[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73589-73608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29334]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 234, 235, and 236
[Docket No. FRA-2011-0061, Notice No. 1]
RIN 2130-AC32
Positive Train Control Systems (RRR)
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA proposes amendments to regulations implementing a
requirement of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 that certain
passenger and freight railroads install positive train control (PTC)
systems. The proposal would revise the regulatory provisions related to
the de minimis exception to the installation of PTC systems generally,
and more specifically, its application to yard-related movements. The
proposal would also revise the existing regulations related to en route
failures of a PTC system and discontinuances of signal systems once a
PTC system is installed and make additional technical amendments to
regulations governing grade crossing warning systems and signal
systems, including PTC systems.
DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received by February 11,
2013. Comments received after that date will be considered to the
extent possible without incurring additional expenses or delays.
Hearing: FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking
without a public hearing. However, if prior to January 10, 2013, FRA
receives a specific request for a public hearing, a hearing will be
scheduled and FRA will publish a supplemental notice in the Federal
Register to inform interested parties of the date, time, and location
of such hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2011-0061, may
be submitted by any of the following methods:
Web Site: Comments should be filed at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McFarlin, Office of Safety
[[Page 73590]]
Assurance and Compliance, Staff Director, Signal & Train Control
Division, Federal Railroad Administration, Mail Stop 25, West Building
3rd Floor West, Room W35-332, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6203); Jason Schlosberg, Trial Attorney,
Office of Chief Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor,
Room W31-207, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone: 202-493-6032); or Matthew T. Prince, Trial Attorney, Office
of Chief Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 7th Floor, Room
W75-208, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
202-493-6146).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA is issuing this proposed rule to provide
additional regulatory guidance and flexibility for the implementation
of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems by railroads as mandated by the
Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Sec. 104, Public Law 110-432,
122 Stat. 4854, (Oct. 16, 2008) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 20157)
(hereinafter ``RSIA'').
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Regulatory History
B. RSAC
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. Environmental Impact
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Energy Impact
H. Privacy Act
I. Executive Summary
For years, FRA has supported the nationwide proliferation and
implementation of positive train control (PTC) systems, forecasting
substantial benefits of advanced train control technology in supporting
a variety of business and safety purposes. As such, in 2005, FRA
promulgated regulations providing for the voluntary implementation of
processor-based train control systems. See 70 FR 11,052 (Mar. 7, 2005)
(codified at 49 CFR part 236, subpart H). However, implementation was
not mandated by FRA due to the fact that the costs for the systems far
outweighed the possible benefits at that time.
Partially as a consequence of certain very severe railroad
accidents, coupled with a series of other less serious accidents,
Congress passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Sec. 104,
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4854 (Oct. 16, 2008) (codified at 9
U.S.C. 20157) (hereinafter ``RSIA'') mandating the implementation of
PTC systems by December 31, 2015, on lines meeting certain thresholds.
RSIA requires PTC system implementation on all Class I railroad lines
that carry poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous (PIH or TIH)
materials and 5 million gross tons or more of annual traffic, and on
any railroad's main line tracks over which intercity or commuter rail
passenger train service is regularly provided. In addition, RSIA
provided FRA with the authority to require PTC system implementation on
any other line.
In accordance with the statutory mandate, FRA issued a final rule
on January 15, 2010, and clarifying amendments on September 27, 2010.
The final rule included various exceptions from mandatory PTC system
implementation. For instance, the de minimis exception was developed to
provide railroads an opportunity to avoid PTC system implementation
where the burdens of the regulation would yield a gain of trivial or no
value. In accordance with its statutory authority, the final rule also
included a limited operations exception for passenger operations or
segments over which limited or no freight railroad operations occur.
In a petition for rulemaking dated April 22, 2011 (``Petition''),
the Association of American Railroads (AAR) requested that FRA initiate
a rulemaking to propose expanding the de minimis exception and
otherwise amending the rules concerning the limited operations
exception, en route failures of trains operating within PTC systems,
and the discontinuance of signal systems once PTC systems were
installed. AAR also requested that FRA develop a new exception that
would allow unequipped trains associated with certain yard operations
to operate within PTC systems.
In response to the Petition, FRA proposes here to make several
changes to part 236, subpart I. With respect to the specific de minimis
exception at 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(4)(iii), FRA is proposing to modify the
specific exception to raise the number of freight cars containing PIH
materials from 100 cars to 200 cars and revise the grade limitation to
be more consistent with the definition of ``heavy grade'' present in
part 232. FRA is also proposing to remove the traffic limitation of 15
million gross tons from the general de minimis exception in paragraph
(b)(4)(iii)(C), but not the categorical exception in paragraph
(b)(4)(iii)(B). In response to AAR's suggestions for a yard move
exception, FRA proposes to add a yard movement de minimis exception
that would authorize movements by unequipped locomotives over PTC-
equipped main line track segments for the purpose of switching service
or transfer train movements. FRA does not propose to create an
additional limited operations exemption, nor does FRA propose to remove
oversight from signal system discontinuances or modify the default
rules for resolving en route failures of a PTC system. However, FRA
does propose to clarify that PTC equipment of non-controlling
locomotives may be used to restore full PTC functionality to the
consist. Finally, FRA proposes a number of technical amendments to the
signal and grade crossing regulations of parts 234, 235, and 236.
For the first 20 years of the proposed rule, the estimated
quantified benefits to society, due to the proposed regulatory changes,
total approximately $156 million discounted at 7 percent and $211
million discounted at 3 percent. The largest components of the benefits
come from reduced costs of PTC system wayside components because of
proposed extensions of the de minimis risk exception under 49 CFR Sec.
236.1005(b)(4)(iii)(B), and reduced costs of onboard PTC systems on
locomotives operating in yard areas. A smaller benefit, independent of
the other two benefits, comes from changes to the application process
for a discontinuation or material modification of a signal system under
49 CFR part 235 where the application would have been filed as part of
a PTC system installation. The following table presents the quantified
benefits:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount factor
-----------------------------------
7 percent 3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications Benefit................ $397,319 $446,926
Wayside Installation Benefit........ 100,587,630 136,123,559
[[Page 73591]]
Onboard Installation Benefit........ 55,323,197 $74,867,958
-----------------------------------
Total Benefit................... 156,308,146 211,438,443
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the same 20-year period, the estimated quantified cost totals
$360 thousand discounted at 7 percent and $531 thousand discounted at 3
percent. The costs associated with the proposed regulatory relief
result from a slight increase in accident avoidance risk. FRA was able
to estimate the monetized costs affected by changes in the general de
minimis provisions, but was not able to estimate the costs of changes
to the provision affecting locomotives in yard areas. The following
table presents the total quantified costs of the proposed rule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount factor
-----------------------------------
7 percent 3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case........................... $360,055 $531,272
High Case........................... 446,883 659,390
Low Case............................ 273,227 403,155
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA has also performed a sensitivity analysis for a high case
(1,900 miles, 800 locomotives), base case (1,000 miles, 500
locomotives), and low case (100 miles, 200 locomotives).
The net benefit amounts for each case, subtracting the costs from
the benefits, provide the following results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount factor
-----------------------------------
7 percent 3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case........................... $155,948,091 $210,907,171
High Case........................... 279,584,048 378,211,032
Low Case............................ 32,312,133 43,603,310
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis indicates that the savings of the proposed action far
outweigh the cost.
II. Background
A. Regulatory History
Congress passed RSIA into law on October 16, 2008, mandating PTC
system implementation by December 31, 2015. To effectuate this goal,
RSIA required the railroads to submit for FRA approval a PTC
Implementation Plan (PTCIP) within 18 months (i.e., by April 16, 2010).
On July 27, 2009, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) regarding the mandatory implementation and operation of PTC
systems in accordance with RSIA. During the comment period for that
proceeding, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) suggested that FRA create a
de minimis exception to the requirement that lines carrying PIH
materials traffic (but not applicable passenger traffic) be equipped
with PTC systems.
The final rule, published on January 15, 2010, included a de
minimis exception, since FRA believed that it contained significant
merit and that it fell within the scope of the issues set forth in the
proposed rule. However, since none of the parties had an opportunity to
comment on this specific exception as provided in the final rule, FRA
sought further comments on the extent of the de minimis exception. The
further comments responsive to this issue were largely favorable,
although AAR sought some further modification and clarification. In
publishing its second PTC final rule on September 27, 2010, FRA decided
to not further amend the de minimis exception based on the comments
submitted.
In its Petition dated April 22, 2011, AAR requested that FRA
initiate a rulemaking to propose expanding the de minimis exception and
otherwise amending the rules concerning the limited operations
exception, en route failures of trains operating with PTC systems, and
the discontinuance of signal systems once PTC systems were installed.
AAR also requested that FRA develop a new exception for allowing
unequipped trains to operate on PTC lines during certain yard
operations.
B. RSAC
On October 21, 2011, FRA held a meeting in Washington, DC with the
PTC Working Group (PTC WG) to the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC) to seek input and guidance concerning the issues raised in AAR's
Petition and other technical amendments reflected herein. FRA
facilitated and received valuable group discussion relating to each of
the proposed amendments. The following analysis intends to present and
address the principles raised through that process, and FRA's resultant
proposed rule amendments. While not specifically addressed herein, FRA
is also considering a reorganization of the rule so that exceptions to
PTC system implementation are no longer interspersed throughout, but
are rather commingled together in their own section or sections.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
Unless otherwise noted, all section references below refer to
sections in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). FRA
seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 234
Section 234.207 Adjustment, Repair, or Replacement of Component
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 234.207 currently states: ``Until repair of
an essential component is completed, a railroad shall take appropriate
action under Sec. 234.105, Activation failure, Sec. 234.106,
[[Page 73592]]
Partial activation, or Sec. 234.107, False activation, of this part.''
During training and enforcement actions, FRA has found the regulated
entities to have misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the
response required under Sec. 234.207. FRA believes that various
regulated entities have misread paragraph (b) to indicate that the
necessary response to any essential component of a highway-rail grade
crossing warning system failing to perform its intended function is
only applicable where the result of such failure is one of the three
types of warning system malfunctions listed.
Accordingly, FRA is proposing language to clarify that defective
conditions not resulting in a highway-rail grade crossing active
warning system malfunction (i.e., an activation failure, partial
activation, or false activation) need also be corrected without undue
delay when the conditions and circumstances of the defective component
negatively affects the system's proper functioning. The proposed
language intends to make clear that the regulated entity must respond
in accordance with this section to any ``essential component'' failing
to perform its intended function. The PTC WG did not express any
specific concerns with this proposal.
Section 234.213 Grounds
Section 234.213 currently indicates that each circuit that affects
the proper functioning of a highway-rail grade crossing warning system
shall be kept free of any ground or combination of grounds that will
permit a current flow of 75 percent or more of the release value of any
relay or electromagnetic device in the circuit.
