mph), which is significantly slower than the normal maximum
authorized speed for passenger equipment, which generally ranges
between 79 mph and 150 mph.
Second, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(ii) would require an absolute
block \18\ to be established in front of the locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train. This would help ensure safety by essentially
eliminating the possibility of a train-to-train collision. During FRA's
February 2024 meetings, CMTY, SMART, and UTA FrontRunner commented that
they currently use absolute blocks in similar circumstances and
supported the proposal of this condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Under 49 CFR 236.709, an absolute block is defined as a
``block in which no train is permitted to enter while it is occupied
by another train.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iii) specifies that there cannot
be any working limits established under part 214 of this chapter on any
part of the route. FRA proposes to eliminate the risk of an incursion
into an established work zone by not permitting work zones or any
roadway workers at all on the route the non-revenue passenger equipment
uses to reach the maintenance facility or yard to repair or exchange
its PTC technology. To be clear, roadway workers may not perform any
work on the route where the non-revenue passenger equipment operates
subject to this proposed exception, until after the equipment arrives
at its destination, the maintenance facility or yard.
Fourth, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iv) specifies that the
locomotive, locomotive consist, or train could operate in non-revenue
service no farther than the next forward location designated in the
railroad's PTCSP for the repair or exchange \19\ of PTC technology.
During FRA's meeting with labor organizations in February 2024, BLET
and BRS commented that they were concerned a railroad might utilize
this proposed exception to avoid repairing the PTC system or to delay
repairing the PTC system by operating the equipment to a more distant
repair location than available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ To clarify, FRA notes that ``exchange'' is intended to
refer to the industry's practice of, for example, swapping out a
defective component for a functioning component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, during a meeting in February 2024, NICD observed that
the structure of commuter rail operations would inherently prevent
railroads from overusing any exception or provision that involves speed
restrictions because of the negative impact that has on their
operations. For example, even a single train operating at a slower
speed can create scheduling issues and cascading delays for commuter
trains. In addition, FRA expects that its proposed conditions,
including the imposition of a speed restriction, the prohibition
against work zones, and an absolute block requirement, would prevent
overuse of this exception. Also, FRA crafted proposed paragraph
(b)(6)(iv) with BLET and BRS's comments in mind, and this proposed
condition would explicitly prohibit the non-revenue passenger equipment
from operating farther than the next forward designated location in the
railroad's FRA-approved PTCSP.
Fifth, similar to a condition in the existing freight version of
this exception in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, proposed (b)(6)(v)
would require the railroad to protect the route against conflicting
operations and establish and comply with sufficient operating rules to
protect against a train-to-train collision and the movement of a train
through a switch left in the wrong or improper position. This condition
would further reduce the possibility of a train-to-train collision as
it would address traffic on intersecting tracks. Furthermore, to
protect against the movement of a train through a switch left in the
wrong or improper position, a railroad's operating rules could, for
example, explain that the railroad utilizes a system or technology
capable of monitoring switches. If a railroad does not have such a
system or technology, a switch's position must be manually verified
before any movement over the switch points. To accomplish this, a
switch tender must check the switch, or the train crew must stop and
then confirm the switch position before operating over the switch.
[[Page 85467]]
During an FRA meeting in February 2024, SFRTA inquired whether FRA
intends to limit the distance of the movement of non-revenue passenger
equipment in this proposed exception, as it does in the freight
railroad exception in existing paragraph (b)(5). FRA notes that the
purpose of the two exceptions is different: the purpose of the freight
exception in paragraph (b)(5) is to facilitate freight switching and
freight transfer train service, including in revenue service, in or
near yards, whereas the purpose of the proposed paragraph (b)(6)
exception would be to enable non-revenue passenger equipment to reach
maintenance facilities or yards, without being governed by PTC
technology, for the specific purpose of repairing or exchanging a PTC
system. The commuter railroad SMART commented that it would not be
possible to identify a specific distance that applies to all cases
because the distance to each intercity passenger or commuter railroad's
maintenance facilities and yards, based on the starting point, is
unique. FRA agrees, as the applicable distance varies greatly based on
case-by-case circumstances. Accordingly, rather than imposing an exact
distance limit, FRA expects that the five conditions in proposed
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (v) would sufficiently define the scope of
this exception.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vi) provides that FRA may, in its
discretion, approve alternative criteria and conditions, in a PTCSP or
an RFA to a PTCSP, if the railroad demonstrates that the alternative
criteria and conditions would provide an equivalent or greater level of
safety than the default criteria and conditions. FRA is proposing to
add this paragraph to mirror that discretionary element of the freight
yard movements exception in existing paragraph (b)(5)(vii). Proposed
paragraph (b)(6)(vi) provides the opportunity for railroads to propose
alternative applications of this exception to FRA for review and
approval. An intercity passenger railroad or commuter railroad must
obtain FRA's approval only if it seeks to use alternative exception
criteria or conditions under proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vi), whereas the
standard exception for non-revenue passenger equipment movements would
be immediately available for use for any movement that meets all
default criteria and conditions in proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i)
through (v).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ FRA notes that railroads would report any use of the
proposed exception under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6) in their Quarterly
Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB Control
No. 2130-0553), as either a ``cut out'' or ``initialization
failure'' depending on the circumstances and based on the
definitions under 49 CFR 236.1003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vii) imposes a notification
requirement that a railroad must satisfy before moving non-revenue
passenger equipment pursuant to this exception. Specifically, this
paragraph proposes that before utilizing the default exception under
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (v) or the discretionary exception under
paragraph (b)(6)(vi), the railroad must notify each person involved
with the movement of the non-revenue passenger equipment, including any
dispatchers and train crews, in addition to any roadway workers who may
no longer work on that segment during the movement subject to this
exception.
Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, Material Modifications, and
Amendments
On December 31, 2022, the regulatory provision under 49 CFR
236.1029(g)(3) expired, which previously permitted a railroad to
temporarily disable its PTC system when necessary to perform PTC system
repair or maintenance, after notifying an FRA regional office. As Sec.
236.1029(g)(3) has expired, a simple notification to FRA no longer
suffices, and a railroad must obtain FRA's approval through an RFA
pursuant to 49 CFR 236.1021(m) before a railroad temporarily disables
its PTC system and continues rail operations.
The purpose of existing Sec. 236.1021, in relevant part, is to
prohibit a railroad from making certain changes to its PTC system or
disabling or discontinuing its PTC system, unless the railroad first
submits an RFA to its PTC system with certain information and obtains
FRA's approval.
This NPRM proposes to add a new paragraph (m)(4) to Sec. 236.1021
to clarify that the RFA process under existing paragraph (m) applies to
a case where a railroad seeks to temporarily disable its PTC system,
and to continue operations during that time, to facilitate repair,
maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or capital projects. During FRA's
meetings with AAR, APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and their member railroads in
November 2023 and February 2024 to discuss this NPRM, these four
associations and several railroads, including all Class I railroads,
Alaska Railroad, Amtrak, G&W, Metra, Metro-North, Metrolink, and SFRTA,
expressed general support for FRA's proposal to revise existing
paragraph (m) to acknowledge explicitly that it covers RFAs to PTC
systems involving temporary outages.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (m)(4) clarifies that a host
railroad must utilize the RFA process under paragraph (m) to request
and obtain FRA's approval of a temporary PTC system outage, during
which train movements may continue, including a short-term outage
related to repair, maintenance, an infrastructure upgrade, or a capital
project.\21\ To provide non-exhaustive examples of what a temporary PTC
system outage includes, proposed paragraph (m)(4) clarifies that the
term includes, but is not limited to, any scenario when the onboard PTC
apparatus or subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, or
back office subsystem would be disabled. FRA interprets the term
``disabled'' broadly and acknowledges the industry also uses the verb
``disengage'' interchangeably in this context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Several railroads have expressed that their chief concern
is a path forward for undertaking non-PTC-related capital projects
that necessitate temporarily disabling the PTC system, and FRA is
using the general term ``capital projects'' in this NPRM to avoid
any ambiguity and clarify that this process applies to such
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the current process under existing paragraph (m),
proposed paragraph (m)(4)(i) provides that a railroad may temporarily
disable PTC technology pursuant to this paragraph only after it obtains
approval from the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems and
Technology.
Based on FRA's experience reviewing RFAs involving temporary
outages throughout 2023 and 2024 to date, FRA found that the current
content requirements for RFAs to PTC systems under existing paragraph
(m)(2) do not yield sufficient information for FRA to assess the full
scope and circumstances of each proposed temporary outage. Accordingly,
proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I) identify nine additional
content elements this type of RFA must include, in addition to the
standard content requirements under paragraph (m)(2), which apply to a
broader cross-section of RFAs to PTC systems and PTCSPs.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A) would require this specific type
of RFA to describe the necessity for the proposed temporary outage. For
example, in 2023 and 2024, railroads have filed RFAs seeking to
temporarily disable a PTC system to facilitate the installation of
automatic train control or a new interlocking, or to execute an upgrade
of a computer-aided dispatch system, a back office server migration or
replacement, or an electrical infrastructure upgrade. This section of
the RFA would explain why temporarily
[[Page 85468]]
disabling a PTC system is technically necessary to perform that type of
repair, maintenance, infrastructure upgrade, or capital project.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(B) would require the RFA to describe
the physical limits and PTC system functions that would be affected by
the proposed temporary outage. This section of the RFA would require an
analysis that demonstrates the affected physical limits and affected
functions pose the least risk to railroad safety, compared to other
options. To assess the RFA, FRA needs to understand the exact
location(s) that will be impacted, including milepost limits and other
descriptors. Identifying the precise PTC system functions that would be
impacted is also essential for FRA to understand the scope of the
temporary outage, as an outage might impact only a narrow set of PTC
system capabilities.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(C) would require the RFA to include
an explanation about how the proposed temporary outage is in the public
interest and consistent with railroad safety. Existing Sec.
236.1021(f) requires FRA to determine whether granting a request is in
the public interest and consistent with railroad safety, and it is
important for an RFA to provide such information.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(D) would require the railroad to
provide the proposed timeframe of the temporary outage and an analysis
that demonstrates the proposed period poses the least risk to railroad
safety, compared to other times. This proposal mirrors a similar
requirement under former Sec. 236.1029(g)(3)(ii), which expired in
December 2022. FRA has seen railroads prudently identify the timeslot
of a specific day of the week with the least traffic, which is what FRA
expects this content requirement will help ensure in future RFAs.
