[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5767-5770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01596]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 234, 235, and 236
[Docket No. FRA-2011-0061, Notice No. 2]
RIN 2130-AC32
Positive Train Control Systems (RRR)
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Clarification of NPRM and extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition for rulemaking, FRA proposed, in a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) dated December 11, 2012,
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 present document
clarifies FRA's responses to several elements of the Association of
American Railroads' (AAR) petition for rulemaking and which elements of
the petition for rulemaking FRA is considering, and asks specific
questions concerning those elements. This document does not alter FRA's
proposal as issued December 11, 2012, but it does extend the comment
period in this proceeding to March 11, 2013.
DATES: Written comments must be received by March 11, 2013. Comments
received after that date will be considered to the extent possible
without incurring additional expenses or delays.
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: Ronald Hynes, Director, Office of
Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration, Mail
Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor West, Room W35-302, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6404); 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:
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Purpose and Background
II. Questions Concerning Proposals in the Petition Not Adopted in
the December 11, 2012 NPRM
A. De Minimis Exception
B. Yard Movement Exceptions
C. Provision on En Route Failures
I. Purpose and Background
FRA is issuing this document to clarify and seek additional
information related to its proposed rule published at 77 FR 73589 on
December 11, 2012, which was intended to provide additional regulatory
guidance and flexibility related to the implementation of PTC systems
by railroads as mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008,
Sec. 104, Div.A, Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4854 (Oct. 16, 2008)
(codified at 49 U.S.C. 20157) (hereinafter ``RSIA''). This document
also extends the comment period in this proceeding to March 11, 2013,
in order to provide interested parties sufficient time in which to
develop responses.
RSIA was signed 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 an 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 materials poisonous by inhalation (PIH materials) traffic be
equipped with PTC systems.
The final rule, published on January 15, 2010, included a de
minimis exception, because FRA believed that the exception had
significant merit and that it fell within the scope of the issues set
forth in the proposed rule. However, because none of the parties had
had an
[[Page 5768]]
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 the AAR sought some additional expansion and
clarification. In publishing its second PTC final rule on September 27,
2010, based on the comments submitted, FRA decided not to further amend
the de minimis exception.
In a petition for rulemaking dated April 22, 2011 (Petition), AAR
requested that FRA initiate a rulemaking to propose expanding the de
minimis exception and otherwise amend 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 are installed. AAR also requested that FRA develop a new
exception for allowing unequipped trains to operate on PTC lines during
certain yard operations, create a new ``limited operations'' exception
for freight movements, modify the default procedures for handling the
en route failure of PTC systems, and allow automatic approval of the
discontinuance of signal systems where PTC systems are implemented. In
response to the Petition, FRA's December 11, 2012 NPRM proposed to make
many of the amendments requested in the Petition and requested
additional comment on the others.
II. Questions Concerning Proposals in the Petition Not Adopted in the
December 11, 2012 NPRM
To fully develop the record, FRA seeks additional information from
all parties on the issues raised in the Petition. FRA also continues to
seek comment on all of the proposals in the NPRM, even those not
addressed in this document. This document further serves to clarify the
input FRA requests on specific items in the Petition and other matters.
FRA views all elements of the Petition as within the scope of this
rulemaking and seeks comment on each of the elements contained in the
Petition. The Petition can be found in the public docket related to
this proceeding, FRA-2011-0061, which can be accessed by following the
directions contained in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Nothing
in the NPRM has foreclosed FRA's further consideration of any issues or
approaches related to this rulemaking that may be submitted in public
comments.
As a general note, when commenters are addressing specific
provisions of the NPRM, and when suggesting specific changes, FRA seeks
information, to the extent feasible and practicable, on the number of
additional miles and/or locomotives that would or would not require PTC
component installation (e.g., wayside components, onboard components).
For example, if a commenter suggests a change to a de minimis exception
alternative by recommending the use of a speed restriction instead of
track class criteria, FRA is interested in the number of track miles
that would no longer require PTC installation. FRA also seeks any
information on the potential costs associated with any increased
accident risk from not installing PTC. This type of information would
help FRA evaluate the benefits and costs for each potential change to
the PTC rule as well as the NPRM as a whole. Pursuant to Executive
Order 13563 and to the extent permitted by law, FRA seeks information
sufficient to make a reasoned determination that benefits justify costs
and therefore requests comment on the magnitude of specific proposed
rule changes.