With the migration of many warning systems, subsystems, and
components from relay-based to microprocessor-based technologies, FRA
believes that a more comprehensive indicator of prohibited current flow
grounds is required. While the current threshold of 75 percent of the
release value works well for relays and electromagnetic devices, it is
apparent that the threshold needs to be refined to reflect the smaller
current values associated with microprocessor-based technology.
Therefore, FRA proposes to prohibit any ground or combination of
grounds having a current flow of any amount which could adversely
affect the proper safety-critical functioning of the warning system in
order to better reflect the reality of microprocessor-based technology.
There were no objections in the PTC WG to this proposal.
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 235
Section 235.7 Changes Not Requiring Filing of Application
FRA proposes amending Sec. 235.7, which currently allows specified
changes within existing signal or train control systems to be made
without the necessity of filing an application with FRA's Associate
Administrator for Safety. The amendment would provide each railroad a
simplified process to obtain approval for modifications of existing
signal systems in association with PTC system implementation.
Under Sec. 235.7, a railroad may avoid filing an application for a
broad variety of modifications to a signal system, so long as the
resultant arrangement is in compliance with part 236. FRA recognizes
that, during the process of installing the wayside PTC equipment, the
railroads may have the resources and time available to implement needed
or desired wayside signal system upgrades. Such modifications generally
require FRA approval in accordance with Sec. 235.5 and compliance with
part 236. Given that the outcome of such modifications must be in
compliance with part 236, FRA proposes to create an expedited approval
process for modifications of the signal system by the installation,
relocation, or removal of signals, interlocked switches, derails,
movable-point frogs, or electronic locks in an existing system where
the modification is directly associated with the implementation of PTC
systems. Instead of filing an application for approval to FRA's
Associate Administrator for Safety, a railroad would be permitted to
instead submit its request to the FRA regional office that has
jurisdiction over the affected territory, with a copy provided to
representatives of signal employees, similar to the information
provided under the provisions for pole line circuit elimination, Sec.
235.7(c)(24)(vi). If the Regional Administrator for the appropriate
regional office denies approval of the requested modification, the
request would then be forwarded to the FRA Railroad Safety Board as an
application for signal system modification. However, express approval
from the Regional Administrator is necessary before the modifications
may begin. The PTC WG expressed no concerns to this proposal.
Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 236
Section 236.0 Applicability, Minimum Requirements, and Penalties
FRA proposes removing paragraph (i), Preemptive effect. FRA
believes that this section is unnecessary because 49 U.S.C. 20106
sufficiently addresses the preemptive effect of FRA's regulations.
Providing a separate Federal regulatory provision concerning the
regulation's preemptive effect is duplicative and unnecessary.
Section 236.2 Grounds
Mirroring Sec. 234.213, Sec. 236.2 currently provides that each
circuit that affects the safety of train operations shall be kept free
of any ground, or combination of grounds, that will permit a current
flow of 75 percent or more of the release value of any relay or
electromagnetic device in the circuit. For the same reasons provided in
the discussion of Sec. 234.213 above, FRA proposes to revise Sec.
236.2 to prohibit any ground or combination of grounds having a current
flow of any amount which could adversely affect the proper functioning
of any safety-critical microprocessor-based equipment relied on for the
proper functioning of a signal or train control system in order to
better reflect the reality of microprocessor-based technology. There
were no objections in the PTC WG to this amendment.
Section 236.15 Timetable Instructions
Section 236.15 presently requires that automatic block, traffic
control, train stop, train control, and cab signal territory be
designated in the timetable instructions. FRA believes that, since PTC
technology is a form of train control, its designation is already
required under this section. However, in the interest of providing more
clarity, FRA proposes modifying Sec. 236.15 to explicitly require the
designation of PTC territory equally to other types of signal and train
control systems in a railroad's timetable instructions. This addition
would ensure that the identified specific types of signal and train
control systems in operation on a railroad would be designated in its
timetable. There were no objections to this proposal from the PTC WG.
Section 236.567 Restrictions Imposed When Device Fails and/or Is Cut
Out En Route
Section 236.567, which applies to territories where ``an automatic
train stop, train control, or cab signal device fails and/or is cut out
en route,'' presently requires trains to proceed in a specified
restrictive manner until the next available point of communication
where a report must be made to a designated officer, and an absolute
block can be and is established in advance of the train on which the
device is inoperative. Upon an absolute block being established, a
train is
[[Page 73593]]
currently permitted to proceed at a speed not exceeding 79 miles per
hour. The premise of this provision was the similarity between a manual
block system and a train operating with an absolute block in advance of
the train; Sec. 236.0 previously allowed for train speeds up to 79
miles per hour within a manual block system. However, on January 17,
2012, manual block systems were no longer approved as a method of
operation for freight trains operating at greater than 49 miles per
hour or passenger trains operating at greater than 59 miles per hour
under Sec. 236.0(c)(2). See 75 FR 2598 at 2607. This change resulted
in an inconsistency between Sec. 236.0 and Sec. 236.567, which was
not contemporaneously revised. To rectify this inconsistency, FRA
proposes to amend Sec. 236.567 to properly reflect the amendment
previously made to Sec. 236.0 regarding allowable train speeds related
to the use of an absolute block in advance of the train as a method of
operation, by reducing the maximum allowable speed from 79 miles per
hour to 59 miles per hour for passenger trains and 49 miles per hour
for freight trains, as is the case for trains operating without a block
signal system installed and operated in compliance with part 236. Where
a block signal system is operational, the maximum allowable speed
remains at 79 mph. The PTC WG had no objections to this change.
Because the harmonizing changes made the existing paragraph
structure too complicated, FRA has reorganized the section with
discrete paragraphs for each of the three operating phases: prior to
the report to a designated officer, after the report but prior to the
establishment of an absolute block in advance of the train, and after
the establishment of the absolute block. This reorganization does not
change the meaning of Sec. 236.567, except as discussed above.
Section 236.1005 Requirements for Positive Train Control Systems
Section 236.1005 specifies PTC system functionality and
implementation requirements, and provides for certain exclusions and
the temporary rerouting of unequipped trains on PTC equipped lines. The
allowable exclusions of Sec. 236.1005(b)(4)(iii) address lines with de
minimis PIH materials risk based upon specified criteria that can be
expected to result in a risk of release of PIH materials being
negligible on the subject track segment. The current categorical
criteria under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) are:
A minimal amount of PIH materials cars transported (less
than 100 cars per year, either loads or residue);
A train speed limitation of either Class 1 or 2 track as
described in part 213;
An annual 15 million gross tonnage traffic limit;
A ruling grade of less than 1 percent; and
A spacing requirement where any train transporting a car
containing PIH materials (including a residue car) shall be operated
under conditions of temporal separation from other trains.
A general de minimis exception under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) may also
be available for additional line segments carrying less than 15 million
gross tons annually and where it is established to the satisfaction of
the Associate Administrator that risk mitigations will be applied that
will ensure that risk of a release of PIH materials is negligible.
In its Petition, AAR made certain proposals to modify these
criteria, which are further discussed below. While FRA remains open to
such modifications, any de minimis exception must apply in a way where
Congress' intent is met. In other words, such exceptions must only
cover situations where ``the burdens of regulation yield a gain of
trivial or no value'' and should apply not ``to depart from the
statute, but rather [as] a tool to be used in implementing the
legislative design.'' Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 82 F.3d
451, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (inner quotations omitted); Alabama Power Co.
v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
FRA continues to believe that de minimis exceptions may be
available on low density main lines with minimal safety hazards that
carry a truly minimal quantity of PIH materials. The preamble
discussion to the final rule published January 15, 2010, focused
primarily on the risks associated with PIH materials exposure. However,
any de minimis exception must also consider the risks associated with
the events that Congress intended PTC systems must be designed to
prevent. In other words, when a de minimis exception applies, there
must be de minimis risk that a train-to-train collision, overspeed
derailment, incursion into a roadway worker zone, or movement over a
switch in the wrong position may occur. See the definition of a PTC
system in the RSIA, 49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(3).
After reviewing AAR's request internally and with the PTC WG, FRA
hereby proposes to amend Sec. 236.1005(b)(4)(iii) in accordance with
the restrictions discussed below. FRA seeks comments on the following.
First, AAR proposes that the 100-car limit be only applicable to
loaded, not residue, cars. While FRA is not opposed to some relaxation
of this limit, the result must not introduce a situation where the
risks associated with PIH materials exposure or the events PTC systems
must be designed to prevent exceed a de minimis threshold. ``Residue''
is defined by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) to be ``the hazardous material remaining in a
packaging, including a tank car, after its contents have been unloaded
to the maximum extent practicable and before the packaging is either
refilled or cleaned of hazardous material and purged to remove any
hazardous vapors.'' As a result, the amount of hazardous material in a
residue car can vary significantly, and is generally non-trivial.
Accordingly, such cars are still considered to contain hazardous
materials for the purposes of PHMSA regulations. See generally 49 CFR
parts 172-174. Given the wide range of what may be considered
``residue'' (including tank cars containing many thousands of gallons
of material), and the potential for equally serious consequence should
a PTC-preventable accident (PPA) result in the release of a PIH
material that may be contained in such a car, FRA is instead proposing
to amend this criteria so that the total number of cars transporting
PIH materials annually on a track segment be limited to 200, to include
both loaded and residue, with no more than two trains transporting PIH
materials per day. The current rule text does not provide a daily train
limitation. However, with the potential increase in PIH materials cars
moving over a line under this proposal, FRA finds more pressing reasons
to maintain an acceptable level of daily and annual PIH materials
traffic density. Discussions in the PTC WG indicated that residue cars
are generally transported along the same lines as the loaded cars, such
that doubling the allowable number of cars will have a similar impact
as excluding residue cars from the number, but will prevent the unusual
occurrences that might result from ignoring residue cars altogether.
FRA seeks comment on this assumption, the proposed daily limitation on
trains transporting PIH materials, and the proposal that the car limit
be increased to 200 cars containing PIH, both loaded and residue.
The de minimis exception, under 49 CFR Sec.
236.1005(b)(4)(iii)(B)(1), currently limits maximum authorized train
speed to that afforded for Class 1 (10 mph) or Class 2 (25 mph) tracks
in order to
[[Page 73594]]
reduce the kinetic energy available in any accident and to ensure that
the forces impinging on any involved PIH materials tank car be
sustainable. AAR proposes that the regulation provide a speed
limitation only for those trains transporting any PIH materials. More
specifically, AAR proposes a speed restriction of 40 miles per hour
(i.e., the same maximum authorized speed provided for certain rail-to-
rail at-grade crossings under Sec. 236.1005(a)(1)(i)), to be enforced
by an ``operational technique,'' and only for trains carrying any PIH
materials.
FRA is concerned that adherence to this 40 miles per hour
restriction on such trains operating in higher-speed PTC territories
will be dependent upon train handling by the train operator and that no
onboard equipment would be utilized to provide the necessary warnings
or enforcement. FRA has concerns regarding reliance on crew adherence
to such a speed restriction, and other potential errors such as
misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding the need for the
restriction. Further, FRA is concerned that the risk of PIH materials
release resulting from a collision or derailment at 40 miles per hour
could be unacceptably higher than that at 25 miles per hour.