As a note, FRA has also seen cases where a railroad avoids needing
to submit and obtain FRA's approval of an RFA involving a temporary
outage, as the railroad either ceases all operations until it finishes
the relevant work, or the railroad selects a time when no trains will
operate. FRA commends railroads for structuring their projects that way
and expects railroads to submit an RFA, seeking to disable its PTC
system temporarily with continued rail service, under proposed
paragraph (m)(4) only when ceasing operations would not be feasible.
Relatedly, proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(E) would require the RFA
to include both a justification and an analysis that show how the
proposed duration of the temporary outage is the minimum time necessary
to complete the pertinent work, test the PTC system, and place the PTC
system back into service without undue delay. FRA highlights that
proposed paragraph (m)(4) is intended to address short-term outages
only, and FRA will deny an RFA that seeks to disable a PTC system for
an unreasonable, extensive period. In general, PTC-mandated main lines
must be governed by PTC technology, given the presence of intercity
passenger rail, commuter rail, or certain freight transportation. See,
e.g., 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b), 236.1006(a). Railroads
must show how the length of the proposed temporary outage is the
minimum amount of time needed based on the circumstances, which could
include outlining a precise schedule and the number of hours involved
in each phase and justifications for each timeframe.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(F) would require the RFA to outline
the type and frequency of rail operations that would continue during
the proposed temporary outage, including those of the host railroad and
each tenant railroad.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(G) would require the RFA to identify
the applicable speed limit of any train that would operate during the
proposed temporary outage, and any other operating restrictions in
place to ensure rail safety. For example, a properly drafted RFA will
outline the railroad's proposed reduced speed for each type of freight
train, based on the commodity transported, and each intercity passenger
or commuter train, compared to the normal authorized speeds.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(H) would require the railroad to
specify in its RFA the additional safety measures that the host
railroad and each tenant railroad must comply with during the proposed
temporary outage, to ensure each type of PTC-preventable accident or
incident does not occur. Specifically, such safety measures must be
designed to prevent a train-to-train collision, an over-speed
derailment, an incursion into an established work zone, and a movement
of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. It is integral
that FRA understands exactly how the railroad will mitigate and
eliminate the risk of each type of PTC-preventable accident and
incident during the short-term PTC system outage. For example, a
railroad might propose to utilize an absolute block to mitigate and
eliminate the risk of a train-to-train collision, enforce speed limits
through the use of other technology, suspend the establishment of work
zones, and protect switches through other specific means.
Finally, proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(I) would require the
railroad to confirm in its RFA that each impacted railroad (including
the host railroad and any applicable tenant railroads) will notify all
applicable dispatchers, train crews, and roadway workers about the
temporary PTC system outage (if FRA authorizes it), including the
specific location and duration of the temporary outage, the additional
safety measures with which the railroad must comply, and any actions
the individual must take during the temporary outage. FRA expects that
the proposed specific information an RFA must contain under proposed
paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (H) would aid the railroad in these
notifications. The railroad may make these notifications in accordance
with the railroad's operating rules and practices, which may require,
for example, such information to be provided via track bulletins,
dispatcher bulletins, or special instructions.
Also, FRA notes that its 45-day review-and-decision period under
existing paragraph (m) begins when a railroad properly files a complete
RFA with all information required under paragraph (m). To be clear, the
45-day clock will not begin on that initial filing date, if an RFA to a
PTC system, involving a temporary outage, fails to include any of the
contents explicitly required under existing paragraphs (m)(2)(i)
through (iv) or the additional content requirements FRA is proposing in
paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I).\22\ Instead, consistent with the
current Sec. 236.1021(m) process, the 45-day clock begins on the date
the railroad or railroads properly submit any remaining information
required under existing paragraph (m)(2)(i) through (iv) and proposed
paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I). FRA expects this will help ensure
a railroad submits a complete RFA, with all required information, in
its initial filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Consistent with FRA's current practice, if an RFA is
missing required information, an FRA PTC specialist will contact the
railroad via email to inform the railroad of the missing, required
content(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FRA acknowledges that it currently publishes a notice
in the Federal Register when a railroad submits an RFA to its PTC
system under existing Sec. 236.1021(m) and invites public comment on
the RFA. See 49 CFR 236.1021(e). During FRA's meeting with labor
organizations in February 2024, TTD requested confirmation that FRA
will not eliminate the opportunity for the public to comment on these
RFAs. FRA confirmed during that
[[Page 85469]]
meeting that RFAs submitted pursuant to proposed paragraph (m)(4), like
all RFAs submitted pursuant to paragraph (m), will be announced in the
Federal Register, and the public will be afforded an opportunity to
review and comment on such RFAs. That notice and comment requirement
under Sec. 236.1021(e) is outside the scope of this NPRM and will
remain part of FRA's regulations. As a reminder, FRA's December 2022
guidance document underscores the importance of ensuring that
railroads' filings contain sufficient, non-confidential information for
the public to review and on which to comment.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 88 FR 1448 (Jan. 10, 2023); Federal Railroad
Administration, Guidance on Submitting Requests for Waivers, Block
Signal Applications, and Other Approval Requests to FRA (Dec. 2022),
available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12//Guidance%20/on%20/Submitting%20/Waiver%20/Special%20Approval%20/Other%20Requests%20/for%20Approval%20/to%20FRA%20%28/Dec%202022%29%/20final./pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and Failures
Currently, paragraphs (g)(1) through (3), entitled ``Temporary
exceptions,'' of this section set forth expired regulations.
Specifically, existing paragraph (g) indicates that paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) were in effect from October 21, 2014, through December 31,
2022. FRA proposes to replace existing paragraphs (g)(1) through (3)
with new provisions that deal directly with initialization failures.
FRA's existing regulations, at 49 CFR 236.1003, define ``initialization
failure'' as ``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.'' \24\ In relevant part, now-expired paragraph
(g)(2) previously permitted any train to continue operating subject to
certain speed limits, potentially indefinitely, if a PTC system failed
to initialize for any reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The definition under 49 CFR 236.1003 also clarifies, ``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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA recognizes that unplanned outages and other technical issues
continue to occur, causing PTC systems to fail to initialize, based on
FRA's oversight and railroads' Quarterly Reports of PTC System
Performance.\25\ Railroads' Quarterly Reports of PTC System Performance
show, for example, that PTC technology failed to initialize on
approximately 236 intercity passenger or commuter trains and 894
freight trains in 2023.\26\ Additionally, FRA, based on voluntary
reporting by railroads, is aware of eight (8) system-level outages that
occurred in 2023 that caused trains to fail to initialize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB Control No. 2130-0553; 49 U.S.C.
20157(m).
\26\ The referenced initialization failures exclude any
initialization failures where the source or cause was the onboard
subsystem, as proposed paragraph (g)(3) excludes such initialization
failures from receiving the flexibility afforded under proposed
paragraph (g). FRA is citing to the relevant initialization failures
where the source or cause was, for example, the back office,
wayside, or communications subsystems because those types of issues
would generally impact more than one train and would be within the
scope of this proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During FRA's meetings in November 2023 and February 2024, AAR,
APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and many railroads \27\ conveyed strong support for
FRA's proposal to reintroduce requirements analogous to the provision
that expired in 2022. Consistent with FRA's own observations, AAR,
APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and their member railroads underscored the need for
FRA to establish a process to enable railroads to continue operating
safely, following certain initialization failures, because otherwise
freight, intercity passenger, and commuter trains will be unable to
depart from their initial terminals or other locations and provide
necessary transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Including, for example, Alaska Railroad, Amtrak, BNSF,
Caltrain, CN, CPKC, CSX, Denver RTDC, G&W, MARC, MBTA, Metra,
Metrolink, NICD, NJT, NS, OmniTRAX, TEXRail, TRE, UP, UTA
FrontRunner, VRE, and Watco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, FRA's intention in this NPRM is to address only
system-level outages or failures that result in multiple trains' PTC
systems failing to initialize, like when a back office server goes
down, impacting the trains of the host railroad and most, if not all,
of its tenant railroads. Accordingly, FRA proposes to provide a caveat
in proposed paragraph (g)(4), which would specify that the relief under
paragraph (g)(1), discussed below, does not apply to a single train
that experiences an onboard PTC system failure when attempting to
initialize. The purpose of proposed paragraph (g) is to address issues
affecting multiple trains.
During FRA's meeting with labor organizations in February 2024,
BLET, BRS, and TTD acknowledged that FRA's objective in proposed
paragraph (g) is to enable operations while maintaining rail safety,
but they expressed concern for the potential unintended consequence of
degrading safety or delaying repairs to PTC technology. FRA agrees that
it is important to structure proposed paragraph (g) to ensure
railroads, vendors, and suppliers identify and fix any issues causing
initialization failures immediately.
To ensure this provision is utilized only when necessary and
railroads and their vendors and suppliers identify and promptly resolve
the root cause of initialization failures, FRA is proposing to impose
two tiers of operating requirements that would become increasingly
restrictive over time. FRA expects this will help strike the
appropriate balance between enabling continued operations, subject to
restrictions, and restoring PTC systems as quickly as possible.
First, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i) provides that when a PTC system
fails to initialize as defined in Sec. 236.1003, a train may proceed,
during the first 24 hours, only as prescribed under existing paragraphs
(b)(1) through (6) of Sec. 236.1029. FRA is proposing to require
railroads to utilize the current operating restrictions set forth in
existing paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) because railroads, including
train crews, are accustomed to complying with those speed limits and
other restrictions when they experience en route failures, and those
restrictions are based on the underlying signal or train control system
still in effect. During FRA's meetings, the following railroads
explicitly recommended this approach, based on industry's longstanding
use of these operating restrictions when PTC technology fails or is
otherwise cut out en route: Alaska Railroad, Amtrak, BNSF, CN, CPKC,
CSX, G&W, MARC, Metra, Metrolink, NICD, NS, and UP.
