[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82400-82425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27097]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 236
[Docket No. FRA-2019-0075]
RIN 2130-AC75
Positive Train Control Systems
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to revise its regulations governing changes
to positive train control (PTC) systems and reporting on PTC system
functioning. First, recognizing that the railroad industry intends to
enhance further FRA-certified PTC systems to continue improving rail
safety and PTC technology's reliability and operability, FRA proposes
to modify the process by which a host railroad must submit a request
for amendment (RFA) to FRA before making certain changes to its PTC
Safety Plan (PTCSP) and FRA-certified PTC system. Second, to enable
more effective FRA oversight, FRA proposes to: Expand an existing
reporting requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to
biannual; broaden the reporting requirement to encompass positive
performance-related information, not just failure-related information;
and require host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). Overall, the
proposed amendments would benefit the railroad industry, the public,
and FRA, by reducing unnecessary costs, facilitating innovation, and
improving FRA's ability to oversee PTC system performance and
reliability, while not negatively affecting rail safety.
DATES: Written comments must be received by February 16, 2021. FRA
believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate to allow the public to
comment on this proposed rule. FRA will consider comments received
after that date to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES:
[[Page 82401]]
Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2019-0075 may be
submitted by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
number (FRA-2019-0075), and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2130-AC75). All comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Acting Staff Director,
Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168,
email: [email protected]; or Stephanie Anderson, Attorney Adviser,
telephone: 202-493-0445, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Supplementary Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Summary of the Main Proposals in the NPRM
A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations
B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM
C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-
Certified PTC Systems and the Associated PTCSPs
D. Proposal To Expand the Performance-Related Reporting
Requirements
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
F. Environmental Impact
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Energy Impact
J. Privacy Act Statement
I. Executive Summary
Section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
mandates each Class I railroad, and each entity providing regularly
scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, to
implement an FRA-certified PTC system fully on: (1) Its main lines over
which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are
transported, if the line carries five million or more gross tons of any
annual traffic; (2) its main lines over which intercity or commuter
rail passenger transportation is regularly provided; and (3) any other
tracks the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by
regulation or order.\1\ By law, PTC systems must be designed to prevent
certain accidents or incidents, including train-to-train collisions,
over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and
movements of trains through switches left in the wrong position.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432,
104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), as amended by the Positive
Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Public Law
114-73, 129 Stat. 568, 576-82 (Oct. 29, 2015), and the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, section
11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015), codified as amended
at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 236, subpart I.
\2\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005
(setting forth the technical specifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the statutory mandate requires that by December 31,
2020, FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems must govern
operations on all PTC-mandated main lines, currently encompassing
nearly 58,000 route miles nationwide.\3\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR
236.1005(b)(6)-(7). Currently, 35 host railroads \4\--including 7 Class
I railroads, 23 intercity passenger railroads or commuter railroads,
and 5 Class II or III, short line, or terminal railroads--are directly
subject to the statutory mandate to implement an FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC system on their PTC-mandated main lines by December
31, 2020. For purposes of FRA's PTC regulations, a host railroad is ``a
railroad that has effective operating control over a segment of
track,'' and a tenant railroad is ``a railroad, other than a host
railroad, operating on track upon which a PTC system is required.'' See
49 CFR 236.1003(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Except a railroad's controlling locomotives or cab cars that
are subject to either a temporary or permanent exception under 49
U.S.C. 20157(j)-(k) or 49 CFR 236.1006(b), Equipping locomotives
operating in PTC territory.
\4\ The infographics on FRA's PTC website (https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc)
identify 41 railroads currently subject to the statutory mandate,
but six of those 41 railroads are tenant-only commuter railroads,
not host railroads. As this proposed rule primarily focuses on
requirements specific to host railroads, FRA will reference the
current number of PTC-mandated host railroads (35) and any host
railroads that may become subject to the statutory mandate in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For context, under the statutory mandate, ``interoperability'' is
the general requirement that the controlling locomotives and cab cars
of any host railroad and tenant railroad operating on the same main
line must communicate with and respond to the PTC system, including
uninterrupted movements over property boundaries, except as otherwise
permitted by law.\5\ As of September 2020, according to host railroads'
PTC Implementation Plans (PTCIP), approximately 93 distinct PTC-
required tenant railroads operate on main lines subject to the
statutory mandate. Because many railroads operate on multiple host
railroads' PTC-mandated main lines, there are approximately 219 host-
tenant railroad relationships in which PTC system interoperability must
be achieved by December 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), (i)(3), (j)-
(k); 49 CFR 236.1003, 236.1006, 236.1011(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2018 through 2020, FRA held three PTC Symposia and
Collaboration Sessions per year to underscore the importance of the
mandate, ensure the industry understands the statutory and regulatory
requirements, and facilitate timely compliance. In addition, the six
Collaboration Sessions during 2019 and 2020 provided the opportunity
for FRA to convene the industry's technical experts to share best
practices and jointly resolve common technical problems.
Through these meetings and regular coordination with all railroads
implementing PTC systems, PTC system vendors and suppliers, and other
stakeholders, FRA began proactively identifying aspects of FRA's
existing PTC regulations that could impede either PTC-related
innovation or FRA's oversight, following the December 31, 2020,
statutory deadline for full PTC system implementation. Specifically,
FRA identified two existing regulatory provisions, 49 CFR 236.1021 and
236.1029(h), which, if not revised, could impede the industry's ability
to advance PTC technology efficiently and FRA's ability to oversee the
performance and reliability of PTC systems effectively.
First, understanding that the railroad industry intends to update
FRA-certified PTC systems continually to ensure safe operations (e.g.,
through ongoing, necessary maintenance) and to enhance further the
technology (e.g., by adding new functionality or improving a PTC
system's reliability and operability), FRA is proposing to modify the
process under 49 CFR 236.1021 for
[[Page 82402]]
RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified systems. The improved process will
enable the industry to deploy upgrades and technological enhancements
more efficiently, and ensure FRA's review of changes or modifications
to FRA-certified systems is more predictable and consistent going
forward. The proposed process will apply only to PTC systems FRA has
already certified under 49 U.S.C. 20157(h). The statutory mandate
generally requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC system
complies with 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, before it operates in revenue
service, and this proposed rule will not amend the existing
certification process FRA developed to comply with this mandate (i.e.,
this proposed rule would not amend 49 CFR 236.1009 or 236.1015
regarding PTCSPs and the PTC System Certification process). To be
clear, FRA's proposal to modify the process that currently requires a
host railroad to submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to a
PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021 will not apply to any existing or new PTC
system, unless and until FRA has certified that PTC system under 49
U.S.C. 20157(h).
Instead of the existing RFA approval process with an indefinite
decision timeline, FRA proposes to require railroads to comply with a
streamlined RFA process, which includes providing certain
documentation, analysis, and safety assurances. This proposed rule
would establish a 45-day deadline for FRA to review and approve or deny
railroads' RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs or FRA-certified PTC
systems. In addition, FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing
the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and
PTC Development Plans (PTCDP)--an option which, if exercised, would
efficiently leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination
among railroads operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the
number of similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA
for review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form
FRA F 6180.152) will be placed in the docket (Docket No. FRA-2019-
0075) for review when this NPRM is published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, FRA proposes to expand an existing reporting requirement--
49 CFR 236.1029(h), Annual report of system failures--by increasing the
frequency of the reporting requirement from annual to biannual;
broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information; and
requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) \6\ to enable more
effective FRA oversight. In addition, FRA proposes to amend Sec.
236.1029(h) by updating the provision to use certain statutory
terminology for consistency; clarifying the ambiguous filing obligation
by specifying that only host railroads directly submit these reports to
FRA; and explicitly requiring tenant railroads to provide the necessary
data to their applicable host railroads by a specific date before the
biannual filing deadlines.