It should be noted that the current limitation on train speeds is
not intended to totally eliminate the potential for collision or
derailment, but rather is intended to significantly reduce the
potential consequences by reducing the kinetic energy involved should
such an event occur. Kinetic energy is the energy an object possesses
when it is moving. During a normal stop that does not include a
collision or derailment, most of the energy is absorbed in the brake
system. But in a crash or derailment, that energy is suddenly,
cataclysmically dissipated not by heating the brakes, but by the
effects of crushing, tearing, and twisting of the vehicles involved.
AAR offers a research study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Campaign \1\ showing that the probability of a hazardous material
release from a rail car decreases as a track's class increases.
However, FRA would like to point out that, as the maximum authorized
speed on a track segment increases, the potential severity of any
accident increases quadratically, such that an increase in speed from
25 miles per hour to 40 miles per hour would increase the kinetic
energy in a crash by a factor of over 2.5. For example, a 2,000-pound
object traveling 25 miles per hour has approximately 42,000 foot-pounds
of energy; that same object traveling at 40 miles per hour has
approximately 107,000 foot-pounds of energy. Ultimately, while the
study suggests that an increase in track class may reduce the
probability of an accident, any accident that occurs with increased
speed would likely result in more severe consequences. Accordingly, FRA
is not proposing to modify the speed limitation. However, FRA welcomes
comments further analyzing the feasibility of considering the
application of a maximum authorized speed, rather than a track class,
for all trains as an element of applying this regulatory exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Athaphon Kawprasert and Christopher P. L. Barkan, Effect of
Train Speed on Risk Analysis of Transporting Hazardous Materials by
Rail, 2159 Transportation Research Record 59 (Dec. 2010), available
at http://trb.metapress.com/content/7682666175324228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existing requirement in Sec. 236.1005(a)(1)(i) for rail-to-
rail at-grade crossings involving a PTC route intersecting with a non-
PTC route imposes a maximum authorized speed of 40 miles per hour
through the crossing. However, a maximum authorized speed exceeding 40
miles per hour is acceptable if the opposing non-PTC route maintains,
among other things, a 20 miles per hour maximum authorized speed. For
such instances, the categorical de minimis exception actually provides
a higher maximum authorized speed.
Nevertheless, FRA does not view the provisions as directly
comparable. If a side collision was to occur in the case of a rail-to-
rail at-grade crossing, the force of the side-impacted train is not
opposing the force of the impacted train, and as such the cars of the
impacted train are not subject to the same degree of immediate
deceleration as occurs in a head-to-head collision. As a result, the
kinetic energy of both the impacting train and the side-impacted train
has a longer time period to be absorbed, significantly reducing the
potential severity of the collision. By contrast, in a head-on
collision, the force of one train is met by an opposing force from the
other train. As a result, both trains are subject to immediate
deceleration with energy dissipating in large part through damage to
both trains. Such collisions have a much greater potential severity
than side collisions. Accordingly, FRA is not willing to accept AAR's
comparison of the speed restrictions at rail-to-rail at-grade crossings
to speed restrictions necessary to qualify for the categorical de
minimis risk exception.
AAR proposes that lines eligible for the de minimis risk exception
be restricted to grades that are not ``heavy grades'' as defined by FRA
in part 232. According to Sec. 232.407(a)(1), heavy grade means:
(i) For a train operating with 4,000 trailing tons or less, a
section of track with an average grade of two percent or greater over a
distance of two continuous miles; and
(ii) for a train operating with greater than 4,000 trailing tons, a
section of track with an average grade of one percent or greater over a
distance of three continuous miles.
The steeper the grade, the more susceptible an operation becomes to
concerns relating to train handling, overspeed, and other factors that
may contribute to a PPA. FRA believes that placing a limit on ruling
grade helps to avoid any situation in which an engineer may lose
control of a train as a result of a failure to invoke a timely and
sufficiently strong brake application.
While FRA views the allowance for heavy grade as proposed by AAR as
potentially acceptable, the criteria in Sec. 232.407 depends on the
trailing tonnage of trains, which makes it difficult to apply to track
segments independent of specific train movements. Accordingly, FRA
proposes using a definition of heavy grade applicable to all trains: an
average grade of one percent or greater over a distance of three miles.
The alternative criteria of heavy grade in Sec. 232.407, a section of
track with an average grade of two percent or greater over a distance
of two continuous miles, applies only to trains operating with 4,000
trailing tons or less. While the train-specific nature of this criteria
precludes its use as part of the categorical de minimis exception, a
railroad may instead seek a de minimis exception for a track segment
meeting this less-restrictive criteria under the general de minimis
exception in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C).
As an additional risk mitigation, AAR recommends strengthening
operating practices protecting against unauthorized incursions into
roadway work zones on track segments that have received approval to
avoid PTC system implementation under the de minimis risk provision.
AAR proposes that--in the case of a train approaching working limits on
a line subject to the de minimis exception--the train crew be required
to call the roadway worker in charge at a minimum distance of two miles
in advance of the working limits to advise of the train's approach. If
the train crew does not have knowledge of the working limits prior to
approaching within two miles of the working limits or if it is
impracticable to provide notification two miles in advance, such as if
the working limits are less than two
[[Page 73595]]
miles from the initial terminal, AAR proposes that the train crew would
be required to call the roadway worker in charge as soon as
practicable.
FRA appreciates AAR's proposal to add this criteria. However, FRA
believes that it is not significantly different from existing railroad
operating rules, upon which FRA already expects compliance. Any
differences between the existing operating rules and AAR's proposal are
minimal and may only cause confusion. FRA believes that AAR's proposal
does not warrant adoption within the federal requirements and is
therefore not proposing it in this NPRM.
AAR recommends that FRA modify the temporal separation provision
contained in Sec. 236.1005(b)(4)(iii)(B)(4). The de minimis provision
in the rule requires that trains transporting PIH materials be
``operated under conditions of temporal separation from other trains.''
Temporal separation has long been defined as meaning that trains do not
operate on any segment of shared track during the same period. FRA
continues to believe that the use of exclusive authorities under
mandatory directives is an insufficient alternative to positive train
control operation. AAR recommends modification of the temporal
separation provision to permit an alternative means of achieving the
same or greater risk reduction. AAR suggests that such alternative
means should include clarification that emptying the block ahead of and
behind a PIH materials train constitutes temporal separation and that
it does not mean that when such trains are operating, no other train
can be operated on the line. This procedure does not constitute
``temporal separation'' as FRA has previously defined the term, such as
in 49 CFR part 211, appendix A, stating FRA's policy concerning waivers
related to shared use of trackage by light rail and conventional
operations. To avoid conflicting definitions, FRA is not in favor of
establishing a different meaning of ``temporal separation'' in the
context of this regulation. However, FRA does seek comment from all
interested parties on the underlying method of operation, using
absolute blocks ahead of and behind a PIH materials train as a means of
providing the necessary protection against PPAs, especially with
respect to the potential for human error. FRA points out that Sec.
236.1005(b)(4)(iii)(C) already provides railroads with the opportunity
to submit such alternative means (for line segments of less than 15
million gross tons) for approval by the Associate Administrator. FRA
believes that this provision sufficiently addresses AAR's concern and
does not propose amendment of the rule in accordance with AAR's
suggestion.
FRA further believes that beyond the categorical exception provided
in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B), a railroad may alternatively seek a de
minimis exception under existing paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) for track
segments that annually carry less than 15 million gross tons. With this
regulatory option, railroads may offer, and FRA may consider,
mitigations tailored to particular circumstances to ensure a negligible
risk. FRA would evaluate the submittal and, if satisfied that the
proffered mitigations would be successful, approve the exception of the
line segment. FRA notes that various elements of PTC technology may in
some cases provide the means for accomplishing this goal; for instance,
a railroad may choose to submit a plan using intermittent data radios
and PTC-equipped locomotives in order to enforce track warrants and
temporary speed restrictions.
AAR recommends that if the other criteria for de minimis exceptions
are met, the amount of traffic on the line should not disqualify it
from eligibility from the exemption. AAR points to existing Sec.
236.1005(b)(4)(iii)(C), which provides that FRA will ``consider''
relief from the obligation to install PTC systems on line segments with
annual traffic levels under 15 million gross tons where the risk of a
release of PIH materials is ``negligible.'' AAR suggests eliminating
the 15 million gross tons limit contained in this provision. Moreover,
AAR contends that it is unclear what constitutes a ``negligible'' risk
and what discretion FRA would exercise should there be a showing of
negligible risk. AAR further requests that FRA set a quantitative
threshold for negligible risk, and suggests ``one-in-a-million'' as the
criterion. AAR references standard MIL-STD-882C as the basis for such
criterion.
With respect to paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B), FRA has endeavored to
address AAR's concerns with a provision that is broad enough to permit
considerations of actual circumstances, limit this exception to
railroads that would not otherwise need to install PTC systems, and
make explicit reference to the requirement for potential safety
mitigations. FRA has chosen 15 million gross tons as a threshold where
mitigations are in place or could be put in place to establish a high
sense of confidence that operations will continue to be conducted
safely. In the context of the default provisions under paragraph
(b)(4)(iii)(B), FRA has concern that eliminating the traffic density
criteria would result in an exception being outside the scope of the de
minimis risk. The derailment data cited by AAR is only a portion of the
data that needs to be considered. FRA also recognizes the potential for
a higher density line not being eligible for this exemption even though
it may have fewer than 200 PIH materials cars on the line in a year.
Consequently, FRA is not proposing to amend this limitation but is open
to the possibility of considering some risk evaluation factors in lieu
of a prescriptive train density limitation. FRA seeks comment from all
interested parties on the existing 15 million gross tons density
threshold and the suggested alternative of risk evaluation factors; FRA
would expect full development and discussion of the risk evaluation
factors and their application by any party suggesting such an
alternative.
FRA also recognizes that under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C), the train
density limit could conceivably be replaced by equivalent safety
mitigations. In the interest in providing flexibility, without reducing
safety, FRA is proposing to eliminate the 15 million gross tons
limitation currently contained in this paragraph. FRA distinguishes the
application of this train density limit in this paragraph from that in
paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) because in (b)(4)(iii)(C) FRA would be
considering the totality of circumstances and the mitigations proffered
by the railroad. If a railroad submits a request under proposed
paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C), where the train density limit is not a
categorical requirement, FRA would likely require some other train
density limit--presumably more liberal--coupled with additional safety
mitigations to achieve an equivalent level of safety.
FRA is not agreeable to setting a quantitative threshold for
negligible risk in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) as suggested by AAR. FRA
notes that standard MIL-STD-882C is recognized in Appendix C to 49 CFR
part 236 as an available standard for evaluating the safety of train
control systems; however, the difficulties with using this type of
criterion as a decisional criterion, as opposed to a convention in
hazard analysis, are manifold. First, the actual metric is always
unclear. FRA will assume that AAR may refer to release of a reportable
quantity of a PIH material. The apparent suggestion is probability per
route mile. However, it is unclear what should be the level of chance
and the measurable time period (e.g., calendar hours, operating hours,
PTC system life-cycle, etc.). Given that PIH materials releases are
already infrequent events, and the potential for catastrophe from a
single release is significant, it is
[[Page 73596]]
also unclear how this criterion would relate to the judgments that
Congress has already made with respect to PIH materials transportation.