Second, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(ii) states that after the first
24 hours, the train may proceed only as prescribed under paragraphs
(b)(4) through (6) of this section and must not exceed restricted speed
as defined in Sec. 236.1003. FRA proposes to require compliance with
existing paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) as they contain other applicable
restrictions and communication requirements.\28\ However, instead of
the standard speed restrictions under existing paragraph (b), this
stricter tier of operating restrictions would limit any train that
utilizes this provision beyond 24 hours to restricted speed, which is
defined as a ``speed that will permit stopping
[[Page 85470]]
within one-half the range of vision, but not exceeding 20 miles per
hour.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Specifically, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4) through (6) require
notifying the designated railroad officer of the failure or cut out
as soon as safe and practicable, impose further operating
restrictions if the PTC system is the exclusive method of delivering
mandatory directives, and prohibit operating farther than the next
forward designated location for the repair or exchange of onboard
PTC apparatuses, if the failure or cut out was the result of a
defective onboard PTC apparatus.
\29\ 49 CFR 236.1003 (citing to the definition in subpart G, at
49 CFR 236.812).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During FRA's meetings with APTA, CRC, and their member railroads in
February 2024, several commuter railroads, including Denver RTD, MARC,
Metra, NICD, NJT, TEXRail, TRE, and UTA FrontRunner supported FRA's
intention to propose a two-tiered framework. For example, MARC and NICD
noted that the unplanned outages they recently experienced were
resolved in approximately two hours, which means those trains, in a
similar scenario under this proposed framework, would be subject to the
standard operating restrictions under existing paragraph (b).
Furthermore, these commuter railroads expressed appreciation that this
proposed framework--with more flexibility on day one--would enable them
to transport commuters to their destination if PTC technology fails
midday and trains are unable to initialize the PTC system for the
remainder of the day. Without this proposed provision, if a train's PTC
system fails midday and is not restored by the evening rush hour,
commuters attempting to return home would be forced to rely on
alternative modes of transportation, with little to no notice.
These eight commuter railroads also recognized that a clear, tiered
approach--which introduces additional restrictions, including
restricted speed, 24 hours after the onset of the technical issue--
would enable railroads to communicate effectively with their customers
if the railroad finds that an issue cannot be remedied within the first
24 hours. Commuter railroads emphasized the importance of being able to
provide advance notice to their customers about the speed restrictions
that would apply the following day, as that could result in service
reductions.
Several stakeholders, including ASLRRA, ATD, NJT, and UTA
FrontRunner, stressed that the operating restrictions FRA proposes in
paragraph (g) should be as simple, straightforward, and objective as
possible given the complexity of other PTC regulations. Furthermore,
FRA recognizes that predictability and transparency are vital when it
comes to a process that will govern whether and how intercity
passenger, commuter, and freight rail transportation may continue.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) imposes a notification requirement that a
railroad must, as early as is possible, ensure workers are aware of PTC
system-level outages and corresponding operating restrictions.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (g)(2) requires each railroad
operating in accordance with (g)(1) to notify, as early as is possible,
all dispatchers, train crews, and roadway workers about PTC system-
level outages or failures that result in multiple trains' PTC systems
failing to initialize, which result in trains proceeding in accordance
with operating restrictions. Railroads must ensure job safety briefings
reflect such operations.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3) proposes to require railroads to attempt
to initialize the PTC system again, when the reason it is not
initializing is loss of communications or lack of navigational
information, like temporary lack of access to the Global Positioning
System (GPS)TM. FRA is aware of multiple PTC systems that
rely on GPS, like I-ETMS and the Incremental Train Control System.
Specifically, proposed paragraph (g)(3) would require, notwithstanding
the relief under paragraph (g)(1), that when a PTC system fails to
initialize due to loss of communications or lack of navigational
information, the train must attempt to initialize the PTC system again
at the next forward, available location. The next forward, available
location, depending on the circumstances, could be a segment of a main
line, a siding, a yard, or a station, whichever is closest.
In addition, FRA acknowledges that PTC systems are comprised of
many subsystems and are often interfaced with other technology. For
example, at an AAR meeting in November 2023, CN emphasized that the
nature of a system of subsystems, like PTC technology, means there is
always the possibility of an outage, as a PTC system relies or depends
on the proper functioning of many subsystems. Similarly, FRA is also
aware that PTC systems have failed to initialize due to a failure of an
interfaced system, like a dispatching system or an electronic storage
system. Accordingly, FRA wants to clarify that proposed paragraphs
(g)(1) through (5) of this section likewise apply to cases in which a
PTC system fails to initialize due to an issue or failure arising from
a subsystem or an interfaced system.
In addition, FRA wants to offer a clarification about the
application of proposed paragraphs (g)(1) to (5) to the Advanced Civil
Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II). An initialization failure is
defined in existing Sec. 236.1003 as ``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.'' Section 236.1003 specifies
that for the types of PTC systems that do not initialize by design,
like ACSES II, a failed departure test is considered an initialization
failure, unless the PTC system successfully passes the departure test
during a subsequent attempt in the same location or before entering
PTC-governed territory. ACSES II typically encompasses automatic train
control (ATC), and FRA wants to emphasize that the FRA-certified PTC
system, however, is ACSES II.\30\ If ACSES II fails to initialize
(i.e., fails its departure test), an ACSES II-equipped train may
utilize the relief outlined in proposed paragraph (g) of Sec.
236.1029. By contrast, however, if ATC fails its departure test, a
railroad must comply with all applicable signal and train control
prohibitions and restrictions in other subparts of part 236. FRA wants
to address this nuance to clarify that proposed paragraph (g) does not
supersede other existing signal and train control regulations that
directly govern ATC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Or in NJT's case, the Advanced Speed Enforcement System II
(ASES II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, proposed paragraph (g)(5) recognizes that FRA may impose
additional operating restrictions and other conditions to address
recurring issues that result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing to
initialize. For example, under proposed paragraph (g)(5), FRA could
require the applicable railroads and PTC system vendors and suppliers
to take certain actions or satisfy additional reporting requirements,
as they resolve the recurring issues. In addition, proposed paragraph
(g)(4) would clarify that FRA reserves the right to deny the relief
under proposed paragraph (g)(1) for recurring issues that result in
multiple trains' PTC systems failing to initialize. Although the relief
under proposed paragraph (g)(1) is generally self-executing, FRA may
choose to intervene under proposed paragraph (g)(5) and deny such
relief if, for example, a railroad and/or its applicable PTC system
vendor and supplier are not sufficiently correcting a recurrent
problem.
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by Executive Order 14094
This proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, Modernizing
Regulatory Review,\31\ and DOT Order 2100.6A (``Rulemaking and Guidance
Procedures''). FRA made this
[[Page 85471]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 11, 2023), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-07760/modernizing-regulatory-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA complied with OMB Circular A-4 when accounting for benefits,
costs, and cost savings relative to a baseline condition. Typically, a
baseline represents a best judgement about what the world would be like
in the absence of the regulatory interventions.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 (Nov. 9,
2023), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf. See Section 4, Developing an Analytic
Baseline, pages 11-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this analysis, discount rates are used to account for
differences in the timing of the estimated benefits and costs. Benefits
and costs that accrue further in the future are more heavily discounted
than those impacts that occur today. Discounting reflects individuals'
general preference to receive benefits sooner rather than later (and
defer costs) and recognizes that costs incurred today are more
expensive than future costs because businesses must forgo an expected
rate of return on investment of that capital.\33\ OMB recommends using
a discount rate of 2 percent.\34\ This represents the real (inflation-
adjusted) rate of return on long-term Federal Government debt over the
last 30 years, calculated between 1993 and 2022, and is considered a
reasonable approximation of the social rate of time preference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 (Nov. 9,
2023). See Section 12, Discount Rates, pages 75-82.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule over a 10-
year period and estimated its costs and benefits, as shown in the table
below. The total estimated 10-year net benefits of this proposed rule
would be $81.8 million (discounted at 2 percent), and the annualized
net benefits would be $9.1 million (discounted at 2 percent). The
industry benefits associated with FRA's proposal to amend three
provisions--i.e., to introduce a new exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment movements, improve the RFA process regarding
temporary PTC system outages, and permit continued operations following
certain initialization failures, subject to operating restrictions--
would outweigh the industry costs and government administrative costs
associated with FRA's proposal to expand the content requirements for
RFAs related to temporary outages.
The following table shows the estimated 10-year benefits, net
benefits, and costs of the proposed rule. The total 10-year estimated
benefits would be $83.5 million (discounted at 2 percent), with
annualized benefits at $9.3 million (discounted at 2 percent). The
total 10-year estimated costs would be $1.8 million (discounted at 2
percent), with annualized costs at $0.2 million (discounted at 2
percent).
Table B--Total 10-Year Discounted Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits
[2023 Dollars] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Present Present
Category value 2% value 3% value 7% Annualized Annualized Annualized
($) ($) ($) 2% ($) 3% ($) 7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Benefits.............. 83,534,444 80,105,191 68,518,285 9,299,600 9,390,772 9,755,462
Total Costs \2\................ 1,760,775 1,688,492 1,444,258 196,021 197,943 205,630
Industry Costs................. 1,514,075 1,451,919 1,241,905 168,557 170,209 176,819
Government Administrative Costs 246,700 236,573 202,353 27,464 27,734 28,811
Net Benefits \3\........... 81,773,669 78,416,699 67,074,027 9,103,579 9,192,829 9,549,832
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and
benefits are calculated in this analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into
equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present value at the particular discount rate is:
1/(1+r)\t\, where ``r'' is the discount rate, and ``t'' is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used
in this analysis.
\2\ Total Costs = Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs.
\3\ Net Benefits = Industry Benefits--(Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net
industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and
operating PTC systems.
1. Ten-Year Benefits
Proposed 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6)
FRA analyzed the potential industry benefits of the three proposed
amendments. Overall, the three proposed amendments would benefit the
railroad industry, the public, and FRA by facilitating repairs,
maintenance, upgrades, and capital improvements; expanding certain
railroad informational requirements; reducing costs; and enabling the
safe, reliable, and resilient movement of people and goods, while
preserving rail safety.
The proposed exception under Sec. 236.1006(b)(6) would enable non-
revenue passenger equipment, including a locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train without passengers onboard, to operate to a
maintenance facility or yard for the sole purpose of repairing or
exchanging a PTC system. To ensure rail safety, FRA is proposing to
impose five conditions on each movement of non-revenue passenger
equipment subject to this exception, including speed and distance
restrictions, the requirement to establish an absolute block, and other
protections of the route.