FRA analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule over a ten-
year period and estimated its costs and cost savings, which are shown
in the table below. The cost savings associated with FRA's proposal to
amend Sec. 236.1021--i.e., to simplify the process for all RFAs to
PTCSPs and authorize host railroads to file joint RFAs to PTCSPs and
PTCDPs--would outweigh the costs associated with FRA's proposal to
expand the reporting requirement under paragraph (h) of Sec. 236.1029.
Net Cost Savings in Millions
[2019 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Present value
7% 3% Annualized 7% Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Costs................................ $324,158 $379,231 $46,153 $44,457
Industry Cost Savings......................... 6,116,671 7,202,273 870,876 844,326
Government Cost Savings....................... 17,978,594 21,188,896 2,559,747 2,483,985
Net Cost Savings.............................. 23,771,107 28,011,938 3,384,471 3,283,854
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background and Summary of the Main Proposals in the NPRM
A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations
Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required
the Secretary to prescribe PTC regulations necessary to implement the
statutory mandate, including regulations specifying the essential
technical functionalities of PTC systems and the means by which FRA
will certify PTC systems.\7\ The Secretary delegated to the Federal
Railroad Administrator the authority to carry out the functions and
exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 1.89(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), codified
as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49
CFR 1.89(b), FRA issued its first final PTC rule on January 15, 2010,
which is set forth, as amended, under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I,
Positive Train Control Systems.\8\ FRA's PTC regulations under 49 CFR
part 236, subpart I, prescribe ``minimum, performance-based safety
standards for PTC systems . . . including requirements to ensure that
the development, functionality, architecture, installation,
implementation, inspection, testing, operation, maintenance, repair,
and modification of those PTC systems will achieve and maintain an
acceptable level of safety.'' 49 CFR 236.1001(a). FRA subsequently
amended its PTC regulations via final rules issued in 2010, 2012, 2014,
and 2016.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010).
\9\ See 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 (May 14,
2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, on February 29, 2016, as required, FRA amended its
PTC regulations to revise the regulations' date-specific deadlines for
conformity with the Positive Train Control Enforcement and
Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act).\10\ Specifically, the PTCEI Act
extended the original statutory deadline for full implementation of PTC
systems from December 31, 2015, to at least December 31, 2018.\11\ In
addition, the PTCEI Act permits railroads to utilize an
[[Page 82403]]
``alternative schedule and sequence'' with a full implementation
deadline beyond December 31, 2018, but not later than December 31,
2020. Further, the legislation required FRA to approve a railroad's
alternative schedule and sequence if the railroad demonstrated it met
the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative
schedule and sequence.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Public Law 114-73, 129 Stat. 568, 576-82 (Oct. 29, 2015),
as amended by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act,
Public Law 114-94, section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4,
2015). See also 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016), amending 49 CFR part
236, subpart I.
\11\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(a). Please note that the PTCEI Act also
required FRA to extend each deadline under 49 CFR
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B) by three years, related to certain Class II
and Class III railroads that operate in PTC territory. See 49 U.S.C.
20157(k); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016).
\12\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(C) (using the term ``shall''). As
background, four PTC-mandated host railroads reported that they
fully implemented an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on
all their required main lines by December 31, 2018. Every other host
railroad subject to the statutory mandate in 2018 formally requested
an alternative schedule and sequence under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3). By
March 5, 2019, FRA approved all applicable requests for an
alternative schedule and sequence, as each railroad sufficiently
demonstrated it, at a minimum, met the six statutory criteria
necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence, under
the statutory mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this proposed rule, FRA proposes to revise three sections, 49
CFR 236.1003, 236.1021, and 236.1029, of FRA's existing PTC regulations
pursuant to its specific authority under 49 CFR 1.89 and 49 U.S.C.
20157(g), and its general authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 to prescribe
regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety.
B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM
As referenced above, FRA regularly engages with host railroads,
tenant railroads, and PTC system vendors and suppliers, as part of
FRA's oversight of railroads' implementation of PTC systems on the
mandated main lines under 49 U.S.C. 20157 and the other lines where
railroads are voluntarily implementing PTC technology. The purpose of
this section is to summarize FRA's pertinent meetings prior to the
issuance of this NPRM, pursuant to 49 CFR 5.19.
During two of FRA's PTC Collaboration Sessions in 2019 and 2020,
FRA generally discussed its intention to propose to modify the RFA
process under Sec. 236.1021, specifically as it relates to FRA-
approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified PTC systems. One of these two
Collaboration Sessions was held on February 6, 2019 at DOT's
Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the other was hosted via
teleconference on June 10, 2020.
Specifically, during the Collaboration Session on February 6, 2019,
FRA noted it was considering simplifying the formal process for
railroads to modify their PTCSPs and PTC systems under Sec. 236.1021,
after FRA certifies a railroad's PTC system as required under the
statutory mandate. FRA raised questions for the industry to consider,
including how host railroads plan to maintain their PTCSPs, as
required, acknowledging that PTC technology will continue evolving
given, for example, ongoing software modifications necessary for safe
operations and voluntary enhancements to improve further the
reliability or operability of PTC systems.\13\ FRA understands that,
over time, new software releases may become necessary to: Fix certain
bugs or defects; eliminate newly discovered hazards; or add new
functionality to continue to improve rail safety, or the reliability
and operability of the technology. In addition, FRA acknowledged that
certain changes to PTC systems will likely impact multiple PTCSPs, as
the industry is currently implementing five main types of PTC
systems.\14\ During the Collaboration Session on June 10, 2020, FRA
discussed its intention to issue this NPRM and described the high-level
objectives of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1009(d) (requiring a PTC system to be
implemented in accordance with the host railroad's PTCSP).
\14\ Currently, railroads are primarily implementing the
following PTC systems in the United States: (1) The Interoperable
Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), which Class I railroads
and many commuter railroads are implementing; (2) the Advanced Civil
Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II) or the Advanced Speed
Enforcement System II (ASES II), which most railroads operating on
the Northeast Corridor (NEC) are implementing; (3) Enhanced
Automatic Train Control (E-ATC), which five host railroads are
implementing; (4) the Incremental Train Control System, which the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is implementing in
parts of Michigan; and (5) the Communication Based Train Control
(CBTC) system, which one commuter railroad has fully implemented on
its PTC-mandated main lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, on October 2, 2019, during FRA's PTC Collaboration
Session hosted at the National Housing Center in Washington, DC, one
Class I railroad suggested that FRA should consider amending the
permanent reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) to make it
consistent with the temporary statutory reporting requirement under 49
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), because existing paragraph (h) of Sec. 236.1029
uses different terminology to describe PTC-related failures. In
addition, during this meeting, one commuter railroad requested that FRA
create a standardized form for railroads to utilize under Sec.
236.1029(h). FRA made no commitments at any of its PTC Collaboration
Sessions, but FRA internally considered this industry input as it
developed this proposed rule. Please note that all presentations from
FRA's PTC Symposia and Collaboration Sessions are available in FRA's
eLibrary, including direct links on FRA's PTC website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc.