AAR does not provide any reasoning or evidence sufficient to prove that
the criterion is satisfied. AAR should be aware that the industry and
FRA have experienced significant difficulty in developing tools for
comparative risk assessment related to train control, which is the
easier task in contrast with use of absolute risk criteria. FRA will,
of course, welcome well-presented, simple, and direct hazard analyses.
FRA will be looking to achieve confidence that the chance of an
unintended release of PIH material is negligible, given the chances for
severe mishaps on the particular line segment in question.
In addition, AAR suggests that within paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C), the
obligation of the railroad to establish that the risk of a PIH
materials release is negligible should be limited to releases caused by
PPAs. Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) provides that FRA will consider
a de minimis risk exemption from the PTC mandate for certain line
segments where it is established that the risk of a PIH materials
release is negligible. AAR argues that the request to install PTC
systems on line segments being candidates for such an exception should
not be driven by the possibility of accidents that PTC systems cannot
prevent. AAR states that other criteria of the de minimis risk
exception such as temporal separation and reduced speed, if satisfied,
already reduce the probability of accidents that the four core PTC
system functions aim to prevent: train-to-train collision, overspeed
derailment, incursion into established work zone limits, and movement
through a main line switch in an improper position (i.e., the four
statutory PPAs). In the original final rule, FRA repeatedly referenced
the exception as relating to de minimis PIH materials risk exception.
We believe that this may have been confusing and would like to take
this opportunity to provide further clarification. FRA originally used
this term since the exception would only apply to freight traffic on
lines where PIH materials traverse. FRA did not intend to exclude the
four statutory PPAs as risk elements requiring consideration in order
to qualify for the exception. Accordingly, FRA proposes to change the
regulatory language to comport with this perspective by modifying the
heading of paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to eliminate the potential for
confusion.
The proposed rule modifies paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) to increase the
car limit to 200 cars annually, as discussed above. As noted above, FRA
proposes revising the heading of paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to read
``freight lines with de minimis risk.'' FRA also proposes to revise
(b)(4)(iii)(B)(3) to specify the distance over which the ruling grade
is measured, mirroring the definition of ``heavy grade'' in Sec.
232.407 for trains operating with greater than 4,000 trailing tons. FRA
proposes to amend paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) is amended by striking the
limitation that only track segments with traffic less than 15 million
gross tons is eligible for relief as posing only de minimis risk. A
typographical error is also corrected in the table in paragraph (a).
FRA seeks comment from all interested parties on these proposals.
Section 236.1006 Equipping Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory
AAR recommends that yard switching service and transfer train
movements without operational onboard PTC equipment should be allowed
to operate over PTC-equipped track segments. AAR argues that this
exception is necessary in light of the constantly-changing consists
that characterize yard operations that would render a PTC system
ineffective. AAR's suggested exceptions for switching service and
transfer train movements are discussed in turn.
In this context, FRA uses the term ``switching service'' to refer
to switching service under 49 CFR Sec. 232.5:
the classification of freight cars according to commodity or
destination; assembling of cars for train movements; changing the
position of cars for purposes of loading, unloading, or weighing;
placing of locomotives and cars for repair or storage; or moving of
rail equipment in connection with work service that does not
constitute a train movement.
This distinction is drawn from longstanding judicial interpretations of
what constitutes a ``train movement.'' See, e.g., United States v.
Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co., 361 U.S. 78 (1959); Louisville
Jeffersonville Bridge Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 543 (1919); see
also 66 FR 4104, 4148 (Jan 17, 2001) (defining ``switching service'').
FRA has previously recognized that the nature of switching service
precludes the application of some safety technologies or operational
practices that are applicable to train movements. See, e.g., 49 CFR
part 232, subpart C (not requiring air brake tests as part of switching
service, but requiring such tests for train movements of short
distances). FRA has also previously recognized that Congress did not
intend to sweep in yard tracks in the mandate for PTC system
implementation. In the first PTC rulemaking, FRA defined main line to
exclude ``where all trains are limited to restricted speed within a
yard or terminal area or an auxiliary or industry tracks.'' 49 CFR
236.1003. In the final rule, FRA stated that ``any track within a yard
used exclusively by freight operations moving at restricted speed is
excepted from the definition of main line.'' 75 FR 2598, 2657 (Jan 15,
2010). Such tracks are generally considered to be other-than-main line
track, and Congress's limitation of the PTC mandate to ``main line''
suggests that these tracks were not intended to be included. See also
S. Rep. 110-270 (taking notice of the limited value PTC offers in
preventing accidents in yards or terminals). The result of this
exclusion is that many switching operations are excluded from the scope
of the PTC mandate, where these operations do not extend on to the main
line track that connects to the yard.
However, as AAR explains in its Petition, switching operations
frequently require some movement along main track adjacent to or within
a yard, for purposes of reaching other yard tracks or obtaining
necessary distance, or ``headroom'', from yard tracks to make switching
movements. Despite the exclusion of these other-than-main line tracks,
switching service could therefore require PTC-equipped locomotives in
order to make these movements on main line track. Given the statutory
language suggesting that switching service was not subject to the PTC
mandate and the potential to apply operation restrictions to reduce
risk to an acceptable level, FRA agrees that it would be appropriate to
provide an exception for locomotives performing switching service from
the requirements to be equipped with a PTC system if appropriate
safeguards are implemented.
AAR's Petition recommends that adequate safety can be provided by a
concept AAR refers to as ``absolute protection.'' Such protection would
be established by a dispatcher, who would withhold movement authority
by signal or directive. PTC-equipped trains would be prevented from
entering the zone by an enforced positive stop outside of the zone
where operations with non-operational PTC-equipped trains were
underway. FRA solicits comments on the practicality and safety
potential of this approach. FRA also notes that such a system is very
similar to the protection required for roadway workers by 49 CFR Sec.
236.1005(a)(1)(iii), and also solicits comments on the application of
similar measures to zones where switching operations are taking place
on the main line track without operational PTC systems. These forms of
protection of
[[Page 73597]]
PTC-equipped trains are proposed as defaults; as with other exceptions
and exclusions, the rule proposes to allow each railroad to provide
alternative measures in its PTCSP.
AAR's Petition also suggests that such an exemption should also
apply to transfer train movements. As such, the distance the unequipped
locomotives could travel from a yard or terminal would be up to 20
miles. As previously noted, FRA recognizes that Congress specifically
used the term ``main line'' and seeks comments on whether that
linguistic choice would indicate an intention not to include certain
train movements--including short train movements in and around railroad
yards--within the statutory mandate. Many transfer train movements
share older locomotives with switching operations, making PTC system
implementation more costly and any switching service exception that is
provided would be inapplicable if associated transfer trains utilizing
the same locomotive would require PTC system implementation. Moreover,
transfer trains in yard areas generally operate for short distances at
lower speeds, and many only operate within yard limits. FRA seeks
comments from interested parties on its interpretation and application
of the statutory mandate as it relates to short train movements in and
around yard areas.
In accordance with this potentially acceptable perspective, FRA is
proposing a de minimis exception applicable specifically to certain
transfer train movements, at least for a period of time until the older
locomotives used in yard service may be replaced. Such locomotives will
presumably be gradually replaced with newer locomotives, which would
then allow for the implementation of PTC systems on locomotives used in
transfer train service. However, such locomotives could also be
replaced by existing long haul locomotives not equipped with PTC
systems or with non-functioning PTC systems. Thus, while FRA is not
proposing a specific provision regarding the potential duration of such
an exception, FRA seeks comments relating to how long the duration of
this exception should apply. FRA also seeks comment on any mitigations
that could be employed to bring the PPA risk down to a negligible level
in these situations.
The existing PTC regulations already provide the parameters for a
general de minimis exception. Thus, while any exception provided must
still fall within the legal understanding of what is considered de
minimis, FRA seeks suggestions on how to tailor such an exception
specifically for certain transfer train movements in and around yard
areas. FRA recognizes that not all transfer train movements will
qualify for an exception.
FRA also recognizes that, in its Petition, AAR already suggests one
such mitigation in the form of what it calls ``absolute protection.''
AAR states that absolute protection requires that the dispatcher
withhold movement authority between two points of control by signal
indication or mandatory directive. According to AAR, the dispatcher
would also hold other trains clear by providing blocking protection
within the traffic control system. Under AAR's proposal, the movement
of non-PTC equipped locomotives would be limited to 30 miles per hour
and the distance the locomotives could travel from a yard or terminal
would be limited to 20 miles.
FRA seeks comments from interested parties on AAR's suggested
mitigation, particularly as to whether it will reduce the PPA risk to a
negligible level. FRA requests that such comments include an analysis
of how this, or any other proposal, applies to each statutory PPA and
to the general prevention of PIH materials release. FRA also seeks
comments on what other safety mitigations, including temporal
separation and those used in the event of an en route failure, would be
adequate to ensure a proper level of safety for switching service and
transfer train movements in and around yard areas that would operate
without the benefit of a PTC system.
FRA also seeks comments regarding any concerns relating the
application of any transfer train de minimis exception to track
segments that share freight and passenger traffic and how such an
exception would interrelate to any main line track exception already
provided for passenger service under Sec. 236.1019. FRA recognizes
that, if a passenger train is required to have an operational PTC
system, the operational restrictions and enforced positive stop outside
of the yard zone may serve to protect against an incursion by an
equipped passenger train into a yard area with potentially active train
movements without operative onboard PTC systems. If the passenger train
is unequipped as the result of a main line track exclusion, a necessary
component of that exclusion is either temporal separation between the
freight and passenger service, operations limited to restricted speed,
an alternate risk mitigation plan which would provide an equivalent
level of safety, or a requirement that the passenger trains not be
carrying passengers within the limits of the exclusion. As a result,
the only times where unequipped freight switching operations subject to
the switching exclusion and a passenger train carrying passengers
subject to a main line track exclusion may occupy the same zone will be
when both are operating at restricted speed and therefore should be
prepared to stop within half of their range of vision, or where the
railroads have provided alternative risk mitigations that result in an
equivalent level of safety.
AAR's Petition recommended FRA limit the speed of unequipped
locomotives and trains to 30 miles per hour, or restricted speed if
multiple unequipped movements take place within the same area at the
same time. This speed restriction matches that of the en route failure
provision in Sec. 236.1029, which is referenced by the temporary
rerouting provision at Sec. 236.1005(j) and the Class II and III
locomotive exception at Sec. 236.1006(c). Because FRA views this yard
move exception as a de minimis risk exception, FRA proposes to limit
the speed of movements to 25 miles per hour, the relevant speed
restriction for the general de minimis exception at Sec.
236.1005(b)(4)(iii). FRA seeks comment on this proposal and AAR's
alternative suggestion.