In assessing the potential benefits of the proposed provision, FRA
focused on the impact on train operations in the absence of this
proposed rule. The methodology employed involved estimating the
transportation costs associated with relocating non-operative, PTC-
equipped passenger equipment to a maintenance facility or yard to
repair or exchange the PTC technology. For example, without this
proposed provision, intercity passenger railroads and commuter
railroads would need to use an operative, PTC-equipped locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train to move the non-operative, PTC-equipped
equipment to a maintenance facility or yard.
[[Page 85472]]
Based on consultation with FRA subject matter experts, FRA
calculated the potential benefits for train operations, under proposed
Sec. 236.1006(b)(6), by multiplying the expected number of impacted
passenger equipment by the transportation cost of moving that equipment
to a maintenance facility or yard. FRA estimated a range of $3,000 to
$4,000 to transport this type of equipment, or an average cost of
$3,500 per piece of equipment, similar to the amount utilized in
another FRA NPRM \35\ to estimate the transportation cost of moving an
empty car. FRA estimates that the transportation cost savings of moving
this equipment is the estimated number of non-revenue passenger
equipment that may use this proposed exception (i.e., 30 per year or 1
per intercity passenger or commuter railroad \36\), multiplied by the
expected transportation cost of $3,500, resulting in an overall
transportation cost savings of $105,000 annually. Given the uncertainty
about the amount of affected equipment and the five safety conditions
or restrictions that FRA is proposing a railroad must comply with while
utilizing this exception, FRA is seeking input from the public on
whether the cost of these five safety conditions, which FRA did not
calculate due to insufficient data, might reduce the calculated net
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 87 FR 43467 (July 21, 2022).
\36\ Here, FRA is counting any intercity passenger railroad or
commuter railroad, including tenant railroads that provide such
service, as the proposed exception is not limited to host railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates that this proposed provision
would result in potential benefits of $1 million, at the 2-percent
discount, or on an annual basis, $107,100, at the 2 percent discount.
Table C--Potential Benefits From Permitting Non-Revenue Passenger Equipment To Operate to Maintenance Facilities
or Yards Without PTC--10-Year Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Present value Present value Present value
Year benefit ($) 2% ($) 3% ($) 7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000
2............................................... 105,000 102,941 101,942 98,131
3............................................... 105,000 100,923 98,973 91,711
4............................................... 105,000 98,944 96,090 85,711
5............................................... 105,000 97,004 93,291 80,104
6............................................... 105,000 95,102 90,574 74,864
7............................................... 105,000 93,237 87,936 69,966
8............................................... 105,000 91,409 85,375 65,389
9............................................... 105,000 89,616 82,888 61,111
10.............................................. 105,000 87,859 80,474 57,113
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 1,050,000 962,035 922,541 789,099
Annualized.................................. .............. 107,100 108,150 112,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 49 CFR 236.1021(m)(4)
Under proposed Sec. 236.1021(m)(4), a railroad seeking to
temporarily disable its PTC system, for certain purposes, can request
FRA's approval through the standard RFA process under existing Sec.
236.1021(m). There have been no accidents or incidents associated with
railroads' RFAs for temporary PTC system outages from 2022 to early
2024, the relevant period during which FRA began approving such outages
by regulation.
Based on past RFA filings from 2022 to early 2024 involving
temporary PTC system outages, FRA estimates that railroads will file
approximately 15 RFAs, on average on an annual basis, under proposed
Sec. 236.1021(m)(4) in the future. FRA estimates that two-thirds of
railroads' RFAs would involve a PTC system outage lasting for a few
hours, while one-third would seek to disable PTC technology for a
period of days, given the different nature of underlying capital
improvement or maintenance projects. FRA used the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics' (BTS) 2021 fare rates for intercity
passenger and commuter rail transportation--i.e., a $72.10 average rate
for Amtrak and a $6.30 average rate for commuter railroads. FRA
estimated weighted fare rates by using those average 2021 BTS fare
rates and analyzing past, pertinent RFAs to estimate that the average
fare rate would be approximately $11 for each intercity passenger
railroad or commuter railroad that submits an RFA pursuant to Sec.
236.1021(m)(4) in the future.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, Transportation Economic Trends (2022), available at
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/5h3f-jnbe#transportation-fares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, FRA analyzed the average number of passengers or
commuters per train movement \38\ during a temporary PTC system outage
by analyzing past RFAs and found that each train carries, on average,
approximately 200 passengers or commuters. Likewise, FRA analyzed the
average number of train movements during a temporary PTC system outage
by analyzing past RFAs and estimating the expected number of filings by
type of railroad. Based on past RFAs, FRA estimates that on average, 5
trains operate during a freight railroad's temporary PTC system outage;
12 trains operate during an intercity passenger or commuter railroad's
PTC system outage that lasts 24 hours or less; and 1,700 trains operate
during an intercity passenger or commuter railroad's PTC system outage
that lasts longer (days). For freight railroads, the average cost per
train movement is $250, based on previous FRA estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ By ``train movement,'' FRA is referring to the movement or
operation of a train.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, the expected annual number of RFAs, involving temporary PTC
system outages, is multiplied by: (1) the average number of train
movements during the temporary outage; (2) the average cost per fare or
train movement; and (3) the average number of passengers or commuters
per train (for intercity passenger or commuter railroads), and is then
adjusted for reduced speed.\39\ As shown in the tables below, the 15
relevant RFAs that FRA expects to receive annually would result in
$8,578,734 in total benefits, undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this
[[Page 85473]]
calculation did not include variable operating costs such as fuel
expenses and other operational costs. Determining these costs is
challenging when assessing benefits. Therefore, the estimated benefits
could be reduced by these variable operating costs, although the exact
amount is unclear.\40\ Additionally, FRA is seeking comments on this
economic analysis, its underlying assumptions, and any additional
benefits that could be quantified, like the potential impact to
ridership from avoiding related train delays or cancelations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ In its decision letters approving such RFAs, FRA typically
requires railroads to comply with the operating restrictions under
49 CFR 236.1029(b), which limit the speed of trains depending on the
underlying signal or train control system.
\40\ Another method for assessing the benefits regarding this
proposed provision is to calculate the revenue per ton-mile,
provided that information regarding the number of miles that would
be utilized is available for the affected railroads. Since FRA does
not currently possess that level of information, the methodology
described above was employed.
Table D--RFA Filings Involving Temporary PTC System Outages--Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFA average
Estimated Average number Average cost Average number benefit
number of RFAs of train per fare or of passengers (adjusted for
per year movements train movement per train reduced speed)
during outage ($) ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC System Outages (Hours)-- 2 5 250 N/A 2,076
Freight Railroads..............
PTC System Outages (Hours)-- 10 12 11 200 197,165
Passenger or Commuter Railroads
PTC System Outages (Days)-- 3 1,700 11 200 8,379,494
Passenger or Commuter Railroads
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 15 .............. .............. .............. 8,578,734
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates railroads will submit
approximately 150 RFAs under proposed Sec. 236.1021(m)(4) with
potential benefits of $78.6 million, at the 2-percent discount, or $8.8
million, at the 2-percent discount, on an annual basis.
Table E--Potential Benefits From Continuous Train Operations Associated With RFAs for Temporary PTC System
Outages--10-Year Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Present value Present value Present value
Year ($) 2% ($) 3% ($) 7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 8,578,734 8,578,734 8,578,734 8,578,734
2............................................... 8,578,734 8,410,524 8,328,868 8,017,509
3............................................... 8,578,734 8,245,612 8,086,280 7,492,999
4............................................... 8,578,734 8,083,933 7,850,757 7,002,803
5............................................... 8,578,734 7,925,425 7,622,094 6,544,675
6............................................... 8,578,734 7,770,024 7,400,092 6,116,519
7............................................... 8,578,734 7,617,671 7,184,555 5,716,373
8............................................... 8,578,734 7,468,305 6,975,296 5,342,405
9............................................... 8,578,734 7,321,867 6,772,132 4,992,902
10.............................................. 8,578,734 7,178,301 6,574,886 4,666,263
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 85,787,345 78,600,396 75,373,696 64,471,182
Annualized.................................. .............. 8,750,309 8,836,097 9,179,246
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(g)
The proposed exception under Sec. 236.1029(g) would reintroduce a
revised version of a provision regarding PTC system initialization
failures that expired on December 31, 2022. This proposed exception
would be beneficial even with the conditions and restrictions outlined
under this proposed provision.
In assessing the potential benefits of this proposed provision, FRA
focused on the impact on train operations in the absence of this
proposed rule. Currently, if a PTC system fails to initialize, trains
are generally prohibited from operating, which could result in
situations where passengers are stranded and vital freight shipments
halted, as the prior regulatory process expired on December 31, 2022.
Based on consultation with FRA subject matter experts, FRA estimates
the number of future PTC system initialization failures by analyzing
railroads' initialization failures in calendar year 2023, as reported
to FRA in railroads' Quarterly Reports of PTC System Performance \41\
and projecting to the future. In total, based on past data, FRA expects
freight railroads to experience approximately 900 initialization
failures per year and intercity passenger or commuter railroads to
experience approximately 200 initialization failures per year in the
future.\42\ Then, the expected annual number of initialization failures
is multiplied by: (1) the average cost of $11 per fare for intercity
passenger or
[[Page 85474]]
commuter railroads and $250 per train movement for freight railroads;
and (2) the average number of passengers or commuters per train of 200
(for intercity passenger or commuter railroads), and is then adjusted
for the reduced speed, based on the proposed speed restrictions under
49 CFR 236.1029(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Form FRA F 6180.152 (OMB Control No. 2130-0553), under 49
U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR 236.1029(h). These reports include
information about railroads' initialization failures.
\42\ The estimated 1,100 initialization failures exclude any
initialization failures where the source or cause is the onboard
subsystem, as proposed Sec. 236.1029(g)(3) excludes such
initialization failures from receiving the flexibility afforded
under proposed Sec. 236.1029(g), as they typically impact one
train. FRA's estimate refers to the number of initialization
failures where the source or cause is, for example, the back office,
wayside, or communications subsystems because those types of issues
would generally impact more than one train and would be within the
scope of this proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in the table below, FRA's proposal to permit the operation
of approximately 1,100 trains that FRA expects might experience PTC
system initialization failures would result in $433,520 in total
benefits, undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this calculation did not
include variable operating costs such as fuel expenses and other
operational costs. Therefore, the estimated benefit could be reduced by
these variable operating costs, although the exact amount is unclear.