As information, representatives from all 35 host railroads
currently subject to the statutory mandate attended at least two of the
three above PTC Collaboration Sessions, and 89 percent of the PTC-
mandated host railroads attended all three of the PTC Collaboration
Sessions where FRA discussed either 49 CFR 236.1021 or 236.1029(h).\15\
Specifically, 97 percent of the 35 applicable host railroads attended
the PTC Collaboration Sessions on February 6, 2019 and October 2, 2019,
and 94 percent attended the session on June 10, 2020. Furthermore,
representatives from the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) participated
in all three of these pertinent PTC Collaboration Sessions. In
addition, a representative from the Commuter Rail Coalition attended
the PTC Collaboration Sessions on October 2, 2019 and June 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In addition to the 35 host railroads subject to the
statutory mandate, representatives from multiple other railroads
attended these PTC Collaboration Sessions, including eight tenant-
only passenger railroads that operate on PTC-mandated main lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, on the following dates, FRA met with AAR and several
of its member railroads to discuss various PTC-related issues and
topics, including FRA's previously stated intention to propose
modifications to the RFA process under Sec. 236.1021, specifically as
it applies to FRA-certified PTC systems: September 6, 2019; March 3,
2020; April 2, 2020; June 11, 2020; June 25, 2020; July 9, 2020; and
August 27, 2020. During the meetings on September 6, 2019 and July 9,
2020, representatives from AAR and its member railroads indicated that
FRA should consider amending other provisions under FRA's PTC
regulations, in addition to Sec. 236.1021, but those provisions are
not the focus of this proposed rule. As noted above, at this time, FRA
considers it necessary to amend Sec. Sec. 236.1021 and 236.1029(h)
because those provisions, if not revised, could impede the industry's
ability to enhance PTC technology and FRA's ability to oversee the
performance and reliability of PTC systems effectively. If FRA finds
that any other amendments to 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, are necessary
or justified in the future, FRA will address them in a separate NPRM.
Representatives from the following Class I railroads and passenger
railroads, listed alphabetically, attended
[[Page 82404]]
the AAR meetings referenced immediately above: Amtrak, BNSF Railway,
Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX
Transportation, Inc., Kansas City Southern Railway, Norfolk Southern
Railway, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
(Metra), the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink),
and Union Pacific Railroad. The railroads' main comments during these
meetings involved their concerns that the existing process under Sec.
236.1021 would stifle innovation and create significant delays in
deploying improvements to PTC technology. In general, they supported
revising the existing RFA process under Sec. 236.1021 to help enable
technological advancements and ensure FRA is not an impediment to the
industry's ability to enhance PTC technology. FRA's statements during
these meetings were consistent with FRA's statements to all PTC-
mandated host railroads at multiple PTC Collaboration Sessions. The
proposals in this NPRM are based on FRA's own review and analysis and,
in part, on industry's feedback during the meetings in 2019 and 2020,
specified above. FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.
C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-Certified PTC
Systems and the Associated PTCSPs
FRA's PTC regulations have always acknowledged that after
``implementation of a train control system, the subject railroad may
have legitimate reasons for making changes in the system design,''
among other changes, including to a PTC system's functionality.\16\
Accordingly, under 49 CFR 236.1015(d)(7), FRA requires host railroads'
PTCSPs to include, among other relevant information, a ``complete
description of the specific procedures and test equipment necessary to
ensure the safe and proper . . . operation, maintenance, repair,
inspection, testing, and modification of the PTC system on the
railroad.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 75 FR 2598, 2660 (Jan. 15, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that PTC technology must be actively maintained
throughout its lifecycle and beyond, FRA's regulations also require
each railroad to ``catalog and maintain all documents as specified in
the PTCDP and PTCSP for . . . maintenance, repair, modification,
inspection, and testing of the PTC system.'' \17\ Specifically, 49 CFR
236.1039(a) requires railroads to retain these documents in a PTC
Operations and Maintenance Manual, which must be ``readily available to
persons required to perform such tasks and for inspection by FRA and
FRA-certified state inspectors.'' For example, a railroad's Operations
and Maintenance Manual must document all ``[h]ardware, software, and
firmware revisions . . . according to the railroad's configuration
management control plan and any additional configuration/revision
control measures specified in the [host railroad's] PTCSP.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 49 CFR 236.1039(a).
\18\ 49 CFR 236.1039(c). See also Federal Railroad
Administration, Revised PTC Guidance Regarding Interoperability
Testing, Operations and Maintenance Manuals, and Certification
Responsibilities (July 24, 2018), available at https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L19583#p1_z5_gD_lPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA is aware that host railroads will need to deploy new PTC
software releases, among other changes, to ensure their PTC systems are
performing properly--for example, to fix certain bugs or defects or
eliminate newly discovered hazards. In addition to incremental changes
to PTC systems that are necessary for the continued safe and proper
functioning of the technology, FRA understands that several railroads
and PTC system vendors and suppliers have chosen to design and develop
their PTC systems to perform safety-related functions in addition to
the minimum, performance-based functions specified under the statutory
mandate and FRA's regulations.
Currently, FRA's PTC regulations, in relevant part, prohibit a
railroad from making certain changes to its FRA-approved PTCSP or FRA-
certified PTC system unless the railroad files an RFA to its PTCSP and
obtains approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad
Safety. 49 CFR 236.1021. This proposed rule does not envision revising
the types of changes that currently require a host railroad to file an
RFA under Sec. 236.1021(h)(1)-(4) (often referred to as ``material
modifications'') or the exceptions currently set forth under Sec.
236.1021(i)-(k).
For example, FRA's regulations require a railroad to submit, for
FRA review and approval, an RFA to the railroad's PTCSP for any
proposed modification of a safety-critical element of a PTC system or
any proposed modification of a PTC system that affects the safety-
critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it
interoperates. See 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)-(4). Though FRA's existing
regulations specify that FRA will, to the extent practicable, review
and issue a decision regarding a host railroad's initially filed PTCSP
within 180 days of the date it was filed, FRA's regulations do not
currently specify an estimated timeline for reviewing and approving or
denying railroads' subsequent RFAs to their PTCSPs.\19\ In practice, as
of September 2020, it has taken FRA 127 days, on average, to review and
approve recent RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems, which is,
in part, due to the complex content requirements currently under
paragraphs (d)(1) to (7) of Sec. 236.1021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 49 CFR 236.1009(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of the existing RFA approval process with an indefinite
decision timeline, FRA proposes to: (1) Require railroads to comply
with a streamlined RFA process, including providing certain
documentation, analysis, and safety assurances; and (2) establish a 45-
day deadline for FRA's review and issuance of a decision. In new
proposed paragraph (m) of Sec. 236.1021, FRA outlines the proposed
content requirements for RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems--
focusing on the core information and analysis FRA would need to review
to ensure the PTC system, including any proposed changes, will provide
an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system.
The improved process would enable the industry to implement
technological enhancements more efficiently, and the clear timeline
would help ensure a more predictable and transparent FRA review process
going forward.
In addition, this proposed rule envisions permitting host railroads
utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their
PTCSPs and PTCDPs--an option which, if exercised, will efficiently
leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination among railroads
operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of
similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for
review. As noted above, currently, the 35 PTC-mandated host railroads
are implementing five types of PTC systems, though FRA acknowledges
that, in several cases, railroads are implementing PTC systems of the
same type in different manners (e.g., variances in design,
functionality, and operation), requiring railroads to conduct
additional testing and gap analyses to achieve and sustain
interoperability, including configuration management.
Appreciating that changes to safety-critical elements, including
software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system will likely
impact multiple, if not most, railroads implementing that same type of
PTC system, FRA's proposed rule outlines a path for such
[[Page 82405]]
host railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific
instructions under new proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec.
236.1021. The proposed rule would specify that while most types of
information required under proposed paragraph (m) of Sec. 236.1021 may
be submitted jointly in the RFA, the joint RFA would need to include
certain written confirmations or statements \20\ from each host
railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA. In addition, FRA's
proposed rule specifies that only host railroads with the same PTC
System Certification classification under paragraph (e) of Sec.