FRA proposes to add a new paragraph (b)(5) to this section to allow
railroads to request a yard move de minimis risk exception for
switching service or transfer train service in and around yard areas.
The proposed exception would allow locomotives engaged in these types
of activities to operate on PTC-equipped main line track without the
requirement to install an onboard PTC apparatus. The proposed exception
provides ample flexibility, with paragraph (b)(5)(i) allowing railroads
to tailor their risk mitigations to particular yard operations to
ensure that the risk of a PPA or the release of PIH materials is
negligible. Paragraph (b)(5)(ii) defines the distance a transfer train
may operate under this exception as 10 miles from its entry onto PTC-
equipped main line track, allowing for 20-mile round-trip train
movements. FRA seeks comments on this proposal. FRA specifically seeks
comments on the feasibility of using the train's point of entry onto a
main line as a means to begin measuring the mileage limit under this
exception. FRA also seeks comments on whether the train's point of
origin, where the train is assembled and receives its required
inspections, should be the location where such measurements should
begin. FRA recognizes that some transfer trains may travel 20 miles to
an outlying point from a yard. However, allowing such
[[Page 73598]]
movements in both directions from a transfer train's point of entry
onto a PTC-equipped track segment would effectively create a 40-mile
zone outside of yards within which the PTC system would not be fully
effective due to the presence of unequipped trains. Limiting the
distance of transfer train movements to an area 10 miles from the
initiation of service will limit the size of this zone to 20 miles, is
consistent with the existing 20 mile movement restriction related to
transfer trains, and would permit round trip movements of up to 20
miles. FRA seeks comment on this limitation and potential alternative
distance limitations. Paragraph (b)(5)(iii) limits the speed of
locomotives and trains operating under this exception to a maximum of
25 miles per hour.
FRA also proposes to move the PTCIP reporting requirement from
paragraph (b)(2) of this section to a new paragraph (a)(5) in Sec.
236.1009.
Section 236.1009 Procedural Requirements
FRA proposes to move the PTCIP reporting requirement from paragraph
(b)(2) of Sec. 236.1006 to a new paragraph (a)(5) of this section. The
purpose of this proposal is not merely for organizational purposes. FRA
also intends to require the submission of additional information so
that it may better fulfill its congressional reporting obligations and
to otherwise fully and accurately monitor the progress of PTC system
implementation. The current language of Sec. 236.1006(b)(2) requires
railroads to report the status of achieving its goals with respect to
equipping locomotives with fully-operative onboard PTC apparatuses on
PTC-equipped track segments. However, for FRA to fulfill its statutory
obligations and regulatory objectives, it would also require additional
implementation information. Accordingly, under the proposed rule, FRA
expects submission of implementation data relating to wayside interface
units, communication technologies, back-end computer systems,
transponders, and any other PTC system components.
The PTC WG expressed no concerns with this proposal.
Section 236.1019 Main Line Track Exceptions
In its Petition, AAR suggests that FRA should exempt certain
limited freight operations in a similar manner as provided for limited
passenger operations under Sec. 236.1019(c). AAR suggests exempting
track segments over which not more than two trains containing PIH
materials carloads are transported daily, where the annual freight
traffic over the line is less than 15 million gross tons.
RSIA provided FRA with the authority to redefine main line for
intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation routes or segments
where there is limited or no freight operations. See 49 U.S.C.
20157(i)(2)(B). Under this authority, FRA, in Sec. 236.1019(c),
provided an exception from PTC system implementation on line segments
where there is limited or no freight operations and where either all
trains are limited to restricted speed, temporal separation is provided
between passenger trains and other trains, or passenger service is
operated under a risk mitigation plan. The purpose of 49 CFR
236.1019(c) is to eliminate the requirement for PTC system installation
in the case of low-risk passenger operations. For these reasons, FRA
does not believe it is prudent at this time to extend a ``limited or no
freight'' exception to track segments where there is more than
``limited or no freight.''
Nevertheless, FRA recognizes that the exception sought by AAR
already exists, albeit in a different form. The general de minimis risk
exception of Sec. 236.1005(b)(4)(iii)(C) allows railroads to apply for
an exception from the requirement to implement PTC systems on track
segments where the railroad can demonstrate that there is negligible
risk of PTC-preventable accidents or a release of PIH materials.
Because the statutory authority for the existing limited operations
exception applies only to intercity or commuter rail passenger
transportation, creating a new limited operations exception for freight
track segments would depend upon FRA's authority to create a de minimis
exception to the regulation. Creating such an exception but referring
to it as a ``limited operations exclusion'' would only serve to create
confusion.
Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, Material Modifications, and
Amendments
Under ordinary circumstances, a railroad seeking to discontinue a
signal system must file an application pursuant to 49 CFR part 235.
However, to simplify the process of making changes to a signal system
related to PTC systems implementation, Sec. 236.1021 currently allows
railroads to request approval of a discontinuance or material
modification of a signal system in an RFA to its PTCIP, PTC development
plan (PTCDP) or PTC safety plan (PTCSP), as appropriate. In its
Petition, AAR recommends that FRA allow automatic approval (i.e.,
without the need to file an RFA) for the removal of cab signal systems
from PTC-equipped lines or the removal of any signal system where
stand-alone PTC systems are used. However, the Petition did not provide
adequate justification to support the categorical approval of such
changes without any FRA oversight. Even in its Petition, AAR argued
that new PTC systems are likely to suffer en route failures. Such
failures would be mitigated by the presence of an underlying signal
system. Accordingly, FRA is not willing at this time to change the text
of Sec. 236.1021 in accordance with AAR's request. However, FRA does
seek comment from interested parties on how to further simplify the
procedures currently contained in this section.
Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and En Route Failures
Section 236.1029 currently provides a means of safely reacting to
the en route failure of a PTC system. When the onboard apparatus of a
controlling locomotive within a PTC system fails en route, Sec.
236.1029 requires that the train proceed at restricted speed, or where
a block signal system is in operation according to signal indication at
medium speed, until an absolute block is established ahead of the
train; after the absolute block is established, the train may proceed
at speeds between 30 miles per hour and 79 miles per hour, depending on
the nature of the signal system in place, if any, and the nature of the
train. AAR, in its petition, assents to this procedure for each
location where a PTC systems is the exclusive means of delivering
mandatory directives, but suggests substantial revisions to this
procedure where a PTC system is not the exclusive means of delivering
mandatory directives (e.g., where mandatory directives are also
delivered by radio). The AAR proposal would allow trains to continue to
a designated repair or exchange location indentified in a railroad's
PTCSP. While travelling to one of these locations, the AAR proposal
would allow freight trains to continue at track speed in signaled
territory, up to 40 miles per hour for freight trains in non-signaled
territory, and up to 30 miles per hour for trains carrying PIH
materials. The proposal also recommends a 30-miles-per-hour limitation
for passenger trains; Amtrak suggests that the appropriate limitation
for passenger trains is 40 miles per hour.
FRA is sensitive to the concerns expressed regarding PTC system
reliability and the railroads' desire to avoid restrictions where a PTC
system fails. However, the mandate to implement PTC systems reflects a
congressional determination that present methods for train operation
are
[[Page 73599]]
inadequate. Accordingly, FRA must ensure that procedures for train
operation during the failure of a PTC system provide the additional
degree of safety required by Congress. FRA is therefore rejecting AAR's
petition to amend the rule language on this issue. In the original
final rule, FRA provided flexibility for railroads in establishing
alternative procedures for operations following an en route failure.
While FRA does not view allowing trains to continue at track speed
after a PTC system is rendered inoperable as a generally acceptable
procedure, there may be circumstances under which such operations are
appropriate. If such circumstances exist, the railroads may provide in
its PTCSP, which would then be subject to FRA review and approval, an
alternative en route failure procedure pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this section. While FRA is not willing to grant AAR's request at this
time, FRA seeks comment on this issue and suggestions for other
reasonable default provisions.
AAR also requests clarification concerning the failure of an
onboard PTC apparatus of the train's controlling locomotive, where a
second PTC-equipped locomotive exists capable of providing PTC system
functionality. FRA proposes to amend Sec. 236.1029 to specifically
indicate that, when a trailing locomotive is used to maintain full PTC
system functionality, the system is considered operable and therefore
is not considered to have failed en route. Paragraph (g) provides that
if full functionality of the onboard PTC apparatus in the controlling
locomotive is restored by use of a secondary apparatus, such as the
onboard equipment of a trailing locomotive, the train can continue
operations as provided for in the railroad's PTCSP. Paragraph (g) also
requires railroads to provide procedures for how this change-over of
the PTC system onboard functions will take place.
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This NPRM has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies
and procedures, and determined to be significant under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563 and DOT policies and procedures. 44 FR
11,034 (Feb. 26, 1979). We have prepared and placed in the docket a
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) addressing the economic impact of this
NPRM.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) proposes amendments to
regulations implementing a requirement of the Rail Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (RSIA) that certain passenger and freight railroads
implement PTC systems. The proposal includes revising the regulatory
language defining the de minimis exception, as it applies generally and
more specifically to yard-related movements. The proposal also includes
revising the rules regarding en route failures and discontinuances of
signal systems.
The proposed provisions regarding applications to modify signal and
train control systems would streamline and simplify the application
process for a discontinuation or material modification of a signal
system under 49 CFR part 235 where the application would have been
filed as part of a PTC system implementation.
The proposed revisions to the existing de minimis risk exception
under 49 CFR Sec. 236.1005(b)(4)(iii) will allow railroads to avoid
installing PTC systems' wayside equipment on affected segments. FRA is
unsure of the mileage of wayside that will be affected, in part because
the railroads have indicated that they intend to reroute PIH materials
traffic from many miles of their systems. FRA analyzed the impact of
extending the de minimis risk exception to cover an additional 1,000
miles of wayside, as well as two sensitivity cases--one where the
mileage affected was higher (1,900 miles) and one where the mileage
affected was lower (100 miles). The estimated savings per mile was
$50,000 per mile. All values in the analysis are measured in 2009
dollars.
FRA also analyzed the benefits of extending the de minimis risk
exception as it would apply to equipping locomotives involved in yard
operations with onboard PTC apparatuses. Again, FRA faced uncertainty
in estimating the number of locomotives that will be affected. For the
base case, FRA estimated that 500 locomotives will be affected. FRA
also analyzed two cases for sensitivity--a high case where 800
locomotives will be affected and a low case where 200 locomotives will
be affected. Applying the extended de minimis risk exception to yard
operations will allow the railroads to avoid equipping locomotives with
onboard PTC systems apparatuses, at a unit savings of $55,000 per
locomotive.
For both wayside and onboard portions of the benefit, FRA included
the maintenance costs saved by avoiding installation. FRA estimated the
maintenance costs as 15 percent of the value of the installed base.