Additionally, FRA is seeking comments on this economic analysis, its
underlying assumptions, and any additional benefits that could be
quantified, like the potential impact on ridership from avoiding
related train delays or cancelations.
Table F--Enabling the Operation of Trains Impacted by Initialization Failures--Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Estimated Average cost Average number benefit
Railroad type trains per fare or of passengers (adjusted for
impacted train movement per train reduced speed)
annually ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight......................................... 900 250 N/A $159,220
Intercity Passenger or Commuter................. 200 11 200 274,300
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 1,100 .............. .............. 433,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates that proposed Sec.
236.1029(g) would result in potential benefits of $4.0 million, or on
an annualized basis, $442,190, discounted at 2 percent.
Table G--Potential Benefits From Continuous Train Operations Due to Process Regarding Certain Initialization
Failures--10-Year Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight Passenger
Year railroads railroads Undiscounted Present Present Present
($) ($) benefit ($) value 2% ($) value 3% ($) value 7% ($)
a b c = a + b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 433,520 433,520 433,520
2............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 425,020 420,893 405,159
3............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 416,686 408,634 378,653
4............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 408,516 396,732 353,881
5............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 400,505 385,177 330,730
6............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 392,652 373,958 309,094
7............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 384,953 363,066 288,873
8............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 377,405 352,491 269,974
9............................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 370,005 342,225 252,313
10............................ 159,220 274,300 433,520 362,750 332,257 235,806
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 1,592,200 2,743,000 4,335,200 3,972,013 3,808,954 3,258,003
Annualized................ ........... ........... ............ 442,190 446,526 463,866
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these direct benefits, there are potential societal
benefits to the proposals in the NPRM. For example, there are possible
fuel and emission savings from people not using alternative
transportation modes like traditional buses or cars that use fuel or
non-carbon technologies like batteries, which would be necessary if the
proposals in this NPRM did not exist, and railroads were not allowed to
operate trains in certain circumstances. Freight trains are generally
known for their fuel efficiency compared to fuel-powered trucks, and
intercity passenger or commuter trains are more efficient than driving
fuel-powered vehicles, potentially resulting in lower carbon emissions.
Specifically, a single freight train can be up to 75% more fuel-
efficient than a fuel-powered truck.\43\ Similarly, passenger trains
are up to 46% more efficient than driving fuel-powered vehicles.\44\
However, policies promoting electric vehicle use may lead to increased
adoption of electric vehicles, which could reduce the anticipated
emission benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Federal Railroad Administration, FRA Announces Climate
Challenge to Meet Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 (Apr.
22, 2022), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/press-releases/federal-railroad-administration-announces-climate-challenge-meet-net-zero-0.
\44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ten-Year Costs
FRA analyzed the potential industry costs of the proposed
amendments, which would: (1) permit non-revenue passenger equipment to
operate to maintenance facilities or yards, without being governed by
PTC technology and with no passengers onboard, for the sole purpose of
repairing or exchanging a PTC system, under certain conditions; (2)
improve the existing process railroads utilize to request and obtain
FRA's approval to disable their PTC systems temporarily--when necessary
to facilitate repair, maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, and capital
projects--by requiring railroads to provide additional, essential
[[Page 85475]]
information in their requests to amend their PTC systems; and (3)
reintroduce a limited version of a provision regarding PTC system
initialization failures, which expired on December 31, 2022, under
certain conditions.
Of the three proposed amendments, FRA analyzed the cost of
railroads filing RFAs regarding temporary PTC system outages under
proposed Sec. 236.1021(m)(4), which contains additional content
requirements to enable FRA to assess the full scope and circumstances
of each proposed temporary outage. Since the other two proposed
provisions, under Sec. Sec. 236.1006(b)(6) and 236.1029(g), would
establish an exception or process with certain conditions, there may be
minimal potential costs tied to these proposed provisions. However, FRA
expects the potential benefits of these proposed provisions to outweigh
any potential costs they might present. FRA welcomes comments on the
potential impact.
Also, FRA acknowledges that a proposal to establish a new exception
for non-revenue passenger equipment and reintroduce a limited version
of an expired process might appear to present safety risks, if not
properly addressed. Accordingly, FRA's proposed rule contains multiple
operating restrictions and other protections to help mitigate or
eliminate any associated risks and help preserve or improve rail
safety.
Based on consultation with FRA subject matter experts, FRA
calculated the total cost for filing an RFA by multiplying the number
of submissions by its associated hourly burden. The hourly burden is
then multiplied by the wage rate of an Executive, Official, & Staff
Assistant employee. For this analysis, FRA used the fully burdened wage
rate of $118.46 to calculate both costs (i.e., the cost of submitting a
new RFA and the cost of submitting a revised RFA).\45\ This wage rate
includes factors such as salary, benefits, and overhead costs
associated with employing staff members involved in the RFA filing
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Throughout this document, the dollar equivalent cost or
benefit for the industry is derived from the Surface Transportation
Board's 2023 Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate
employee group hourly wage rate, which includes an additional 75
percent for fringe benefits and overhead. For instance, the 2023
hourly wage rate of $67.69 is burdened by 75 percent ($67.69 x 1.75
= $118.46).
Table H--Costs of RFAs to PTC Systems Involving Temporary Outages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost of
Hourly wage Number of RFAs Number of RFAs per year
rate ($) per year hours per RFA ($)
a b c d = a * b * c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New RFAs........................................ 118.46 15 90 159,921
Revised RFAs.................................... 118.46 1 45 5,331
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 165,252
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table provides the 10-year cost to the railroad
industry associated with the filing of an RFA involving a temporary PTC
system outage under proposed Sec. 236.1021(m)(4). FRA estimates that
the total cost to the railroad industry would be $1.5 million, or
$168,557 annualized, discounted at 2 percent.
Table I--Total Costs of RFAs About Temporary PTC System Outages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of new Cost of Undiscounted
Year RFAs per revised RFAs cost of RFAs Present Present Present
year per year ($) ($) value 2% ($) value 3% ($) value 7% ($)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 165,252 165,252 165,252
2................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 162,011 160,439 154,441
3................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 158,835 155,766 144,337
4................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 155,720 151,229 134,895
5................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 152,667 146,824 126,070
6................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 149,674 142,548 117,822
7................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 146,739 138,396 110,114
8................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 143,862 134,365 102,910
9................................................................. 159,921 5,331 165,252 141,041 130,451 96,178
10................................................................ 159,921 5,331 165,252 138,275 126,652 89,886
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 159,921 5,331 1,652,517 1,514,075 1,451,919 1,241,905
Annualized.................................................... ............ ............ .............. 168,557 170,209 176,819
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, alongside the railroad industry's cost of filing RFAs
under proposed Sec. 236.1021(m)(4), there are governmental costs
associated with the filing of these RFAs. The following table shows the
annual estimated government costs for reviewing railroads' RFAs
pertaining to temporary PTC system outages and issuing related decision
letters.
[[Page 85476]]
Table J--Government Administrative Costs From RFA Review and Approval--Annual Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average number Hourly wage Number of Estimated RFAs
of employees rate ($) \46\ hours per RFA per year Total cost ($)
a b c d = a * b * c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Safety Specialist (GS- 1 98.77 6 15 8,889
13)--All locations.............
Railroad Safety Specialist (GS- 1 116.71 3 15 5,252
14)--All locations.............
Railroad Safety Specialist (GS- 1 116.71 2 15 3,501
14)--All locations.............
Railroad Safety Specialist 1 147.96 1 15 2,219
Supervisor (GS-15)--DC Metro...
Railroad Safety Specialist 1 175.00 1 15 2,625
Senior Executive--DC Metro.....
Attorney (GS-15)--DC Metro...... 1 147.96 2 15 4,439
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Total Cost........... .............. .............. 15 15 26,926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table shows the 10-year estimated government costs
for reviewing RFAs pertaining to temporary PTC system outages and
issuing related decision letters. FRA expects it would cost
approximately $246,700 over the 10-year period, or $27,464 annualized,
discounted at 2 percent, to review and approve or deny these RFAs, as
shown in the following table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ U.S. Office of Personnel Management, ``2023 General
Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables,'' available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2023/general-schedule/. The base salary is burdened with an additional 75
percent to account for fringe benefits and overhead.
Table K--Government Administrative Costs from RFA Review and Approval--10-Year Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted
government Present value Present value Present value
Year administrative 2% ($) 3% ($) 7% ($)
cost ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ 26,926 26,926 26,926 26,926
2............................................ 26,926 26,398 26,142 25,164
3............................................ 26,926 25,880 25,380 23,518
4............................................ 26,926 25,373 24,641 21,979
5............................................ 26,926 24,875 23,923 20,542
6............................................ 26,926 24,387 23,226 19,198
7............................................ 26,926 23,909 22,550 17,942
8............................................ 26,926 23,440 21,893 16,768
9............................................ 26,926 22,981 21,255 15,671
10........................................... 26,926 22,530 20,636 14,646
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 269,258 246,700 236,573 202,353
Annualized............................... ................. 27,464 27,734 28,811
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Results
The industry benefits associated with FRA's proposal to amend three
provisions--i.e., to introduce a new exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment movements, improve the RFA process regarding
temporary PTC system outages, and permit continued operations following
certain initialization failures, subject to operating restrictions--
would outweigh the industry costs and government administrative costs
associated with FRA's proposal to expand the content requirements for
RFAs related to temporary outages.
The following table shows the estimated 10-year costs, benefits,
and net benefits of the proposed rule. The total estimated 10-year net
benefits would be $81.8 million (discounted at 2 percent) and
annualized net benefits would be $9.1 million (discounted at 2
percent).