A. De Minimis Exception
FRA seeks comment on several aspects of the categorical de minimis
exception. The Petition proposed modifying the categorical exception to
apply only to 100 loaded PIH cars, and not to residue cars. AAR notes
that the Transportation Security Administration does not deem it
necessary to regulate residue cars for security purposes since
consequences of the release of a residue quantity of PIH materials
would be significantly less than the consequences of an incident
involving a loaded PIH car. In the NPRM, FRA proposes limiting the
categorical de minimis exception to lines with fewer than 200 cars
containing PIH materials (including both loaded and residue cars) per
year. For the reasons stated in the NPRM, FRA did not propose a
wholesale elimination of the applicability of the yearly cap on number
of cars to residue cars. Nonetheless, FRA seeks comments on that
decision and whether the car cap should apply only to loaded PIH cars
and at what level.
FRA also seeks comment on the proposal to modify the de minimis
exception to include a two-trains-per-day limitation on trains carrying
PIH materials. Specifically, FRA seeks comment on the constraints
proposed on the two-train limitation in the NPRM (e.g., annual carload
limit, inclusion of residue cars) and whether different, or any,
constraints on a train-per-day limitation would be appropriate. FRA
seeks comment on the relationship between daily train limitations and
safety and the relationship between a daily train limitation and the
annual car limitation particularly with respect to different PIH
materials. For example, if the transit time for a tank car carrying
anhydrous hydrogen chloride is too long, there is a risk that the car
will become over-pressurized and that locations where such tank cars
are held need to have the capability to vent the cars. FRA also seeks
comment on the types of track segments that might not qualify for the
categorical de minimis exception solely due to the trains-per-day
limitation as well as operational changes that might be necessary to
comply with the daily train limitation on track segments that would
otherwise qualify for the de minimis exception (i.e., track segments
carrying less than 200 PIH material cars per year, but more than two
trains daily carrying PIH materials).
The categorical de minimis exception also includes two criteria
meant to establish that a line qualifies as a ``low density track
segment,'' as discussed in 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(iii): (1) That the line
segment is Class 1 or Class 2 track; and (2) that the line density is
less than 15 million gross tons (MGT) per year. With respect to the
track class criterion, FRA seeks comment on the impact of the track
class criterion on track maintenance standards; specifically, on
whether the track class criterion creates a disincentive to setting
higher maintenance standards for excluded track segments. FRA also
seeks comment on whether the categorical de minimis exception should be
extended to include Class 3 track segments. Alternatively, FRA seeks
comment on the concept of eliminating the track class criteria and
using a speed restriction on trains carrying PIH materials, and, if so,
what that speed limit should be. FRA notes that in 2009, the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of DOT issued
enhanced tank car design standards for new construction of railroad
tank cars designed to transport PIH materials. The new design standards
are intended to enhance the accident survivability of tank cars
transporting PIH materials. 74 FR 1770 (January 13, 2009). Commenters
should address the impact on the speed limit issue of the replacement
of the historical tank car fleet with newer, more robust tank cars
meeting the enhanced standards of PHMSA's rule. Commenters should
address both the probability and severity of a potential accident when
accounting for the costs of a potential change in track class
[[Page 5769]]
criteria or use of a speed restriction. With respect to the tonnage
limitation, FRA seeks comment on whether 15 MGT is the appropriate
threshold, taking into account both derailment rates and the severity
of derailments by traffic density, for the categorical de minimis
exemption. FRA also seeks comment on AAR's suggestion that the 15 MGT
limit be eliminated from the categorical de minimis exception and
potential alternative standards for the categorical de minimis
exception.