Table 1--Total Discounted Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Factor
-----------------------------------
7 percent 3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base case:
Applications Avoided Benefit........ $397,319 $446,926
Wayside Installation Benefit........ 100,587,630 136,123,559
Onboard Installation Benefit........ 55,323,197 74,867,958
-----------------------------------
Total Benefit................... 156,308,146 211,438,443
High case:
Applications Avoided Benefit........ 397,319 446,926
Wayside Installation Benefit........ 191,116,498 258,634,763
Onboard Installation Benefit........ 88,517,115 119,788,732
-----------------------------------
Total Benefit................... 280,030,931 378,870,421
Low case:
Applications Avoided Benefit........ 397,319 446,926
Wayside Installation Benefit........ 10,058,763 13,612,356
Onboard Installation Benefit........ 22,129,279 29,947,183
-----------------------------------
Total Benefit................... 32,585,361 44,006,465
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73600]]
In general, the costs of allowing railroads the ability to avoid
PTC implementation costs will be foregone safety benefits coupled with
some reporting costs. The proposal to extend the de minimis risk
exception affects track segments that are likely to have a risk of PTC
preventable accidents that is only slightly greater than similar
segments equipped with PTC wayside units. FRA analyzed those
incremental costs, the only costs analyzed below.
Table 2--Discounted 20-Year Total Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Factor
---------------------------
7 percent 3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case................................... $360,055 $531,272
High Case................................... 446,883 659,390
Low Case.................................... 273,227 403,155
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second proposed de minimis risk exception, currently proposed to
be codified under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(5), affects whether locomotives
used in switching operations need to be equipped with onboard PTC
apparatuses in order to cross or travel along main track in yards. This
newly created proposal requires the railroads to maintain a negligible
risk of PTC preventable accidents. FRA does not specify how railroads
are to achieve that negligible risk, so FRA cannot estimate whether the
residual risk generated by the unequipped locomotives is greater or
less than the risk if the railroad were required to install on board
PTC systems equipment. In any event, negligible risk means the residual
risk is of a very low order of magnitude. In this analysis, FRA has no
way to monetize those costs and does not estimate those costs, but
requests comments on those costs.
The costs of the changes to procedural requirements are very low,
and only consist of forwarding to FRA data likely already compiled for
railroad management purposes.
FRA calculated the net societal benefits as 20-year discounted
totals.
Table 3--Discounted 20-Year Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Factor
---------------------------
7 percent 3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case................................... $155,948,091 $210,907,171
High Case................................... 279,584,048 378,211,032
Low Case.................................... 32,312,133 43,603,310
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the rulemaking will create net benefits in all scenarios,
with the only uncertainty being the magnitude of those benefits.
FRA requests comments on all aspects of the RIA.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
To ensure that the potential impact of this rulemaking on small
entities is properly considered, FRA developed this proposed rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's policies and procedures to
promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to review
regulations to assess their impact on small entities. An agency must
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and
certifies that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed in the preamble above, FRA is proposing amendments to
regulations implementing a requirement of the Rail Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 that certain passenger and freight railroads install
positive train control systems. The proposal includes revising the
regulatory language defining the de minimis exception, as it applies
generally and more specifically to yard-related movements. The proposal
also includes revising the rules regarding en route failures and
discontinuances of signal systems. FRA is certifying that this proposed
rule will result in ``no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.'' The following section explains the reasons
for this certification.
1. Description of Regulated Entities and Impacts
The ``universe'' of the entities under consideration includes only
those small entities that can reasonably be expected to be directly
affected by the provisions of this rule. In this case, the ``universe''
would be Class III freight railroads that operate on rail lines that
are currently required to have PTC systems installed. Such lines are
owned by railroads not considered to be small.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) stipulates in its
``Size Standards'' that the largest a railroad business firm that is
``for-profit'' may be, and still be classified as a ``small entity,''
is 1,500 employees for ``Line Haul Operating Railroads'' and 500
employees for ``Switching and Terminal Establishments.'' ``Small
entity'' is defined in the Act as a small business that is
independently owned and operated, and is not dominant in its field of
operation. Additionally, section 601(5) defines ``small entities'' as
governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations less than 50,000.
Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small
entities in consultation with SBA and in conjunction with public
comment. Pursuant to that authority, FRA has published a final policy
that formally establishes ``small entities'' as railroads which meet
the line haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad.\2\ The
revenue requirements are currently $20 million or less in annual
operating revenue. The $20 million limit (which is adjusted by applying
the railroad revenue deflator adjustment) \3\ is based on the Surface
Transportation Board's (STB) threshold for a Class III railroad
carrier. FRA is using the STB's threshold in its definition of ``small
entities'' for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003); 49 CFR part 209, app. C.
\3\ For further information on the calculation of the specific
dollar limit, please see 49 CFR part 1201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA believes that portions of the proposal revising the rules
regarding en route failures and discontinuances of signal systems are
technical in nature, and have small economic impacts on any regulated
entities, large or small.
The changes to the de minimis provisions in the proposed regulation
would impact Class III railroads that operate on lines of other
railroads currently required to have PTC systems installed. To the
extent that such host railroads receive relief from such a requirement
along certain lines as proposed in this NPRM, Class III railroads that
operate over those lines would not have to equip their locomotives with
PTC system components. FRA believes that small railroads operating over
the affected lines are already allowed to avoid equipping locomotives
under Sec. 236.1006(b)(4), or are otherwise equipping their
locomotives to operate over other track segments equipped with PTC
systems. Further, some Class III railroads host passenger operations,
but FRA does not believe any of those Class III railroads have any
switching operations that would be affected by the proposed rule. To
the extent that any Class III railroads are affected in circumstances
of which FRA is unaware, the effect would be a benefit, in that the
Class III railroads would be able to avoid installing PTC systems on
some locomotives. FRA requests comment on whether any other small
entities would be affected, and if such small entities would be
affected what
[[Page 73601]]
the impacts on them would be, whether those impacts would be
significant and whether the number of small railroads affected is
substantial. FRA believes that no small entities would be affected by
changes to the de minimis provisions, and that therefore the number of
small entities affected is not substantial, and that the impact on them
is not significant.
One small railroad is required to file a PTCIP and would be
affected by the changes in the reporting requirements in Sec.
236.1009. The reporting requirements will require the railroad to
report its progress in installing PTC, in April 2013, 2014 and 2015, in
order to comply with the statutory deadlines. FRA believes that all
railroads implementing PTC will track this information and compile it
as part of internal management activities at least as frequently for
what is likely to be a relatively large capital project on every
affected railroad. FRA believes the incremental reporting regulatory
burden is negligible, on the order of forwarding to FRA an email
already generated within a railroad. FRA believes this is not a
significant burden upon the one railroad affected. Thus FRA believes
the reporting requirements will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
2. Certification
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
FRA Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
FRA requests comment on both this analysis and this certification, and
its estimates of the impacts on small railroads.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are
being submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The sections that contain the current information collection
requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each proposed
requirement are summarized as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Total annual Average time per Total annual
CFR Section universe responses response burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
234.275: Processor-Based Systems--
Deviations from Product Safety
Plan (PSP)
Letters...................... 20 Railroads....... 25 letters......... 4 hours............ 100
235.7: Requests to FRA Regional 38 Railroads....... 500 requests....... 5 hours............ 2,500
Administrators for Modification
of a Signal System Related to
PTC Implementation (New
Requirement).
PTC Related Modification 38 Railroads....... 500 request copies. 30 minutes......... 250
Request Copies to Railroad
Union(s) (New Requirement).
236.15: Timetable Instructions-- 38 Railroads....... 13 timetable 1 hour............. 13
Designation of Positive Train Instructions.
Control (PTC) Territory in
Instructions (Revised
Requirement).
236.18: Software Mgmt Control 184 Railroads...... 184 plans.......... 2,150 hours........ 395,600
Plan.
Updates to Software Mgmt. 90 Railroads....... 20 updates......... 1.50 hours......... 30
Control Plan.
236.905: Updates to RSPP......... 78 Railroads....... 6 plans............ 135 hours.......... 810
Response to Request for 78 Railroads....... 1 updated doc...... 400 hours.......... 400
Additional Info.
Request for FRA Approval of 78 Railroads....... 1 request/modified 400 hours.......... 400
RSPP Modification. RSPP.
236.907: Product Safety Plan 5 Railroads........ 5 plans............ 6,400 hours........ 32,000
(PSP)--Dev.
236.909: Minimum Performance
Standard.
Petitions for Review and 5 Railroads........ 2 petitions/PSP.... 19,200 hours....... 38,400
Approval.
Supporting Sensitivity 5 Railroads........ 5 analyses......... 160 hours.......... 800
Analysis.
236.913: Notification/Submission 6 Railroads........ 1 joint plan....... 25,600............. 25,600
to FRA of Joint Product Safety
Plan (PSP).
Petitions for Approval/ 6 Railroads........ 6 petitions........ 1,928 hours........ 11,568
Informational Filings.
Responses to FRA Request for 6 Railroads........ 2 documents........ 800 hours.......... 1,600
Further Info. After
Informational Filing.
Responses to FRA Request for 6 Railroads........ 6 documents........ 16 hours........... 96
Further Info. After Agency
Receipt of Notice of Product
Development.
Consultations................ 6 Railroads........ 6 consults......... 120 hours.......... 720
Petitions for Final Approval. 6 Railroads........ 6 petitions........ 16 hours........... 96
[[Page 73602]]
Comments to FRA by Interested Public/RRs......... 7 comments......... 240 hours.......... 1,680
Parties.
Third Party Assessments of 6 Railroads........ 1 assessment....... 104,000 hours...... 104,000
PSP.
Amendments to PSP............ 6 Railroads........ 15 amendments...... 160 hours.......... 2,400
Field Testing of Product-- 6 Railroads........ 6 documents........ 3,200 hours........ 19,200
Info. Filings.
236.917: Retention of Records.... ................... ................... 160,000 hrs........ ..............
Results of tests/inspections 6 Railroads........ 3 documents/records 160,000 hrs.; 360,000
specified in PSP. 40,000 hrs.
Report to FRA of 6 Railroads........ 1 report........... 104 hours.......... 104
Inconsistencies with
frequency of safety-relevant
hazards in PSP.
236.919: Operations & Maintenance
Man.
Updates to O & M Manual...... 6 Railroads........ 6 updated docs..... 40 hours........... 240
Plans for Proper Maintenance, 6 Railroads........ 6 plans............ 53,335 hours....... 320,010
Repair, Inspection of Safety-
Critical Products.
Hardware/Software/Firmware 6 Railroads........ 6 revisions........ 6,440 hours........ 38,640
Revisions.
236.921: Training Programs: 6 Railroads........ 6 Tr. Programs..... 400 hours.......... 2,400
Development.
Training of Signalmen & 6 Railroads........ 300 signalmen; 20 40 hours;.......... 12,400
Dispatchers. dispatchers. 20 hours...........
236.923: Task Analysis/Basic 6 Railroads........ 6 documents........ 720 hours.......... 4,320
Requirements: Necessary
Documents.
Records...................... 6 Railroads........ 350 records........ 10 minutes......... 58
SUBPART I--NEW REQUIREMENTS......