Table L--Total 10-Year Discounted Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits
[2023 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Present Present
Category value 2% value 3% value 7% Annualized Annualized Annualized
($) ($) ($) 2% ($) 3% ($) 7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Benefits.............. 83,534,444 80,105,191 68,518,285 9,299,600 9,390,772 9,755,462
Total Costs.................... 1,760,775 1,688,492 1,444,258 196,021 197,943 205,630
Industry Costs................. 1,514,075 1,451,919 1,241,905 168,557 170,209 176,819
Government Administrative Costs 246,700 236,573 202,353 27,464 27,734 28,811
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits............... 81,773,669 78,416,699 67,074,027 9,103,579 9,192,829 9,549,832
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 85477]]
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.
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. 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
Through FRA's oversight and continued engagement with the industry,
FRA has found that its existing PTC regulations do not adequately
address temporary situations during which PTC technology is not
enabled, including after certain initialization failures or in cases
where a PTC system needs to be temporarily disabled to facilitate
repair, maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or capital projects. This
NPRM proposes to establish parameters and operating restrictions under
which railroads may continue to operate safely in certain scenarios
when PTC technology is temporarily not governing rail operations.
Overall, the proposed amendments would benefit the railroad industry,
the public, and FRA by facilitating repairs, maintenance, upgrades, and
capital improvements; expanding certain railroad informational
requirements; reducing costs; and enabling the safe, reliable, and
efficient movement of people and goods, while preserving rail safety.
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for,
the Proposed Rule
FRA is proposing to revise three PTC regulations based on the
statutory general authority of the Secretary. 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). The Secretary delegated this
authority to the Federal Railroad Administrator. 49 CFR 1.89(b).
This proposed rule would provide flexibility to certain train
movements and improve existing processes, which would result in net
benefits to railroads. The industry benefits associated with FRA's
proposal to amend Sec. Sec. 236.1006(b), 236.1021(m) and 236.1029(g)--
i.e., to introduce a new exception for certain non-revenue passenger
equipment movements, improve the RFA process regarding temporary PTC
system outages, and permit continued operations following certain
initialization failures, subject to operating restrictions--would
outweigh the industry costs and government administrative costs
associated with FRA's proposal to expand the content requirements for
RFAs related to temporary outages under Sec. 236.1021(m), while also
maintaining rail safety.
FRA's objective in this rulemaking is to establish clear, uniform
processes, rather than addressing issues that arise in a reactive and
piecemeal manner. FRA expects that establishing predictable,
prescriptive processes will both enable continued operations and
improve railroad safety by eliminating uncertainty and inconsistent
application of FRA's regulations and facilitating prompt repairs,
upgrades, and restoration of PTC system service. FRA's proposed
parameters and operating restrictions in this NPRM are intended to be
sufficiently strict to ensure that railroads and PTC system suppliers
and vendors proactively identify and remedy problems before they arise
and immediately correct any problems that may surface despite proactive
measures.
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 37 host railroads
subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157--including 7 Class I railroads, 24 intercity
passenger railroads or commuter railroads, and 6 Class II or III, short
line, or terminal railroads. Only 5 of the current PTC-mandated host
railroads are 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 amendments would improve the process railroads use to
file an RFA involving a temporary PTC system outage. Those entities
would be subject to the requirements of this proposed rule and would
also benefit from the additional flexibility associated with this
proposed rule.
FRA expects that a railroad's RFA pursuant to proposed Sec.
236.1021(m)(4) would be completed by an executive or senior manager and
require analytical and writing skills.
To calculate the individual costs for small entities, FRA divided
the total annualized cost 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 annualized
cost for all host railroads would be $168,557, discounted at 2 percent.
FRA estimates that the annualized cost to each host railroad would be
approximately $4,556, discounted at 2 percent. Although the proposed
rule would impose costs on those host railroads that are small
entities, benefits would also accrue.
To calculate the individual benefit for small entities, FRA divided
the total annualized benefits by the number of estimated host
railroads. The total
[[Page 85478]]
annualized benefits for all host railroads would be $9.3 million,
discounted at 2 percent. FRA estimates that the annualized benefit for
each host railroad would be $251,341, discounted at 2 percent. FRA
requests comments on the economic impact that small entities would face
under this proposed rule.
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. This proposed rule
intends to improve the process associated with RFAs for temporary PTC
system outages, establish a new exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment, and reintroduce a limited version of a provision
that previously expired.
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The proposed amendments in this rulemaking would benefit the
railroad industry, the public, and FRA by facilitating repairs,
maintenance, upgrades, and capital improvements; expanding certain
railroad informational requirements; reducing costs; and enabling the
safe, reliable, and resilient movement of people and goods, while
preserving rail safety.
The main alternative to this rulemaking would be to maintain the
status quo. The alternative of not issuing the proposed rule would
forgo improving the process under Sec. 236.1021(m) that host railroads
use to submit RFAs for temporary PTC system outages. In the absence of
this proposed rule, non-revenue passenger equipment would not be
afforded the same type of exception currently available to freight
railroads under Sec. 236.1006(b). In addition, without this rule,
railroads would not be able to operate in certain scenarios when PTC
technology is temporarily not governing rail operations under proposed
Sec. 236.1029(g).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this
proposed rule to OMB \47\ under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.\48\ 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 and the estimated time to
fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ FRA will be using the OMB control number 2130-0553 for this
information collection.
\48\ 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
CFR section Respondent Total annual Average time Total annual equivalent in
universe responses per response burden hours USD
(A)............ (B)............ (C = A * B).... (D = C * wage
rates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
235.6(c)--Expedited 42 railroads... 10 expedited 5.00 hours..... 50.00 hours.... $4,456.50
application for approval of applications.
certain changes described
in this section.
--Copy of expedited 42 railroads... 10 copies...... 30.00 minutes.. 5.00 hours..... 445.65
application to labor union.
--Railroad letter rescinding 42 railroads... 1 letter....... 6.00 hours..... 6.00 hours..... 534.78
its request for expedited
application of certain
signal system changes.
--Revised application for 42 railroads... 1 application.. 5.00 hours..... 5.00 hours..... 445.65
certain signal system
changes.
--Copy of railroad revised 42 railroads... 1 copy......... 30.00 minutes.. 0.50 hours..... 44.57
application to labor union.
236.1--Railroad maintained 700 railroads.. 25 plan changes 15.00 minutes.. 6.25 hours..... 557.06
signal plans at all
interlockings, automatic
signal locations, and
controlled points, and
updates to ensure accuracy.
236.15--Designation of 700 railroads.. 10 timetable 30.00 minutes.. 5.00 hours..... 445.65
automatic block, traffic instructions.
control, train stop, train
control, cab signal, and
PTC territory in timetable
instructions.
236.18--Software management 2 railroads.... 2 plans........ 160.00 hours... 320.00 hours... 28,521.60
control plan--New railroads.
236.23(e)--The names, 700 railroads.. 2 modifications 1.00 hour...... 2.00 hours..... 178.26
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 742 railroads.. 4,562,500 train 5.00 seconds... 6,336.81 hours. 564,799.88
and departure test results. departures.
236.905(a)--Railroad Safety 2 railroads.... 2 RSPPs........ 40.00 hours.... 80.00 hours.... 7,130.40
Program Plan (RSPP)--New
railroads.
236.913(a)--Filing and 742 railroads.. 1 joint plan... 2,000.00 hours. 2,000.00 hours. 236,920.00
approval of a joint Product
Safety Plan (PSP).
--(c)(1) Informational 742 railroads.. 0.5 filings/ 50.00 hours.... 25.00 hours.... 2,228.25
filing/petition for special approval
approval. petitions.
[[Page 85479]]
--(c)(2) Response to FRA's 742 railroads.. 0.25 data calls/ 5.00 hours..... 1.25 hour...... 111.41
request for further data documents.
after informational filing.
--(d)(1)(ii) Response to 742 railroads.. 0.25 data calls/ 1.00 hour...... 0.25 hours..... 22.28
FRA's request for further documents.
information within 15 days
after receipt of the Notice
of Product Development
(NOPD).
--(d)(1)(iii) Technical 742 railroads.. 0.25 technical 5.00 hours..... 1.25 hour...... 111.41
consultation by FRA with consultations.
the railroad on the design
and planned development of
the product.
--(d)(1)(v) Railroad 742 railroads.. 0.25 petitions. 1.00 hour...... 0.25 hours..... 22.28
petition to FRA for final
approval of NOPD.
--(d)(2)(ii) Response to 742 railroads.. 1 request...... 50.00 hours.... 50.00 hours.... 4,456.50
FRA's request for
additional information
associated with a petition
for approval of PSP or PSP
amendment.
--(e) Comments to FRA on 742 railroads.. 0.5 comments/ 10.00 hours.... 5.00 hours..... 445.65
railroad informational letters.
filing or special approval
petition.
--(h)(3)(i) Railroad 742 railroads.. 2 amendments... 20.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 3,565.20
amendment to PSP.
--(j) Railroad field testing/ 742 railroads.. 1 field test/ 100.00 hours... 100.00 hours... 8,913.00
information filing document. document.
236.917(a)--Railroad 13 railroads 13 PSP safety 160.00 hours... 2,080.00 hours. 185,390.40
retention of records: with PSP. results.
results of tests and
inspections specified in
the PSP.
--(b) Railroad report that 13 railroads... 1 report....... 40.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 3,565.20
frequency of safety-
relevant hazards exceeds
threshold set forth in PSP.
--(b)(3) Railroad final 13 railroads... 1 report....... 10.00 hours.... 10.00 hours.... 891.30
report to FRA on the
results of the analysis and
countermeasures taken to
reduce the frequency of
safety-relevant hazards.
236.919(a)--Railroad 13 railroads... 1 OMM update... 40.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 3,565.20
Operations and Maintenance
Manual (OMM).
--(b) Plans for proper 13 railroads... 1 plan update.. 40.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 3,565.20
maintenance, repair,
inspection, and testing of
safety-critical products.
--(c) Documented hardware, 13 railroads... 1 revision..... 40.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 3,565.20
software, and firmware
revisions in OMM.
236.921 and 923(a)--Railroad 13 railroads... 1 program...... 40.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 3,565.20
Training and Qualification
Program.
236.923(b)--Training records 13 railroads... 350 records.... 10.00 minutes.. 58.33 hours.... 5,198.95
retained in a designated
location and available to
FRA upon request.