The categorical de minimis exception also contains a 1-percent
grade restriction. The Petition suggests that the exception be
restricted to grades that are not ``heavy grade'' as defined in 49 CFR
part 232. Section 232.407 of title 49 CFR defines ``heavy grade'' as an
average grade of at least 2 percent over two continuous miles in the
case of a train operating with no more than 4,000 trailing tons, and as
an average grade of at least 1 percent over three continuous miles in
the case of a train operating with more than 4,000 trailing tons. After
noting the difficulty of applying these criteria to track segments
independent of specific train movements, FRA proposed in the NPRM a
grade restriction of 1 percent for three continuous miles. FRA
indicated that a railroad may seek relief under the general de minimis
exception for train operations with 4,000 trailing tons or less over
track with an average grade of two percent or less over a distance of
two miles. FRA seeks information on operational impacts associated with
grade limitations proposed in the NPRM and the Petition, and seeks
information on both the probability of a potential accident and the
severity of a potential accident associated with both grade
limitations. FRA also seeks specific information regarding the track
miles that would be excluded from the exception should either grade
limitation be adopted.
In the existing regulations, the categorical de minimis exception
also requires that PIH materials be transported in trains that are
temporally separated from other trains, as the term is discussed in 49
CFR part 211, appendix A. In the Petition, AAR suggested that FRA
replace this requirement with a requirement that trains carrying PIH
materials be operated with an absolute block ahead of and behind the
train. FRA indicated in the NPRM that it is considering this block-
separation proposal, though it would not be accurate to refer to it as
``temporal separation.'' FRA requests comment on whether the block-
separation proposal would be an adequate alternative to temporal
separation in providing adequate protection for the remaining PIH
materials trains on a PTC-excluded track segment. FRA also seeks
comment on any other techniques (implementation of technology, methods
of operation, etc.) that could be used in place of temporal separation
to establish separation between trains and ensure the safety of trains
carrying PIH materials on PTC-excluded track segments.
Under the proposal and the existing rule, track segments that do
not meet the specific requirements of the categorical de minimis
exception are still potentially excludable under the general de minimis
exception, so long as it can be demonstrated that the track segment has
only ``negligible risk'' of events occurring that PTC systems are
designed to prevent. FRA seeks comment generally on methods for
determining negligible risk and whether there should be an established
rule for what constitutes negligible risk. In the NPRM, FRA noted the
difficulty the agency encountered when seeking to quantify risk in the
development of the residual risk qualifying test with respect to the
initial PTC final rule issued on January 15, 2010, and that it could be
difficult to quantify risk in this circumstance as well. To establish a
quantified risk assessment as AAR requested in the Petition, such a
calculation would presumably be necessary, and FRA requests discussion
of how to quantify the risk of any particular track segment and what
might be an appropriate threshold using that quantification.
Additionally, FRA requests that commenters specifically address what
elements (e.g., traffic type, train speed, geography, grade, or
proximity to populated areas, or other relevant factors), should be
considered when calculating negligible risk, as well as the potential
utility of the hazardous material routing analysis to determining the
characteristics of a track segment with negligible risk. See 49 CFR
172.820.
FRA notes that AAR's Petition also sought a new ``limited
operations'' exception in instances where there are limited freight
operations on a line segment (fewer than 2 trains carrying PIH per day
and less than 15 MGT of traffic annually), and where additional
restrictions are imposed (i.e., 40-mph speed restriction, exclusions of
any track segments with heavy grades, special notification requirements
prior to entering work zones, and temporal separation or an alternative
achieving at least as much risk reduction). As noted in the NPRM, FRA
was not willing to propose such an exception since FRA was provided
limited flexibility in the statute to modify the definition of ``main
line'' for freight operations, and the exception is already covered by
the general de minimis exception. FRA seeks comment from all interested
parties regarding these issues and any additional information related
to AAR's limited operations suggestion contained in its Petition.