236.1001--RR Development of 38 Railroads....... 3 rules............ 80 hours........... 240
More Stringent Rules Re: PTC
Performance Stds.
236.1005: Requirements for PTC
Systems.
Request for Non-Temporal 38 Railroads....... 27 requests........ 64 hours........... 1,728
Alternative Risk Mitigation)
(New Requirement).
Temporary Rerouting: 38 Railroads....... 47 requests........ 8 hours............ 376
Emergency Requests.
Written/Telephonic 38 Railroads....... 47 notifications... 2 hours............ 94
Notification to FRA Regional
Administrator.
Temporary Rerouting Requests 38 Railroads....... 720 requests....... 8 hours............ 5,760
Due to Track Maintenance.
Temporary Rerouting Requests 38 Railroads....... 361 requests....... 8 hours............ 2,888
That Exceed 30 Days.
236.1006: Requirements for
Equipping Locomotives Operating
in PTC Territory.
PTC Progress Reports......... 38 Railroads....... 35 reports......... 16 hours........... 560
236.1007: Additional Requirements
for High Speed Service.
Required HSR-125 Documents 38 Railroads....... 3 documents........ 3,200 hours........ 9,600
with approved PTCSP.
Requests to Use Foreign 38 Railroads....... 2 requests......... 8,000 hours........ 16,000
Service Data.
PTC Railroads Conducting 38 Railroads....... 3 documents........ 3,200 hours........ 9,600
Operations at More than 150
MPH with HSR-125 Documents.
Requests for PTC Waiver...... 38 Railroads....... 1 request.......... 1,000 hours........ 1,000
236.1009: Procedural Requirements
Host Railroads Filing PTCIP 38 Railroads....... 1 PTCIP;........... 535 hours;......... 6,935
or Request for Amendment 20 RFAs............ 320 hours..........
(RFAs).
Jointly Submitted PTCIPs..... 38 Railroads....... 5 PCTIP............ 267 hours.......... 1,335
[[Page 73603]]
Notification of Failure to 38 Railroads....... 1 notification..... 32 hours........... 32
File Joint PTCIP.
Comprehensive List of Issues 38 Railroads....... 1 list............. 80 hours........... 80
Causing Non-Agreement.
Conferences to Develop 38 Railroads....... 1 conf. call....... 60 minutes......... 1
Mutually Acceptable PCTIP.
Annual Implementation Status 38 Railroads....... 38 reports +....... 8 hours +.......... 2,584
Report. 38 reports......... 60 hours...........
Type Approval................ 38 Railroads....... 2 Type Appr........ 8 hours............ 16
PTC Development Plans 38 Railroads....... 20 Ltr. + 20 App.; 8 hours/1600 hrs; 44,960
Requesting Type Approval. 2 Plans. 6,400 hours.
Notice of Product Intent w/ 38 Railroads....... 3 NPI; 1 IP........ 1,070 + 535 hrs.... 3,745
PTCIPs (IPs).
PTCDPs with PTCIPs (DPs + 38 Railroads....... 1 DP............... 2,135 hours........ 2,135
IPs).
Updated PTCIPs w/PTCDPs (IPs 38 Railroads....... 1 IP; 1 DP......... 535 + 2,135 hrs.... 2,670
+ DPs).
Disapproved/Resubmitted 38 Railroads....... 1 IP + 1 NPI....... 135 + 270 hrs...... 405
PTCIPs/NPIs.
Revoked Approvals-- 38 Railroads....... IP + 1 DP.......... 135 + 535 hrs...... 670
Provisional IPs/DP.
PTC IPs/PTCDPs Still Needing 38 Railroads....... 1 IP + 1 DP........ 135 + 535 hrs...... 670
Rework.
PTCIP/PTCDP/PTCSP Plan 38 Railroads....... 1 document......... 8,000 hours........ 8,000
Contents--Documents
Translated into English.
Requests for Confidentiality. 38 Railroads....... 38 ltrs; 38 docs... 8 hrs; 800 hrs..... 30,704
Field Test Plans/Independent 38 Railroads....... 190 field tests;... 800 hours.......... 153,600
Assessments--Req. by FRA. 2 assessments......
FRA Access: Interviews with 38 Railroads....... 76 interviews...... 30 minutes......... 38
PTC Wrkrs..
FRA Requests for Further 38 Railroads....... 8 documents........ 400 hours.......... 3,200
Information.
236.1011: PTCIP Requirements-- 7 Interested Groups 1 rev.; 40 com..... 143 + 8 hrs........ 463
Comment.
236.1015: PTCSP Content
Requirements & PTC System
Certification.
Non-Vital Overlay............ 38 Railroads....... 3 PTCSPs........... 16,000 hours....... 48,000
Vital Overlay................ 38 Railroads....... 28 PTCSPs.......... 22,400 hours....... 627,200
Stand Alone.................. 38 Railroads....... 1 PTCSP............ 32,000 hours....... 32,000
Mixed Systems--Conference 38 Railroads....... 3 conferences...... 32 hours........... 96
with FRA regarding Case/
Analysis.
Mixed Sys. PTCSPs (incl. 38 Railroads....... 1 PTCSP............ 28,800 hours....... 28,800
safety case).
FRA Request for Additional 38 Railroads....... 19 documents....... 3,200 hours........ 60,800
PTCSP Data.
PTCSPs Applying to Replace 38 Railroads....... 19 PTCSPs.......... 3,200 hours........ 60,800
Existing Certified PTC
Systems.
Non-Quantitative Risk 38 Railroads....... 19 assessments..... 3,200 hours........ 60,800
Assessments Supplied to FRA.
236.1017: PTCSP Supported by 38 Railroads....... 1 assessment....... 8,000 hours........ 8,000
Independent Third Party
Assessment.
Written Requests to FRA to 38 Railroads....... 1 request.......... 8 hours............ 8
Confirm Entity Independence.
Provision of Additional 38 Railroads....... 1 document......... 160 hours.......... 160
Information After FRA
Request.
Independent Third Party 38 Railroads....... 1 request.......... 160 hours.......... 160
Assessment: Waiver Requests.
RR Request for FRA to Accept 38 Railroads....... 1 request.......... 32 hours........... 32
Foreign Railroad Regulator
Certified Info.
236.1019: Main Line Track
Exceptions.
Submission of Main Line Track 38 Railroads....... 36 MTEAs........... 160 hours.......... 5,760
Exclusion Addendums (MTEAs).
[[Page 73604]]
Passenger Terminal Exception-- 38 Railroads....... 19 MTEAs........... 160 hours.......... 3,040
MTEAs.
Limited Operation Exception-- 38 Railroads....... 19 plans........... 160 hours.......... 3,040
Risk Mit.
Ltd. Exception--Collision 38 Railroads....... 12 analyses........ 1,600 hours........ 19,200
Hazard Anal.
Temporal Separation 38 Railroads....... 11 procedures...... 160 hours.......... 1,760
Procedures.
236.1021: Discontinuances, 38 Railroads....... 19 RFAs............ 160 hours.......... 3,040
Material Modifications,
Amendments--Requests to Amend
(RFA) PTCIP, PTCDP or PTCSP.
Review and Public Comment on 7 Interested Groups 7 reviews + 20 3 hours; 16 hours.. 341
RFA. comments.
236.1023: PTC Product Vendor 38 Railroads....... 38 lists........... 8 hours............ 304
Lists.
RR Procedures Upon 38 Railroads....... 38 procedures...... 16 hours........... 608
Notification of PTC System
Safety-Critical Upgrades,
Rev., Etc.
RR Notifications of PTC 38 Railroads....... 142 notifications.. 16 hours........... 2,272
Safety Hazards.
RR Notification Updates...... 38 Railroads....... 142 updates........ 16 hours........... 2,272
Manufacturer's Report of 5 System Suppliers. 5 reports.......... 400 hours.......... 2,000
Investigation of PTC Defect.
PTC Supplier Reports of 5 System Suppliers. 142 reports + 142 16 hours + 8 hours. 3,408
Safety Relevant Failures or rpt. copies.
Defective Conditions.
236.1029: Report of On-Board Lead 38 Railroads....... 836 reports........ 96 hours........... 80,256
Locomotive PTC Device Failure.
236.1031: Previously Approved PTC
Systems.
Request for Expedited 38 Railroads....... 3 REC Letters...... 160 hours.......... 480
Certification (REC) for PTC
System.
Requests for Grandfathering 38 Railroads....... 3 requests......... 1,600 hours........ 4,800
on PTCSPs.
236.1035: Field Testing 38 Railroads....... 190 field test 800 hours.......... 152,000
Requirements. plans.
Relief Requests from 38 Railroads....... 38 requests........ 320 hours.......... 12,160
Regulations Necessary to
Support Field Testing.
236.1037: Records Retention......
Results of Tests in PTCSP and 38 Railroads....... 836 records........ 4 hours............ 3,344
PTCDP.
PTC Service Contractors 38 Railroads....... 18,240 records..... 30 minutes......... 9,120
Training Records.
Reports of Safety Relevant 38 Railroads....... 4 reports.......... 8 hours............ 32
Hazards Exceeding Those in
PTCSP and PTCDP.
Final Report of Resolution of 38 Railroads....... 4 final reports.... 160 hours.......... 640
Inconsistency.
236.1039: Operations & 38 Railroads....... 38 manuals......... 250 hours.......... 9,500
Maintenance Manual (OMM):
Development.
Positive Identification of 38 Railroads....... 114,000 i.d. 1 hour............. 114,000
Safety-critical components. components.
Designated RR Officers in 38 Railroads....... 76 designations.... 2 hours............ 152
OMM. regarding PTC issues.
236.1041: PTC Training Programs.. 38 Railroads....... 38 programs........ 400 hours.......... 15,200
236.1043: Task Analysis/Basic 38 Railroads....... 38 evaluations..... 720 hours.......... 27,360
Requirements: Training
Evaluations.
Training Records............. 38 Railroads....... 560 records........ 10 minutes......... 93
236.1045: Training Specific to 38 Railroads....... 32 trained 20 hours........... 640
Office Control Personnel. employees.
236.1047: Training Specific to
Loc. Engineers & Other Operating
Personnel.
[[Page 73605]]
PTC Conductor Training....... 38 Railroads....... 7,600 trained 3 hours............ 22,800
conductors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized. For information or a copy of
the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan,
Information Clearance Officer, at 202-493-6292, or Ms. Nakia Jackson at
202-493-6073.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert
Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also
be submitted via email to Mr. Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following
address: [email protected]; [email protected].
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and
60 days after its publication in the Federal Register. Therefore, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will respond
to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB
control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control
numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from
this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of the final rule.
The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by separate
notice in the Federal Register.
D. Federalism Implications
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism.'' See 64 FR 43,255 (Aug. 4, 1999). As discussed earlier
in the preamble, this proposed rule would provide regulatory relief
from the mandated implementation of PTC systems.
Executive Order 13132 requires FRA to develop a process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
Policies that have ``federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with
federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs and that is not required by statute, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or the agency consults
with State and local government officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. Where a regulation has federalism
implications and preempts state law, the agency seeks to consult with
State and local officials in the process of developing the regulation.