236.1001(b)--A railroad's 38 railroads... 1 rule or 40.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 4,738.40
additional or more instruction.
stringent rules than
prescribed under 49 CFR
part 236, subpart I.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(i)-(ii)--A The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1009(a) and
railroad's submission of 236.1021.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(iii)--A 7 Class I 1 exception 40.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 3,565.20
railroad's request for a de railroads. request.
minimis exception, in a
PTCIP or an RFA, based on a
minimal quantity of PIH
materials traffic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(5) A railroad's The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1009(a) and
request to remove a line 236.1021.
from its PTCIP based on the
sale of the line to another
railroad and any related
request for FRA review from
the acquiring railroad.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 85480]]
--(g)(1)(i) A railroad's 38 railroads... 45 routing 8.00 hours..... 360.00 hours... 32,086.80
request to temporarily extension
reroute trains not equipped requests.
with a PTC system onto PTC-
equipped tracks and vice
versa during certain
emergencies.
--(g)(1)(ii) A railroad's 38 railroads... 45 written or 2.00 hours..... 90.00 hours.... 8,021.70
written or telephonic telephonic
notice to FRA of the notices.
conditions necessitating
emergency rerouting and
other required information
under 236.1005(i).
--(g)(2) A railroad's 38 railroads... 720 requests... 8.00 hours..... 5,760.00 hours. 513,388.80
temporary rerouting request
due to planned maintenance
not exceeding 30 days.
--(h)(1) A response to any 38 railroads... 10 responses... 2.00 hours..... 20.00 hours.... 1,782.60
request for additional
information from FRA, prior
to commencing rerouting due
to planned maintenance.
--(h)(2) A railroad's 38 railroads... 160 requests... 8.00 hours..... 1,280.00 hours. 114,086.40
request to temporarily
reroute trains due to
planned maintenance
exceeding 30 days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)--A The paperwork requirement is no longer applicable.
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 The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1015 and
request to utilize 236.1021.
different yard movement
procedures, as part of a
freight yard movements
exception--.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(6) Establishing a new There is no paperwork requirement associated with this proposed provision.
exception to permit non-
revenue passenger equipment
to operate to maintenance
facilities or yards,
without being governed by
PTC technology, under
certain conditions (*New
proposed provision*).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1007(b)(1)--For any high- The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1015 and
speed service over 90 miles 236.1021.
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 3,200.00 hours. 3,200.00 hours. 379,072.00
accompanying a host document.
railroad's PTCSP, for
operations over 125 mph.
--(c)(1) A railroad's 38 railroads... 0.33 requests.. 8,000.00 hours. 2,640.00 hours. 235,303.20
request for approval to use
foreign service data, prior
to submission of a PTCSP.
--(d) A railroad's request 38 railroads... 1 request...... 1,000.00 hours. 1,000.00 hours. 118,460.00
in a 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........ 535.00 hours... 535.00 hours... 63,376.10
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 264 railroads.. 1 joint PTCIP.. 267.00 hours... 267.00 hours... 31,628.82
jointly filed by a host
railroad and a tenant
railroad.
--(b)(1) A host railroad's 264 railroads.. 1 document..... 8.00 hours..... 8.00 hours..... 713.04
submission, individually or
jointly with a tenant
railroad or PTC system
supplier, of an unmodified
Type Approval.
[[Page 85481]]
--(b)(2) A host railroad's 264 railroads.. 1 PTCDP........ 2,000.00 hours. 2,000.00 hours. 178,260.00
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 The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. 236.1015.
submission of a PTCSP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(3) Any request for 38 railroads... 10 8.00 hours..... 80.00 hours.... 7,130.40
full or partial confidentialit
confidentiality of a PTCIP, y requests.
Notice of Product Intent
(NPI), PTCDP, or PTCSP.
--(h) Any responses or 38 railroads... 36 interviews 4.00 hours..... 144.00 hours... 12,834.72
documents submitted in and documents.
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 400.00 hours... 400.00 hours... 35,652.00
information provided in additional
response to FRA's information.
consultations or inquiries
about a PTCDP or PTCSP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1011(a) through (b)-- The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1009(a) and (e)
PTCIP content requirements. and 236.1021.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Any public comment on 38 railroads... 2 public 8.00 hours..... 16.00 hours.... 1,426.08
PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and comments.
PTCSPs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1013--PTCDP and NPI The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1009(b), (c),
content requirements. and (e) and 236.1021.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1015--Any new host 264 railroads.. 1 PTCSP........ 8,000.00 hours. 8,000.00 hours. 713,040
railroad's PTCSP meeting
all content requirements
under 49 CFR 236.1015.
--(g) A PTCSP for a PTC 38 railroads... 0.33 PTCSPs.... 3,200.00 hours. 1,056.00 hours. 94,121.28
system replacing an
existing certified PTC
system.
--(h) A quantitative risk 38 railroads... 0.33 800.00 hours... 264.00 hours... 23,530.32
assessment, if FRA requires assessments.
one to be submitted.
236.1017(a)--An independent 38 railroads... 0.33 1,600.00 hours. 528.00 hours... 62,546.88
third-party assessment, if assessments.
FRA requires one to be
conducted and submitted.
--(b) A railroad's written 38 railroads... 0.33 written 8.00 hours..... 2.64 hours..... 235.30
request to confirm whether requests.
a specific entity qualifies
as an independent third
party.
--Further information 38 railroads... 0.33 sets of 20.00 hours.... 6.60 hours..... 588.26
provided to FRA upon additional
request. information.
--(d) A request not to 38 railroads... 0.33 requests.. 20.00 hours.... 6.60 hours..... 588.26
provide certain documents
otherwise required under
appendix F for an
independent, third-party
assessment.
--(e) A request for FRA to 38 railroads... 0.33 requests.. 32.00 hours.... 10.56 hours.... 941.21
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 38 railroads... 1 MTEA......... 160.00 hours... 160.00 hours... 14,260.80
passenger terminal main
line track exception (MTEA).
[[Page 85482]]
--(c)(1) A request for a 38 railroads... 1 request and/ 160.00 hours... 160.00 hours... 14,260.80
limited operations or plan.
exception (based on
restricted speed, temporal
separation, or a risk
mitigation plan).
--(c)(2) A request for a 10 railroads... 1 request...... 160.00 hours... 160.00 hours... 14,260.80
limited operations
exception for a non-Class
I, freight railroad's track.
--(c)(3) A request for a 7 railroads.... 1 request...... 160.00 hours... 160.00 hours... 14,260.80
limited operations
exception for a Class I
railroad's track.
--(d) A railroad's collision 38 railroads... 0.33 collision 50.00 hours.... 16.50 hours.... 1,470.65
hazard analysis in support hazard
of an MTEA, if FRA requires analyses.
one to be conducted and
submitted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Any temporal The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. 236.1019(c)(1).
separation procedures
utilized under the 49 CFR
236.1019(c)(1)(ii)
exception.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1021(a) through (d)--An 38 railroads... 10 RFAs........ 160.00 hours... 1,600.00 hours. 142,608.00
RFA to a railroad's PTCIP
or PTCDP.
--(e) Any public comments, 5 Interested 10 RFA public 16.00 hours.... 160.00 hours... 14,260.80
if an RFA includes a parties. comments.
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 The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. 236.1021(a) through (d)
to a PTCDP or PTCSP. and (m).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(m) Any RFA to a 38 railroads... 15 RFAs........ 80.00 hours.... 1,200.0 hours.. 106,956.00
railroad's PTCSP.
--(m)(4) Any RFA to a 38 railroads... 15 RFAs........ 90.00 hours.... 1,350.0 hours.. 159,921.00
railroad's PTC system that
involves a proposed
temporary PTC system outage
(*New proposed provision*).
--(m) A railroad's revised 38 railroads... 1 revised RFA.. 45.00 hours.... 45.00 hours.... 5,330.70
RFA, if needed.
236.1023(a)--A railroad's 38 railroads... 2 updated lists 8.00 hours..... 16.00 hours.... 1,426.08
PTC Product Vendor List,
which must be continually
updated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(1) The railroad shall The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1015 and
specify within its PTCSP 236.1021.
all contractual
arrangements between a
railroad and its hardware
and software suppliers or
vendors for certain
immediate notifications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(2) through (3) A 10 vendors or 10 8.00 hours..... 80.00 hours.... 7,130.40
vendor's or supplier's suppliers. notifications.
notification, upon receipt
of a report of any safety-
critical failure of its
product, to any railroads
using the product.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(1) through (2) A The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1015 and
railroad's process and 236.1021.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 85483]]
--(d) A railroad's 38 railroads... 2.50 16.00 hours.... 40.00 hours.... 3,565.20
submission, to the notifications.
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 38 railroads... 38 database 16.00 hours.... 608.00 hours... 54,191.04
of all safety-relevant updates.
hazards, which must be
maintained after the PTC
system is placed in service.
--(e)(1) A railroad's 38 railroads... 8 notifications 7.50 hours..... 60.00 hours.... 5,347.80
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--Form
FRA F 6180.179--Errors and
Malfunctions Notification.
--(e)(2) Continual updates 38 railroads... 1 update....... 8.00 hours..... 8.00 hours..... 713.04
about any and all
subsequent failures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(f) Any notifications that The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. 236.1023(e)(1), (g), and
must be submitted to FRA (h)(1)(2).
under 49 CFR 236.1023.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) A railroad's and 38 railroads... 0.50 reports... 40.00 hours.... 20.00 hours.... 1,782.60
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 10 vendors..... 20 reports..... 7.50 hours..... 150.00 hours... 13,370
or supplier's reports of
any safety-relevant
failures, defective
conditions, previously
unidentified hazards,
recommended mitigation
actions, and any affected
railroads--Form FRA F
6180.179--Errors and
Malfunctions Notification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(k) A report of a failure The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. 236.1023(e)(1), (g), and
of a PTC system resulting (h)(1)(2) and 49 CFR 233.7.
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 150 host and 1,000 reports.. 30.00 minutes.. 500.00 hours... 44,565
of an en route failure, tenant
other failure, or cut out railroads.
to a designated railroad
officer of the host
railroad.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) Reintroducing a In this proposed provision, there is no paperwork requirement. However, under an
provision regarding existing regulation, FRA requires host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC
initialization failures systems to submit Quarterly Reports of PTC System Performance, using Form FRA F
that previously expired in 6180.152, under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR 236.1029(h). These reports include
December 2022, and information about railroads' initialization failures.
establishing operating
restrictions under which
railroads may continue to
operate safely when a PTC
system fails to initialize
(* New proposed requirement
*).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(h) Form FRA F 6180.152-- 38 railroads... 148 reports.... 32.00 hours.... 4,736.00 hours. 422,119.68
Report of PTC System
Performance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 85484]]
236.1031(a)-(d)--A FRA anticipates that there will be zero requests for expedited certification
railroad's Request for during this 3-year ICR.