236.1015 may jointly file an RFA to their PTCSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For example, confirmation that: (1) Each host railroad
notified any applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes,
any associated effect on the tenant railroads' operations, and any
actions the tenant railroads must take in accordance with the
configuration control measures set forth in the host railroad's
PTCSP; and (2) the PTC system, if modified, would meet all technical
requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an equivalent
or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and not
adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though this proposed rule would generally authorize host railroads
utilizing the same type of PTC system to file RFAs to their PTCSPs
jointly, FRA expects this aspect of the proposal, in the short term,
primarily to impact host railroads implementing I-ETMS and E-ATC
because each respective I-ETMS and E-ATC system is similar to others of
the same type, with a baseline functionality. Conversely, there is not
a uniform standard or specification currently underlying the ACSES II
or ASES II PTC systems that host railroads are implementing on the NEC.
In addition, there is an array of ACSES II suppliers, including for the
onboard, wayside, and communications subsystems. In the future,
however, as the ACSES II railroads finish establishing the
Interoperable Change Management Plan they are currently developing, it
is possible that at least some of the host railroads utilizing ACSES II
or ASES II will elect to submit joint RFAs to their respective PTCSPs
for certain system-wide changes, consistent with the option under
proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec. 236.1021.
FRA recognizes that modifying and simplifying the process for host
railroads to submit RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems is
necessary to facilitate required maintenance and upgrades to PTC
technology and encourage railroads to enhance their PTC systems to
continue to improve rail safety.
D. Proposal To Expand the Performance-Related Reporting Requirements
Following the applicable deadline for full PTC system
implementation under 49 U.S.C. 20157, FRA's regulations currently
require a railroad to submit an annual report by April 16th each year
regarding the number of PTC system failures, ``including but not
limited to locomotive, wayside, communications, and back office system
failures,'' that occurred during the previous calendar year. See 49 CFR
236.1029(h). The first failure-related annual reports pursuant to Sec.
236.1029(h) were due on April 16, 2019 from the four host railroads
whose statutory deadline was December 31, 2018 for the full
implementation of a PTC system on their required main lines. FRA has
found that all annual reports railroads submitted to date have been
brief (e.g., as short as half of a page) and included minimal
information, but still technically satisfied the existing content
requirements under Sec. 236.1029(h).
Because the minimal information currently required under Sec.
236.1029(h) does not permit FRA to monitor adequately the rate at which
PTC system failures occur or evaluate improvements over time, FRA is
proposing to revise Sec. 236.1029(h) to enable FRA to perform its
oversight functions effectively. Specifically, FRA proposes to increase
the frequency of this reporting requirement from annual to biannual,
with proposed filing deadlines on July 31 (covering the period from
January 1 to June 30) and January 31 (covering the period from July 1
to December 31 of the prior calendar year), instead of an annual filing
deadline on April 16, as Sec. 236.1029(h) currently provides. Under
the existing framework, pursuant to Sec. 236.1029(h), FRA must wait
until April 16th each year to receive railroads' failure-related data
from the prior calendar year--data which is quite outdated by the time
it is filed. FRA's proposed biannual frequency would enable FRA to
monitor closely trends in PTC system reliability with more up-to-date
data, covering two intervals per year. In addition, FRA notes that the
proposed biannual frequency is reasonable, given that railroads must
currently submit certain failure-related data quarterly or monthly,
pursuant to a temporary reporting requirement under the statutory
mandate, as discussed below.
In addition, to ensure the data railroads submit under Sec.
236.1029(h) are uniform, comparable, and objective, FRA proposes to
revise this existing reporting requirement by specifying the exact
types of statistics and information the reports must include;
broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information; and
requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to enable more
effective FRA oversight.
Furthermore, FRA proposes to amend Sec. 236.1029(h) to make it
consistent with the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4) because the existing statutory and regulatory provisions
use different terminology to describe PTC-related failures. As
background, the PTCEI Act established a reporting requirement that
applies only temporarily--from October 29, 2015, to approximately
December 31, 2021 \21\--and only to PTC systems that FRA has certified
and have been implemented, including on a subset of a railroad's main
lines.\22\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). As a default, the reporting
requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) specifies that when an FRA-
certified PTC system ``fails to initialize, cuts out, or
malfunctions,'' the railroad must submit a notification to the
appropriate FRA regional office within 7 days of the failure, and the
notification must include a description of the safety measures the
railroad has in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ By law, the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4) sunsets on approximately December 31, 2021--or more
specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad obtains PTC
System Certification from FRA and finishes fully implementing an
FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all its required main
lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
\22\ For example, acknowledging the incremental nature of
implementation, the PTCEI Act required Class I railroads and Amtrak
to demonstrate they ``implemented a [PTC] system or initiated
revenue service demonstration on the majority of [PTC-mandated]
territories . . . or route miles that are owned or controlled by
such carrier[s],'' to qualify for an alternative schedule and
sequence by law. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as the PTCEI Act authorized, FRA established an
alternative reporting deadline (instead of within 7 days of each
occurrence) and an alternative reporting location (instead of
submitting the notifications to the appropriate FRA region).\23\
Specifically, on December 30, 2019 and March 16, 2020, FRA published a
proposed framework for host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC
systems to submit a Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form
FRA F 6180.177) to fulfill this temporary reporting requirement under
the PTCEI Act.\24\ On June 5, 2020, following the required
[[Page 82406]]
notice-and-comment periods, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approved the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F
6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553),\25\ as revised based on feedback
from AAR and APTA. Host railroads must utilize that mandatory form and
adhere to its instructions, including the two-tiered reporting
frequency \26\ and the centralized reporting location, to comply with
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) until that temporary reporting requirement
expires on approximately December 31, 2021.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4); 49 CFR 1.89.
\24\ See 84 FR 72121, 72123-26 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022,
15025-27 (Mar. 16, 2020).
\25\ Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/PTCSystemFailuresFRAForm177/.
\26\ A host railroad must submit monthly failure-related
notifications if it has fully implemented a PTC system on all
required main lines. However, if a host railroad is operating an
FRA-certified PTC system but is still in the process of fully
implementing the PTC system, the railroad must submit failure-
related notifications on a quarterly basis. Host railroads must
transition from submitting Form FRA F 6180.177 quarterly to monthly,
when they finish fully implementing their FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC systems on their required main lines. For
simplicity, in general, this two-tiered framework means that most
host railroads that have obtained PTC System Certification must
submit quarterly Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures
throughout 2020, and monthly notifications throughout 2021 until the
reporting requirement expires. For additional detail, please see 85
FR 15022, 15025-27 (Mar. 16, 2020).
\27\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and (e)(1) (authorizing DOT to
assess civil penalties for any violation of the statutory mandate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this NPRM, FRA proposes to revise the permanent reporting
requirement under Sec. 236.1029(h) to utilize the statutory failure-
related terms under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)--initialization failures, cut
outs, and malfunctions--instead of the broad, imprecise term currently
used in Sec. 236.1029(h) (``failures''). Also, to ensure uniform
interpretation of these terms, FRA proposes to add definitions of these
three terms to the definitions section of FRA's PTC regulations, 49 CFR
236.1003, retaining the definitions that FRA adopted during its
development of the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form
FRA F 6180.177), based on industry's feedback.