FRA has determined that this proposed rule would not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, nor on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In
addition, FRA has determined that this proposed rule would not impose
any direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore,
the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do
not apply.
However, this proposed rule will have preemptive effect. Section
20106 of Title 49 of the United States Code provides that States may
not adopt or continue in effect any law, regulation, or order related
to railroad safety or security that covers the subject matter of a
regulation prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of
Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) or the
Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security
matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order qualifies
under the local safety or security exception to Sec. 20106.
Furthermore, the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. 20701-
20703) has been held by the U.S. Supreme Court to preempt the entire
field of locomotive safety.
In sum, FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As
explained above, FRA has determined that this proposed rule has no
federalism implications, other than the possible preemption of State
laws. Accordingly, FRA has determined that preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement for this proposed rule is not required.
E. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with its
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'' (``FRA's
Procedures'') (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental
statutes, Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA
has determined that this proposed rule is not a major FRA action
(requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment) because it is categorically excluded from
detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's
Procedures. In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's
Procedures, the agency has further concluded that no extraordinary
circumstances exist with respect to this regulation that might trigger
the need for a more detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA
finds that this proposed rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C.
1531) (UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the
costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a federal mandate likely to result in the expenditures by
[[Page 73606]]
state, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation with base year
of 1995) or more in any one year. The value equivalent of $100 million
in CY 1995, adjusted annual for inflation to CY 2008 levels by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) is $141.3 million.
The assessment may be included in conjunction with other assessments,
as it is in this rulemaking.
FRA is publishing this NPRM to provide additional flexibility in
standards for the development, testing, implementation, and use of PTC
systems for railroads mandated by RSIA to implement PTC systems. The
RIA provides a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of the NPRM.
This analysis is the basis for determining that this rule will not
result in total expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $141.3 million or more in
any one year. The costs associated with this NPRM are reduced accident
reduction from an existing rule. The aforementioned costs borne by all
parties will not exceed $3.3 million in any one year.
G. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. FRA has evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13211. FRA has determined that this proposed rule is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, FRA has determined that
this regulatory action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of Executive Order 13211.
H. Privacy Act
FRA wishes to inform all interested parties that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of any written communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the document (or signing the document), if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Interested
parties may also review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or visit
http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 234
Highway safety, Highway-rail grade crossings, Penalties, Railroad
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 235
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 236
Penalties, Positive Train Control, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA is proposing to amend
chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 234--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49
CFR 1.49.
2. Amend Sec. 234.207 by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 234.207 Adjustment, repair, or replacement of component.
* * * * *
(b) If the failure of an essential component results in an
activation failure, partial activation, or false activation, as defined
in Sec. 234.5, a railroad shall take appropriate action under Sec.
234.105, Activation failure, Sec. 234.106, Partial activation, or
Sec. 234.107, False activation, of this part, until repair of the
essential component is completed.
3. Revise Sec. 234.213 to read as follows:
Sec. 234.213 Grounds.
Each circuit that affects the proper functioning of a highway-rail
grade crossing warning system shall be kept free of any ground or
combination of grounds having a current flow of any amount that could
adversely affect the proper safety-critical functioning of the warning
system, including any ground or combination of grounds that will permit
a current flow of 75 percent or more of the release value of any relay
or electromagnetic device in the circuit. This requirement does not
apply to: circuits that include track rail; alternating current power
distribution circuits that are grounded in the interest of safety; and
common return wires of grounded common return single break circuits.
PART 235--[AMENDED]
5. The authority citation for part 235 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49
CFR 1.49.
6. Amend Sec. 235.7 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 235.7 Changes not requiring filing of application.
* * * * *
(d) In lieu of filing an application for approval to the Associate
Administrator for Safety, modifications of a signal system where the
resultant arrangement will comply with part 236 of this title
consisting of the installation, relocation, or removal of signals,
interlocked switches, derails, movable-point frogs, or electric locks
in an existing system, directly associated with the implementation of
positive train control pursuant to subpart I of part 236, may instead
be approved by the FRA Regional Administrator having jurisdiction over
the affected territory. To seek such approval, the railroad shall
provide notice and a profile plan of the change to the appropriate FRA
regional office. The railroad shall also at the same time provide a
copy of the notice and profile plan to representatives of employees
responsible for maintenance, inspection, and testing of the signal
system under part 236. The Regional Administrator shall in writing deny
or approve, in full or in part, and with or without conditions, the
request for signal system modification. For any portion of the request
that is denied, the Regional Administrator will refer the issue to the
Railroad Safety Board as an application to modify the signal system.
PART 236--[AMENDED]
7. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20157,
20301-20303, 20306, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49
CFR 1.49.
Sec. 236.0 [Amended]
8. Amend Sec. 236.0 by removing and reserving paragraph (i).
9. Revise Sec. 236.2 to to read as follows:
[[Page 73607]]
Sec. 236.2 Grounds.
Each circuit, the functioning of which affects the safety of train
operations, shall be kept free of any ground or combination of grounds
having a current flow of any amount that could adversely affect the
proper safety-critical functioning of a signal or train control system,
including any ground or combination of grounds that will permit a flow
of current equal to or in excess of 75 percent of the release value of
any relay or other electromagnetic device in the circuit, except
circuits which include any track rail and except the common return
wires of single-wire, single-break, signal control circuits using a
grounded common, and alternating current power distribution circuits
which are grounded in the interest of safety.
10. Revise Sec. 236.15 to read as follows:
Sec. 236.15 Timetable instructions.
Automatic block, traffic control, train stop, train control, cab
signal, and positive train control territory shall be designated in
timetable instructions.
11. Revise Sec. 236.567 to read as follows:
Sec. 236.567 Restrictions imposed when device fails and/or is cut out
en route.
(a) Where an automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal
device fails and/or is cut out en route, the train on which the device
is inoperative may proceed to the next available point of communication
where report must be made to a designated officer, at speeds not to
exceed:
(1) If no block signal system is in operation, restricted speed; or
(2) If a block signal system is in operation, according to signal
indication but not to exceed medium speed.
(b) Upon completion and communication of the report required in
paragraph (a) of this section, a train may continue to a point where an
absolute block can be established in advance of the train at speeds not
to exceed:
(1) If no block signal system is in operation, restricted speed; or
(2) If a block signal system is in operation, according to signal
indication but not to exceed medium speed.
(c) Upon reaching the location where an absolute block has been
established in advance of the train, as referenced in paragraph (b) of
this section, the train may proceed at speeds not to exceed:
(1) If no block signal system is in operation:
(i) If the train is a passenger train, 59 miles per hour; or
(ii) If the train is a freight train, 49 miles per hour.
(2) If a block signal system is in operation, 79 miles per hour.
12. Amend Sec. 236.1005 by revising the heading of table in
paragraph (a)(1)(i), and paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A), (b)(4)(iii)(B)(3),
(b)(4)(iii)(B)(4), and (b)(4)(iii)(C) to read as follows:
Sec. 236.1005 Requirements for Positive Train Control systems.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossing type Max speed Protection
required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Freight lines with de minimis risk. (A) In a PTCIP or RFA, a
railroad may request review of the requirement to install PTC on a low
density track segment where a PTC system is otherwise required by this
section, but has not yet been installed, based upon the presence of a
minimal quantity of PIH materials (less than 200 cars per year, loaded
and residue, with no more than two trains carrying PIH materials over
the track segment each calendar day). Any such request shall be
accompanied by estimated traffic projections for the next 5 years
(e.g., as a result of planned rerouting, coordinations, or location of
new business on the line). Where the request involves prior or planned
rerouting of PIH materials traffic, the railroad must provide the
information and analysis identified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this
section. The submission shall also include a full description of
potential safety hazards on the segment of track and fully describe
train operations over the line. This provision is not applicable to
lines segments used by intercity or commuter passenger service.
(B) * * *
(3) That does not have any portion of the segment with an average
grade of one percent or greater over a distance of three continuous
miles; and
(4) On which any train transporting a car containing PIH materials
(including a residue car) is operated under conditions of temporal
separation from other trains using the line segment as documented by a
temporal separation plan accompanying the request. As used in this
paragraph, ``temporal separation'' has the same meaning given by Sec.
236.1019(e), except that the separation addressed is the separation of
a train carrying any number of cars containing PIH materials from other
freight trains. In lieu of temporal separation, a railroad may employ,
subject to FRA approval, an alternative means of similarly reducing the
risk of PTC-preventable accidents and a release of PIH materials.
(C) FRA will also consider, and may approve, requests for relief
under this paragraph for additional line segments where it is
established to the satisfaction of the Associate Administrator that
risk mitigations will be applied that will ensure that the risk of PTC-
preventable accidents and a release of PIH materials is negligible.
* * * * *
13. Amend Sec. 236.1006 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) and
adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 236.1006 Equipping locomotives operating in PTC territory.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each
operation on any track segment equipped with a PTC system shall 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.
(b) * * *
(2) Each railroad shall adhere to its PTCIP.
* * * * *
(5) Yard moves. In a PTCSP or an RFA, a railroad may request a yard
move de minimis risk exception to operate a locomotive without an
onboard PTC apparatus installed where an onboard PTC apparatus is
otherwise required by this part. This exception only applies to a
locomotive engaged in switching service or engaged in transfer train
service that originates either in the yard or that originates within 10
miles of the yard with a final destination point being the yard.
(i) Each such operation must include sufficient risk mitigations to
ensure that the risk of PTC-preventable accidents and a release of PIH
materials is negligible;
(ii) The locomotive shall not travel to a point in excess of 10
miles from its point of entry onto the PTC-equipped main line track;
and
(iii) The speed of the locomotive or train shall not exceed 25
miles per hour.
* * * * *
14. Amend Sec. 236.1009 by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 236.1009 Procedural requirements.
(a) * * *
(5) Each railroad filing a PTCIP shall report annually, on the
anniversary of its original PTCIP submission, and until its PTC system
implementation is complete, its progress towards fulfilling the goals
outlined in its PTCIP under this section, including progress towards
PTC system installation pursuant to Sec. 236.1005 and onboard PTC
apparatus
[[Page 73608]]
installation and use in PTC-equipped track segments pursuant to Sec.
236.1006.
* * * * *
15. Amend Sec. 236.1029 by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 236.1029 PTC system use and en route failures.
* * * * *
(b) Where an onboard PTC apparatus on a lead locomotive that is
operating in or is to be operated within a PTC system fails or is
otherwise cut-out after the train has departed its initial terminal,
the train may only continue in accordance with the following:
* * * * *
(g) Where full functionality of an onboard PTC apparatus on a
controlling locomotive that is operating within a PTC system is
restored through use of a secondary apparatus, such as an onboard PTC
apparatus in a trailing locomotive, the train may continue operations
as specified in the railroad's PTCSP. The process for such restoration
of functionality shall be specified in a railroad's PTCSP.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 29, 2012.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-29334 Filed 12-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P