B. Yard Movement Exceptions
While yard tracks fall outside the statutory PTC mandate, movements
associated with yard operations frequently require some movement along
main track adjacent to or within a yard. As FRA recognized in the NPRM,
PTC system implementation and operation for such movements poses
significant burdens. As a result, FRA proposes an exception from PTC
equipage requirements for locomotives performing movements associated
with yard operations as long as appropriate safeguards are implemented
to ensure that the risk of PTC-preventable accidents and release of PIH
materials is negligible. In particular, FRA proposes a new de minimis
exception for movements associated with yard operations and seeks
comments on how to tailor such operations to provide adequate safety
mitigation. Consistent with the 20-mile distance limitation for
transfer train movements in 49 CFR part 232 and the limitation for
Class II and Class III railroads operating PTC-unequipped locomotives,
FRA proposes that movements under the new yard movements de minimis
exception be limited to 10 miles from entry onto PTC-equipped main line
track. This limitation allowed for 20-mile round-trip train movements
while limiting the track segment exposed to unequipped movements to
only 20 miles. In the NPRM, FRA requests comment on the proposed 10-
mile limitation and seeks information as to whether 10 miles is the
appropriate limit. Specifically, FRA is seeking discussion of the
impact of the 10-mile limit on current switching operations. FRA also
estimates that 500 locomotives would not have to be equipped with PTC
onboard apparatuses if a 10-mile limit were established. FRA requests
comment on this estimate as well as estimates of the number of
locomotives affected if instead FRA were to adopt a 20-mile limit from
entry on to PTC-equipped main line track. FRA also requests comments
regarding other operational benefits or hazards that might result from
extending the limit to 20 miles. FRA further recognizes that there may
be unusual switching operations that pose only a negligible risk of a
PTC-
[[Page 5770]]
preventable accident or PIH material release but nonetheless would not
qualify for the de minimis exception as defined here. FRA requests
examples of such operations, if any exist, and seeks comment on the
practicability of the waiver process as an acceptable method of
handling such operations.
In the Petition, AAR suggested a concept that it refers to as
``absolute protection'' to address the issue of yard movements. The
AAR's proposal would require that the dispatcher withhold movement
authority between two points of control by signal indication or
mandatory directive; that the movement of non-PTC equipped locomotives
and non-initialized locomotives would be limited to 30 mph; and that
the distance the locomotives would be permitted to travel from a yard
or terminal would be limited to 20 miles. FRA solicited comment on
AAR's proposal in the NPRM and continues to seek comments on whether
the AAR's proposal regarding dispatcher control of train movements
provides a sufficiently low risk of an accident and PIH release to
support approval of such an operating restriction.
C. Provision on En Route Failures
In the NPRM, FRA seeks comment on the issue of en route failures
and suggestions for other alternative default provisions, in addition
to the existing authority for railroads to provide alternative methods
of resolving en route failures in their PTC Safety Plans. Although the
NPRM notes that FRA rejected AAR's request in the Petition to amend the
existing rule with regard to en route failures, that statement was
intended to mean that based on the information currently available to
FRA, it was not willing to propose a specific change to the existing
rule in the NPRM. FRA remains open to consideration of viable
suggestions and ideas for handling en route failures in a manner
different than that contained in the existing rule and encourages all
interested parties to provide such comments on this issue. As discussed
below, FRA seeks specific comment on the potential frequency of en
route failures, any potential safety measures or operational
restrictions that could be utilized in the event of an en route
failure, as well as any information or data regarding the severity of
the effects on the rail network that might arise due to compliance with
the existing en route failure requirements. FRA also seeks comment on
the degree of flexibility proposed 49 CFR 236.1029 allows FRA to
address en route failures.
As stated in the NPRM, FRA recognizes that there may be issues with
PTC system reliability during the early periods of use, and seeks to
balance the statutory mandate for increased safety with the realities
of implementing new and previously undeveloped systems, the failures of
which pose significant risks to overall network capacity. Accordingly,
FRA further seeks comment on the appropriate balance of the safety risk
and risk to network capacity both during the initial rollout of PTC
systems and once PTC systems are fully developed with system failures
mostly resolved. As part of that discussion, FRA requests information
on the experiences to date with PTC system failures and system
reliability. FRA also requests information on the actual consequences
experienced and the potential consequences of maintaining the current
en route failure provisions, including potential modal diversion due to
diminished capacity. FRA also seeks comment on replacing the existing
``en route failure'' provisions with limitations that pose less risk of
diminishing network capacity. One method of mitigating potential
reductions in network capacity could be a process to phase in the more
stringent ``en route failure'' requirements as PTC systems mature and
become more reliable. FRA seeks comment on this potential method
generally and on the specifics of potential timeframes and phase-in
procedures for the ``en route failure'' requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2013.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-01596 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P