FRA's proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA
F 6180.152) under proposed Sec. 236.1029(h) will incorporate both: (1)
The information currently required under Sec. 236.1029(h); and (2) the
corresponding types of data railroads must submit until approximately
December 31, 2021 in their Statutory Notifications of PTC System
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). For example, the proposed Biannual
Report of PTC System Performance would require certain geographical
information and contextual data to help demonstrate how the occurrences
of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions
compare to all operations on that host railroad's PTC-governed main
lines.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Several railroads previously commented that, without such a
percentage or context, the frequency of PTC system failures might
otherwise seem high, and additional data would help convey the
actual rate of such failures. In addition, in AAR's comments, dated
February 28, 2020, associated with Form FRA F 6180.177 (under Docket
Nos. FRA 2019-0004-N-20 and FRA 2020-0004-N-3), AAR specifically
suggested that to ``keep the report of PTC system initialization
failures, cut outs, and malfunctions in perspective, particularly if
comparing individual railroads, it would be useful to normalize
results between railroads.'' Similarly, in APTA's letter dated
February 28, 2020, APTA requested that FRA identify the applicable
denominator(s) to utilize when calculating the rate of PTC system
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions. See also 85 FR
15022, 15026 (Mar. 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, railroads have previously observed that, under
existing Sec. 236.1029(h), it is unclear whether a host railroad, a
tenant railroad, or both must submit the required reports to FRA. In
this proposed rule, FRA proposes to resolve this ambiguity by
specifying that only host railroads must directly submit these reports
to FRA. This approach is consistent with the existing regulatory
requirement directing a tenant railroad to report any PTC system
failures or cut outs to ``a designated railroad officer of the host
railroad as soon as safe and practicable.'' See 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4)
(emphasis added). To ensure that host railroads receive the necessary
information from their tenant railroads to compile the proposed
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) under
Sec. 236.1029(h), FRA proposes to require explicitly tenant railroads
to provide the necessary data to their applicable host railroads by a
specific date before the biannual filing deadlines, as set forth under
new proposed paragraph (h)(4) of Sec. 236.1029.
FRA considers its proposed changes to Sec. 236.1029(h), as
described below, necessary to enable FRA to monitor the performance and
reliability of railroads' PTC systems effectively throughout the
country.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 236.1003 Definitions
FRA proposes to add three definitions to paragraph (b) of this
section to help ensure that FRA and the railroad industry consistently
interpret the statutory failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)--initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions--as FRA
now proposes to use these corresponding terms in Sec. 236.1029(h) and
the associated Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152). Specifically, FRA proposes to adopt the definitions of these
three terms that FRA currently utilizes in the Statutory Notification
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), which were, in part,
revised and refined based on industry's feedback during the development
of that corresponding form and the definitions therein.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022, 15025-
26 (Mar. 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, Material Modifications, and
Amendments
The purpose of existing paragraphs (a) through (d) is to prohibit a
railroad from making ``changes, as defined by this section, to a PTC
system, PTCIP, PTCDP, or PTCSP,'' unless the railroad submits an RFA,
with the content requirements under existing paragraphs (d)(1) through
(7), and obtains approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for
Railroad Safety.
To be clear, this proposed rule will not revise the types of
changes that currently require a host railroad to file an RFA under
Sec. 236.1021(h)(1)-(4) (often referred to as ``material
modifications'') or the exceptions currently set forth under Sec.
236.1021(i)-(k). For example, FRA's regulations currently require a
railroad to submit an RFA, subject to FRA's review and approval, before
making the following types of changes listed under existing paragraphs
(h)(1) through (4): (1) A discontinuance of a PTC system; (2) a
decrease of the PTC system's limits; (3) a modification of a safety-
critical element of a PTC system; or (4) a modification of a PTC system
that affects the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system
with which it interoperates. For context, existing Sec.
236.1009(a)(2)(ii) additionally requires a railroad to submit an RFA--
specifically to its FRA-approved PTCIP--if the railroad intends to
initiate a new category of service (i.e., passenger or freight) or
``[a]dd, subtract, or otherwise materially modify one or more lines of
railroad for which installation of a PTC system is required.''
In general, FRA's proposed revisions to Sec. 236.1021 are
primarily intended to streamline the process by which host railroads
must submit RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified
systems, based on FRA's recognition that the railroad industry intends
to update and enhance FRA-certified PTC systems to advance rail
[[Page 82407]]
safety.\30\ Accordingly, FRA's proposed revisions to the process under
existing paragraphs (a) through (d) are limited to removing any
references to PTCSPs from those paragraphs, as FRA is proposing in this
proposed rule to establish a new, streamlined process for RFAs
associated with PTCSPs under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). In
addition to FRA's proposal to remove references to PTCSPs from existing
paragraphs (a) through (d), FRA proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) in
its entirety, and to incorporate the general principle of paragraph
(d)(7) into a new proposed paragraph, (m)(2)(i), as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ For additional detail and background, please see Section I
(Executive Summary) and Subsection II-C (Proposal to Establish a New
Process for Modifying FRA-certified PTC Systems and the Associated
PTCSPs) of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the existing requirements under Sec. 236.1021,
railroads would still need to submit, and obtain FRA's approval of,
RFAs for certain changes to their PTCIPs and PTCDPs, including the
types of changes enumerated above under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(1) through
(2) and 236.1009(a)(2)(ii)--e.g., a proposed discontinuance of a PTC
system or a proposed addition or removal of track segments from a
railroad's PTCIP.
New proposed paragraph (l) would permit host railroads utilizing
the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and
PTCDPs, as those are system-based documents, albeit with some railroad-
specific variances. FRA expects that host railroads would utilize this
joint RFA option to the extent practicable, and it would efficiently
leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination among railroads
operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of
similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for
review and approval. Because changes to safety-critical elements,
including software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system
would likely impact multiple, if not most, railroads implementing that
same type of PTC system, FRA proposes to outline a path for such host
railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific
instructions under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). FRA notes that it
would consider it acceptable for an association to submit a joint RFA
under proposed paragraph (l), but it would need to be explicitly on
behalf of two or more host railroads, and each host railroad would need
to sign the filing.
Proposed paragraph (l) would also specify that only host railroads
with the same PTC System Certification classification under 49 CFR
236.1015(e) would be able to file a joint RFA to their PTCSPs. For
example, when an RFA is necessary under Sec. 236.1021 to account for
certain proposed changes to railroads' I-ETMS PTCSPs, or I-ETMS itself,
FRA would expect a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I-
ETMS is certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system under Sec.
236.1015(e)(1), and a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I-
ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC system under Sec. 236.1015(e)(4). Two
distinct RFAs would be necessary under these circumstances, as the
impact of the proposed change(s) would need to be analyzed in the
context of the underlying safety analysis in the FRA-approved PTCSPs--a
safety analysis that is structured differently based on whether FRA has
certified the PTC system as a non-vital, overlay system; a vital,
overlay system; a standalone system; or a mixed system.
Furthermore, with respect to joint RFAs, paragraph (l) would
specify that, though most types of information required under proposed
paragraph (m)(2) may be submitted jointly in the RFA, a joint RFA would
need to include the written confirmation and statement specified under
proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv), as described below, from each
host railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA.
New proposed paragraph (m) would outline the mandatory, three-step
process a host railroad would need to follow to make changes to its
FRA-certified PTC system and the associated FRA-approved PTCSP. FRA
intends the process under proposed paragraph (m) to apply to all
changes necessitating an RFA under existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4)
of this section--i.e., proposed changes to safety-critical elements of
PTC systems and proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the
safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it
interoperates. For brevity, FRA will refer to these changes as changes
to safety-critical elements of PTC systems, as that is sufficiently
broad for purposes of paragraph (m).
Proposed paragraph (m)(1) would require a host railroad to revise
its PTCSP to account for each proposed change to its PTC system, and
summarize such changes in a chronological table of revisions at the
beginning of its PTCSP. FRA retains its authority to request a copy of
a host railroad's governing PTCSP in accordance with 49 CFR
236.1009(h), FRA access, and 49 CFR 236.1037, Records retention.