Expedited Certification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1033--Communications and The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1009 and
security requirements. 236.1015.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1035(a) through (b)--A 38 railroads... 10 requests.... 40.00 hours.... 400.00 hours... 35,652.00
railroad's request for
authorization to field test
an uncertified PTC system
and any responses to FRA's
testing conditions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1037(a)(1) through (2)-- The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1009 and
Records retention. 236.1015.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(3) through (4) Records The burden for this requirement is included under Sec. Sec. 236.1039 and
retention. 236.1043(b).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Results of inspections 38 railroads... 800 records.... 1.00 hour...... 800.00 hours... 71,304.00
and tests specified in a
railroad's PTCSP and PTCDP.
--(c) A contractor's records 20 contractors. 1,600 records.. 10.00 minutes.. 266.67 hours... 23,768.30
related to the testing,
maintenance, or operation
of a PTC system maintained
at a designated office.
--(d)(3) A railroad's final 38 railroads... 8 final reports 160.00 hours... 1,280 hours.... 114,086.40
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) through (c), 38 railroads... 2 OMM updates.. 10.00 hours.... 20.00 hours.... 1,782.60
(e)--A railroad's PTC
Operations and Maintenance
Manual (OMM), which must be
maintained and available to
FRA upon request.
--(d) A railroad's 38 railroads... 1 identified 1.00 hour...... 1.00 hour...... 89.13
identification of a PTC new component.
system's safety-critical
components, including spare
equipment.
236.1041(a) through (b) and 38 railroads... 2 programs..... 10.00 hours.... 20.00 hours.... 1,782.60
236.1043(a)--A railroad's
PTC Training and
Qualification Program
(i.e., a written plan).
236.1043(b)--Training 150 host and 150 PTC 1.00 hour...... 150.00 hours... 13,369.50
records retained in a tenant training
designated location and railroads. records.
available to FRA upon
request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 742 railroads 4,567,839 N/A............ 53,309 hours... 5,014,416
and 10 vendors. responses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 or to request a copy of the paperwork package submitted to
OMB should contact Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or telephone:
(571) 609-1285, or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or telephone:
(757) 897-9908.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal. FRA is not authorized to
impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection
requirements that do not display a current OMB control number, if
required.
[[Page 85485]]
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 Executive Order
13132 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.
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 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 through 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. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' requires
DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice as part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects, including
interrelated social and economic effects, of their programs, policies,
and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. DOT
Order 5610.2C (``U.S. Department of Transportation Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'') instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with
Executive Order 12898 and requirements within DOT Order 5610.2C in
rulemaking activities, as appropriate, and also requires consideration
of the benefits of transportation programs, policies, and other
activities where minority populations and low-income populations
benefit, at a minimum, to the same level as the general population as a
whole when determining impacts on minority and low-income
populations.\49\ FRA has evaluated this
[[Page 85486]]
proposed rule under Executive Orders 12898 and 14096 and DOT Order
5610.2C and has determined it would not cause disproportionate and
adverse human health and environmental effects on communities with
environmental justice concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Executive Order 14096 ``Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice,'' issued on April 26, 2023,
supplements Executive Order 12898, but is not currently referenced
in DOT Order 5610.2C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). As FRA
acknowledged in section IV, there are societal benefits to the
proposals in this NPRM. For example, there are possible fuel savings
and carbon emission savings \50\ from people not using alternative
transportation modes like buses or cars, which would be necessary if
the proposed flexibilities in this NPRM did not exist and railroads
were not allowed to operate trains in certain circumstances. FRA
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, based on currently available
information. However, FRA welcomes comments on the extent to which this
proposed rule would result in fuel and emission savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ As noted above, passenger trains are up to 46% more
efficient than driving and 34% more efficient than flying. Also, a
single freight train can be up to 75% more fuel-efficient than a
truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
K. Tribal Consultation
FRA has evaluated this NPRM in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' \51\ The proposed rule
would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
Tribal governments, and would not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, the
funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not
apply, and a Tribal summary impact statement is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rulemaking can
be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda
entry for this rulemaking at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2130-AC95.
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:
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. 236.1006 by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 236.1006 Equipping locomotives operating in PTC territory.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Exception for certain non-revenue passenger equipment
movements. This exception is available to enable only non-revenue
passenger equipment, including a locomotive, locomotive consist, or
train without passengers, to operate to a maintenance facility or yard
for the purpose of repairing or exchanging a PTC system. Such non-
revenue equipment may operate to a maintenance facility or yard without
being governed by PTC technology, as otherwise required under this
part, only if it meets the criteria in this paragraph (b)(6) and the
following conditions:
(i) The speed of the locomotive, locomotive consist, or train must
not exceed 49 miles per hour;
(ii) An absolute block must be established in front of the
locomotive, locomotive consist, or train;
(iii) There cannot be any working limits established under part 214
of this chapter or any roadway workers on any part of the route;
(iv) The locomotive, locomotive consist, or train must operate no
farther than the next forward location designated in the railroad's
PTCSP for the repair or exchange of PTC technology; and
(v) The railroad must protect the route of the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train against conflicting operations and
establish and comply with sufficient operating rules to protect against
a train-to-train collision and the movement of a train through a switch
left in the improper position.
(vi) FRA may, in its discretion, approve exception criteria and
conditions other than those outlined in paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(6)(i)
through (v) of this section, in a PTCSP or an RFA, if the proposed
criteria and conditions provide an equivalent or
[[Page 85487]]
greater level of safety than these default criteria and conditions.
(vii) Before utilizing the default exception under paragraphs
(b)(6)(i) through (v) of this section or the discretionary exception
under paragraph (b)(6)(vi) of this section, the railroad must notify
each person involved with the movement of the non-revenue passenger
equipment, including any dispatchers and train crews, and any roadway
workers who may no longer work on that segment during the movement
subject to this exception.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 236.1021 by adding paragraph (m)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 236.1021 Discontinuances, material modifications, and
amendments.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(4) A host railroad must utilize the RFA process under this
paragraph (m) to request and obtain FRA's approval of a temporary PTC
system outage, during which train movements may continue, including a
short-term outage related to repair, maintenance, an infrastructure
upgrade, or a capital project. A temporary PTC system outage includes,
but is not limited to, any scenario when the onboard PTC apparatus or
subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, or back office
subsystem would be disabled to perform a repair, maintenance, an
infrastructure upgrade, or a capital project.
(i) A railroad may temporarily disable PTC technology pursuant to
paragraph (m)(4) of this section only after it obtains approval from
the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
(ii) In addition to the content requirements outlined in paragraph
(m)(2) of this section, an RFA that seeks to disable a PTC system
temporarily must also contain the following information:
(A) The technical necessity for the proposed temporary outage to
perform the repair, maintenance, infrastructure upgrade, or capital
project;
(B) The physical limits and PTC system functions that would be
affected by the proposed temporary outage, and an analysis that
demonstrates the affected physical limits and affected functions pose
the least risk to railroad safety, compared to other options;
(C) An explanation about how the proposed temporary outage is in
the public interest and consistent with railroad safety;
(D) The proposed timeframe of the temporary outage, and an analysis
that demonstrates the proposed period of time poses the least risk to
railroad safety, compared to other times;
(E) A justification and an analysis that show how the proposed
duration of the temporary outage is the minimum time necessary to
complete the pertinent work, test the PTC system, and place the PTC
system back into service without undue delay;
(F) The type and frequency of rail operations that would continue
during the proposed temporary outage, including those of the host
railroad and each tenant railroad;
(G) The applicable speed limit of any train that would operate
during the proposed temporary outage and the speed limit prior to any
proposed temporary outage, and any other operating restrictions;
(H) The additional safety measures the host railroad and each
tenant railroad must comply with during the proposed temporary outage,
to ensure each type of PTC-preventable accident or incident does not
occur. Specifically, such safety measures must be designed to prevent a
train-to-train collision, an over-speed derailment, an incursion into
an established work zone, and a movement of a train through a switch
left in the wrong position; and
(I) A confirmation that before initiating the proposed temporary
outage (if FRA authorizes it), each impacted railroad will notify all
applicable dispatchers, train crews, and roadway workers about the
temporary PTC system outage, including the specific location and
duration of the temporary outage, the additional safety measures with
which the railroad must comply, and any actions the individual must
take during the temporary outage.
0
4. Amend Sec. 236.1029 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 236.1029 PTC system use and failures.
* * * * *
(g) Initialization failures. (1) Except as stated under paragraph
(g)(3) or (4) of this section, when a PTC system fails to initialize as
defined in Sec. 236.1003, a train may proceed only according to the
following operating restrictions:
(i) For the first 24 hours, the train may proceed only as
prescribed under paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section; and
(ii) After the first 24 hours, the train may proceed only as
prescribed under paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this section, and
must not exceed restricted speed as defined in Sec. 236.1003.
(2) Each railroad operating in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of
this section will notify, as early as is possible, all dispatchers,
train crews, and roadway workers about PTC system-level outages or
failures that result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing to
initialize, thus resulting in trains proceeding in accordance with
operating restrictions. Railroads must ensure that job safety briefings
reflect such operations.
(3) Notwithstanding the relief under paragraph (g)(1) of this
section, when a PTC system fails to initialize due to loss of
communications or lack of navigational information, the train must
attempt to initialize the PTC system at the next forward, available
location, including a main line, siding, yard, or station, whichever is
closest.
(4) The relief under paragraph (g)(1) of this section does not
apply to a single train that experiences an onboard PTC system failure
at the initial terminal. The purpose of this paragraph (g) is to
address issues affecting multiple trains.
(5) FRA reserves the right to impose additional operating
restrictions and other conditions to address recurring issues that
result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing to initialize and to
deny the relief under paragraph (g)(1) of this section for recurring
issues that result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing to
initialize.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-24559 Filed 10-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