Proposed paragraph (m)(2) would specifically require a host
railroad to file an RFA pursuant to paragraph (m) electronically, which
could include electronic filing on FRA's Secure Information Repository
(https://sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads currently file other PTC-
related documents, or another designated location. If a host railroad
wishes to seek confidential treatment of any part of its RFA, the
railroad would need to comply with the existing process and
requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, Request for confidential treatment,
which include marking the document properly with the necessary labels
and redactions, and providing a statement justifying nondisclosure and
referring to the specific legal authority claimed. FRA would post a
host railroad's RFA (the public, redacted version, if applicable) and
FRA's final decision letter in the respective railroad's PTC docket on
http://www.regulations.gov.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Railroads' applicable PTC docket numbers are available on
FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (v), FRA outlines the
proposed content requirements for an RFA to an FRA-certified PTC system
and the associated PTCSP--focusing on the core information and analysis
FRA would need to review to ensure the PTC system, including any
proposed changes, would provide an equivalent or greater level of
safety than the existing PTC system. Importantly, proposed paragraph
(m)(2)(i) would require the RFA to include a summary of the proposed
changes to any safety-critical elements of a PTC system, including a
summary of how the changes to the PTC system would affect its safety-
critical functionality, how any new hazards have been addressed and
mitigated, whether each change is a planned change \32\ that was
previously included in all required analysis under Sec. 236.1015, or
an unplanned change, and the reason for the proposed changes, including
whether the changes are necessary to address or resolve an emergency or
urgent issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., 75 FR 2598, 2661 (Jan. 15, 2010) (stating that
planned changes ``are those that the system developer and the
railroad have included in the safety analysis associated with the
PTC system, but have not yet implemented. These changes provide
enhanced functionality to the system, and FRA strongly encourages
railroads to include PTC system improvements that further increase
safety.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA's existing paragraphs (d)(7)(i) through (v) of Sec. 236.1021
explain the distinction between an unplanned change and a planned
change and impose certain additional requirements, including conducting
suitable regression testing to FRA's satisfaction and filing a new
PTCDP and PTCSP, under certain circumstances. As noted
[[Page 82408]]
above, FRA proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) and instead require a
host railroad to identify in its RFA under paragraph (m)(2)(i) only
whether the change is a planned change or an unplanned change. That
basic information would be valuable to include in the abbreviated RFA
under paragraph (m) because several railroads have already accounted
for long-term, planned changes to their PTC systems and proactively
integrated those assumptions into the corresponding analyses in their
PTCSPs.
Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(ii) would require the RFA to include a
copy of any associated software release notes, which would be critical
for FRA to review and evaluate before one or more railroads deploy the
upgraded software. A copy of the release notes would be integral in
conveying the actual changes to the PTC system, including any
corrections, enhancements, or new features or functionality.
Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iii) would require the RFA to contain a
confirmation that the host railroad has notified any applicable tenant
railroads of the proposed changes, any associated effect on the tenant
railroads' operations, and any actions the tenant railroads must take
in accordance with the configuration control measures set forth in the
host railroad's PTCSP. In addition, proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iv) would
require the RFA to include a statement from the host railroad's Chief
Engineer and Chief Operating Officer, or executive officers of similar
qualifications, verifying that the modified PTC system would meet all
technical requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an
equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and
not adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads. This
would be consistent with existing regulatory provisions that require
PTC systems to achieve and maintain a level of safety, for each system
modification, that is equal to or greater than the level of safety
provided by the previous PTC system.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1001(a), 236.1015(d)(11),
236.1015(e)(1)(iii), and 236.1015(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(v) would require a host railroad to
submit any other information that FRA requests on a case-by-case basis,
during FRA's review of the RFA. If FRA were to require a host railroad,
or a set of host railroads, to provide additional information in
support of the RFA, FRA's request would identify a deadline by which to
submit the information. Also, this would be generally consistent with
the existing provision under 49 CFR 236.1015(f), which provides that in
any case where a PTCSP, or an RFA in this scenario, ``lacks adequate
data regarding [the] safety impacts of the proposed changes, the
Associate Administrator may request the necessary data from the
applicant.''
Proposed paragraph (m)(3) would outline a definite, predictable
timeline associated with FRA's review of an RFA to a host railroad's
PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC system under proposed paragraph (m).
Specifically, proposed paragraph (m)(3) would prohibit a host railroad
from making any changes, as defined under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3) or
(4),\34\ to its PTC system until the Director of FRA's Office of
Railroad Systems, Technology, and Automation approves the RFA. Under
proposed paragraph (m)(3)(i), FRA would review the RFA and issue a
decision--i.e., an approval, conditional approval, or denial of the
RFA--within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under
paragraph (m)(2). FRA's decision would be in the form of a letter from
the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and
Automation. As noted above, FRA would post each final decision letter
in the respective railroad's PTC docket on http://www.regulations.gov.
FRA, however, may send interim correspondence--including any notices
requiring a railroad to provide additional information under proposed
paragraph (m)(2)(v)--via email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ That is, proposed changes to safety-critical elements of
PTC systems or proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the
safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it
interoperates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(ii) would explicitly acknowledge that FRA
reserves the right to notify a railroad that it may proceed with making
its proposed changes prior to the 45-day mark, including in an
emergency or under other circumstances necessitating a railroad's
immediate implementation of the proposed changes to its PTC system.
Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(iii) would specify that FRA may require a
railroad to modify its RFA and/or its PTC system, but only to the
extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the requirements
under FRA's PTC regulations.
If FRA denies an RFA under proposed paragraph (m), proposed
paragraph (m)(3)(iv) would specify that each applicable railroad would
be prohibited from making the proposed changes to its PTC system until
the railroad both sufficiently addresses FRA's questions, comments, and
concerns and obtains FRA's approval. Consistent with proposed paragraph
(l) of this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC
system, including the same certification classification under paragraph
(e) of Sec. 236.1015, would be permitted to submit information jointly
to address FRA's questions, comments, and concerns following any denial
of an RFA under this section.
FRA expects that its proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) would help
establish an improved process that would entail a reasonable level of
predictability and transparency in FRA's review process and enable the
industry to make technological advancements more efficiently.
Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and Failures
Currently, paragraph (h) of this section requires railroads to
report annually to FRA the number of PTC system failures that occurred
during the previous calendar year. FRA is proposing to revise this
existing paragraph to clarify and expand the reporting requirement and
require host railroads to submit the information in a Biannual Report
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). FRA's proposed Excel-
based \35\ Form FRA F 6180.152 has been placed in the docket for this
NPRM (Docket No. FRA-2019-0075) for reference and review. Proposed
paragraph (h)(1) would specify this reporting requirement applies to
each host railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or 49 CFR part 236,
subpart I, which would include any new host railroads that become
subject to the statutory mandate in the future and any host railroads
that voluntarily implement a PTC system under subpart I.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
All third-party trademarks belong to their respective owners.
\36\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1011(d) (stating that a ``railroad
that elects to install a PTC system when not required to do so may
elect to proceed under this subpart [subpart I] or under subpart H
of this part,'' including the associated filing and reporting
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For clarification and simplicity, FRA is proposing to remove the
phrase ``following the date of required PTC system implementation
established by section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code''
from paragraph (h) because that phrase would be unnecessary after the
final statutory deadline of December 31, 2020 and retaining that phrase
may cause confusion about the applicability of this reporting
requirement to new railroads that become subject to the statutory
mandate after 2020 or railroads
[[Page 82409]]
voluntarily implementing PTC systems on non-mandated lines.
In addition, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require a host
railroad to file its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form
FRA F 6180.152) electronically, which could include electronic filing
on FRA's Secure Information Repository (https://sir.fra.dot.gov), where
railroads file other PTC-related documents, or another designated
location. To the extent a railroad would seek confidential treatment of
any part of its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152), the railroad would need to comply with the existing process
and requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, including proper labeling and
redacting and providing a statement justifying nondisclosure and
referring to the specific legal authority claimed. FRA's proposed Form
FRA F 6180.152 would contain fields for a host railroad to identify its
request for partial or full confidentiality and provide the required
statement under Sec. 209.11(c), if applicable.
Also, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require a host railroad to
include in its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152) the figures itemized under proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
through (vii) for the host railroad, each of its applicable tenant
railroads (as explained in proposed paragraph (h)(4)), and each of its
PTC-governed track segments. In this proposed paragraph, FRA
acknowledges that a host railroad's PTCIP may identify or designate its
specific track segments as territories, subdivisions, districts, main
lines, branches, or corridors, based on a railroad's own naming
conventions. FRA expects that requiring this relatively high-level
geographical information (e.g., by subdivision, not by milepost
location) would still enable FRA to monitor closely trends in PTC
system reliability throughout the country and focus its resources, for
example, on any areas where PTC system failures are occurring at a high
rate.
Consistent with existing paragraph (h), proposed paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (iii) would require a railroad's biannual report to
include the number of PTC-related failures that occurred during the
applicable reporting period, in addition to a numerical breakdown of
the ``failures by category, including but not limited to locomotive,
wayside, communications, and back office system failures,'' quoting
existing 49 CFR 236.1029(h). In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through
(iii), however, FRA acknowledges that the source or cause of a PTC
system failure might not necessarily involve, in every instance, the
PTC system itself, so FRA proposes to include an additional category
for railroads to select in the applicable drop-down menu in Form FRA F
6180.152--i.e., ``a non-PTC component.''
Another difference between the existing paragraph (h) and FRA's
proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) is that FRA's proposed
language utilizes the statutory terminology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)
as referenced above--initialization failures, cut outs, and
malfunctions--which would be defined under paragraph (b) of Sec.
236.1003. FRA is aware that railroads track their PTC system failures
in this manner (by type of failure), given the existing temporary
reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and FRA's associated
mandatory form, the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form
FRA F 6180.177).
In proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv), FRA is proposing to expand the
existing reporting requirement under paragraph (h) to encompass certain
positive, performance-related information, as otherwise the information
FRA receives would be about PTC system failures only. FRA proposes to
require railroads' Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance to
include data about PTC technology's positive impact on rail safety and
the extent to which PTC systems are functioning as designed--to prevent
train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into
established work zones, and movements of trains through switches left
in the wrong position.\37\ Specifically, proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv)
would require a host railroad to identify the number of intended
enforcements by the PTC system and any other instances in which the PTC
system prevented an accident or incident on the host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines, during the applicable reporting period. This type
of statistic would be valuable and help demonstrate the extent to which
PTC systems are meeting their desired objectives. FRA would interpret
the term ``intended enforcement'' in this proposed paragraph
consistently with how the term ``enforce'' is applied in FRA's existing
PTC regulations, which include references to how a PTC system shall
enforce speeds, movement authorities, signal indications, and so forth.
See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1005, 236.1013, 236.1015, and 236.1047(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), FRA would require a
railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance to include certain
contextual data to help FRA understand how the occurrences of PTC
system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions compare to
all operations on that host railroad's PTC-governed main lines.\38\
Specifically, proposed paragraph (h)(1)(v) would require a railroad's
biannual report to include the number of scheduled attempts at
initialization of the PTC system during the applicable reporting
period, which would help FRA calculate the actual rate of that
railroad's PTC system initialization failures. Respectively, proposed
paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) would require the railroad to provide
the number of trains and the number of train miles governed by the PTC
system during the applicable reporting period. FRA's proposed
paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) would generally encompass the same
types of denominators currently set forth in the Statutory Notification
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) with one notable
difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ FRA's proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance
(Form FRA F 6180.152) would include fields for host railroads to
provide the raw denominators set forth under proposed paragraphs
(h)(1)(v) through (vii), and FRA would calculate the rate of
failures, utilizing those raw denominators. FRA has found that
providing fields for railroads to enter such raw denominators,
instead of percentages or rates, helps FRA accurately interpret
railroads' data, especially when comparing multiple railroads' data
or a single railroad's data to its own prior reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In FRA's proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), unlike Form
FRA F 6180.177, FRA would be uniformly requiring those three data
points from a host railroad and its applicable tenant railroads. In
practice, FRA has found that host railroads providing certain
denominators for tenant railroads (i.e., PTC-governed trains) and other
denominators for the host railroad itself (i.e., scheduled attempts at
initialization and PTC-governed train miles) makes it difficult for FRA
to evaluate the rate at which failures are occurring system-wide. FRA
expects that requiring uniform figures would help the agency derive
more accurate, objective, and comparable statistics. Furthermore, FRA
understands that host railroads collect the type of data under proposed
paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) for their own operations and their
tenant railroads' operations because several host railroads have
provided those additional data points in their Statutory Notifications
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) to date.
Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require a host railroad's Biannual
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to include a
summary of
[[Page 82410]]
any actions the host railroad and its tenant railroads are taking to
improve the performance and reliability of the PTC system continually.
This narrative section would provide railroads an opportunity to
explain briefly the steps they are taking to improve their PTC system's
performance, which could also help put the biannual statistics into
perspective. FRA did not propose including this content requirement
under proposed paragraph (h)(1) because that paragraph would be track
segment-specific, and FRA acknowledges that railroads generally take a
system-wide approach to improving their PTC systems. Accordingly, FRA
proposes to categorize this content requirement in the separate,
proposed paragraph (h)(2), and FRA's proposed, Excel-based Form FRA F
6180.152 would contain a field for railroads to enter this summary.
Proposed paragraph (h)(3) outlines the dates by which host
railroads would submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance
(Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA--i.e., by July 31 (covering the period
from January 1 to June 30), and by January 31 (covering the period from
July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year). FRA expects that
providing railroads one full month (from the end of the half-year
period) to complete Form FRA 6180.152 would be sufficient and
reasonable, given railroads' experience, since 2016, in submitting
their Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) one month
after the end of the quarter. Furthermore, under the temporary
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177),
the due date for any monthly notification is currently the 15th of the
following month--so, for example, the notification regarding
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions during November
2020 is due by December 15, 2020 for the subset of host railroads that
have fully implemented an FRA-certified PTC system. Accordingly, FRA
expects that allowing one full month for railroads to prepare and
submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152) under proposed paragraph (h)(3) would be a reasonable
timeframe for this permanent reporting requirement.
Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would explicitly require any applicable
tenant railroads that operate on a host railroad's PTC-governed main
line(s) to provide the necessary data to their applicable host
railroads by a specific date before the biannual filing deadlines--
i.e., by July 15 (for the biannual report covering the period from
January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for the biannual report
covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar
year). The text in proposed paragraph (h)(4) clarifies, however, that a
host railroad would not need to include data in Form FRA F 6180.152
regarding a tenant railroad that is subject to an exception under 49
CFR 236.1006(b)(4) or (5) during the applicable reporting period
because such a tenant railroad's movements would not be governed by PTC
technology in that case and there would not be any pertinent,
performance-related data to submit.
In general, FRA's proposed paragraph (h)(4) regarding tenant
railroad responsibilities is based, in part, on comments AAR and APTA
previously submitted during the comment period associated with the
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177).
Specifically, on February 28, 2020, AAR commented, ``[i]f FRA is going
to require hosts to report tenant data, the agency must impose a clear
and direct requirement on tenants to report the desired information to
their host railroad.'' \39\ In APTA's comments, also dated February 28,
2020, APTA observed that a host railroad would need to obtain ``all
necessary logs to complete the analyses'' from its tenant railroads to
complete Form FRA F 6180.177 accurately.\40\ FRA acknowledges that an
existing regulatory provision, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4), already requires
a tenant railroad to report a PTC system failure or cut out to ``a
designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and
practicable.'' In addition, FRA is aware that several host railroads,
including Class I railroads and passenger railroads, already regularly
monitor and track tenant railroads' PTC system initialization failures,
cut outs, and malfunctions via automatically generated reports and/or
via connected PTC system back offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Docket Nos. FRA 2019-0004-N-20 and FRA 2020-0004-N-3;
85 FR 15022, 15027 (Mar. 16, 2020).
\40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA expects that the language in proposed paragraph (h)(4) would
help clarify the existing obligation on tenant railroads to provide
certain data to their host railroads. Also, proposed paragraph (h)(4)
would help ensure that host railroads receive tenant railroads'
necessary data for purposes of the reporting requirement under
paragraph (h) in a timely manner. Specifically, in proposed paragraph
(h)(4), FRA proposes to require each applicable tenant railroad to
submit the information required under proposed paragraphs (h)(1) and
(2) to each applicable host railroad by July 15 (for the report
covering the period from January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for
the report covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior
calendar year). FRA expects that adding proposed paragraph (h)(4) to
its regulations would offer more clarity and certainty about the
timeframe under which tenant railroads would provide host railroads the
information necessary to prepare and submit their Biannual Reports of
PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). In addition, this
proposed paragraph would help ensure that host railroads receive such
data at least 15 days before the biannual filing deadlines under
proposed paragraph (h)(3), i.e., July 31 and January 31.
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' \41\ and
DOT's Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures
in 49 CFR part 5. FRA made this determination by finding that the
economic effects of this proposed regulatory action would not exceed
the $100 million annual threshold defined by Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive
Order 13771.\42\ FRA estimates this proposed rule would result in cost
savings for the industry over a ten-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993).
\42\ See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would reduce the burden on railroads while not
adversely affecting railroad safety. To enable FRA to oversee the
performance and reliability of railroads' PTC systems effectively, FRA
is proposing to change the reporting requirement under 49 CFR
236.1029(h). FRA's proposed changes include, but are not limited to,
increasing the reporting frequency from annual to biannual, clarifying
the types of statistics and information the reports must include, and
expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information. The amended
provision would require host railroads to submit additional
information. Accordingly, FRA estimates that the number of hours it
would take a host railroad to report the required information under
[[Page 82411]]
Sec. 236.1029(h) would increase under the proposed rule. To provide
clarity and precision regarding the reporting requirement under Sec.
236.1029(h), FRA has developed a proposed, Excel-based Biannual Report
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) that railroads would
utilize to satisfy this reporting requirement.
While FRA is proposing to expand this existing reporting
requirement, the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads
would be reduced under Sec. 236.1021. Specifically, FRA is proposing
to establish a streamlined process to enable the railroad industry to
make technological advancements to FRA-certified PTC systems more
efficiently and with FRA's continued oversight. Instead of the existing
RFA approval process under Sec. 236.1021, FRA proposes to: (1) Require
host railroads to comply with a streamlined process, which would
include providing certain safety assurances and analysis in a concise
RFA; and (2) establish a 45-day FRA decision deadline. This more
efficient process is expected to result in cost savings for both the
host railroads and the government. FRA's proposed simplification of the
content requirements associated with an RFA to a PTCSP under Sec.
236.1021 would reduce the number of burden hours per RFA. In addition,
FRA is proposing to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of
PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus
reducing the number of RFAs railroads would need to submit in the
future.
Currently, 35 host railroads are required to submit RFAs before
making certain changes to their PTCSPs under Sec. 236.1021, with many
host railroads projected to submit one RFA to a PTCSP per year. Over
the next ten years, FRA expects there will be an average increase of
1.5 new PTC-governed host railroads per year, beginning in the second
year, for a total of approximately 14 additional host railroads. Table
A summarizes the types of PTC systems the 35 host railroads currently
subject to the statutory mandate are implementing as of 2020 and the
approximate number of RFAs host railroads would file to their PTCSPs
under existing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Several host railroads are implementing multiple types of
PTC systems.
Table A--Estimated Number of Required RFAs to PTCSPs by Type of PTC System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC systems being
implemented by host Annual Number Total number
Type of PTC system railroads (as of of RFAs per of RFAs
2020) \43\ PTC system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES II................................................... 8 1 8
CBTC....................................................... 1 1 1
E-ATC...................................................... 5 1 5
ITCS....................................................... 1 1 1
I-ETMS..................................................... 26 2 52
----------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 41 .............. 67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, without the proposed rule, FRA estimates the 35 host
railroads would need to submit approximately 67 RFAs annually given the
types of changes the industry intends to make to their PTC systems each
year under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)-(4) in the future.\44\ FRA has
estimated that the current hourly burden is 160 hours per RFA, based on
previously approved PTC Information Collection Requests (ICRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Previously, FRA estimated it would receive, on average,
approximately 10 RFAs to railroads' PTCIPs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs each
year. However, from discussions with PTC-mandated railroads, FRA
found the estimate did not account adequately for the number of RFAs
host railroads intend to submit to their PTCSPs annually under Sec.
236.1021(h)(3)-(4) without the proposed rule. Tables A, B, and F in
this proposed rule estimate more accurately the approximate average
number of RFAs host railroads would submit to their PTCSPs each year
under the existing regulations and under the proposed rule. See 84
FR 72121, 72127 (Dec. 30, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B below provides the current hourly burden and costs that
host railroads face when submitting RFAs to their PTCSPs under the
existing Sec. 236.1021.
Table B--Current Host Railroad Hourly Burden and Cost for RFAs to PTCSPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hour burden per Total annual
Year Submissions submission cost 7-Percent 3-Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................... 67 160 $830,505 $830,505 $830,505
2........................... 69 160 855,296 799,342 830,385
3........................... 70 160 867,692 757,876 817,883
4........................... 72 160 892,483 728,532 816,749
5........................... 73 160 904,879 690,328 803,973
6........................... 75 160 929,670 662,842 801,942
7........................... 76 160 942,066 627,738 788,965
8........................... 78 160 966,857 602,110 786,143
9........................... 79 160 979,252 569,934 773,031
10.......................... 81 160 1,004,044 546,133 769,516
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 740 ................. 9,172,744 6,815,340 8,019,091
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
As described above, FRA is also proposing to amend a reporting
requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual,
clarifying the types of statistics and information the reports must
include, and expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive
performance-related
[[Page 82412]]
information. Though FRA's proposed rule will increase the number of
required submissions, as well as the hourly burden per submission, FRA
estimates any new costs will be minimal and offset by the cost savings
derived from the proposed changes as presented in the Cost Savings
section below.
To clarify the information FRA is requesting from host railroads,
FRA created an Excel-based form for the Biannual Report of PTC System
Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). This form will incorporate the
information currently required under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) and the
additional types of information specified in this NPRM.\45\ Host
railroads with FRA-certified PTC systems are experienced in compiling
this type of information, given the corresponding reporting
requirements under the temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance
(Form FRA F 6180.152) will be placed in the docket (Docket No. FRA-
2019-0075) for review when this NPRM is published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hourly burden associated with submitting the required
information will increase initially from 8 hours to 12 hours per report
on average. FRA estimates that, over time, railroads will develop
procedures that decrease the reporting burden from 12 hours per
submission to 10 hours per submission. FRA assumes this decrease will
begin in the fourth year of the analysis as host railroads become
familiar with the Excel-based form and as they develop processes to
improve their data collection and reporting.
In addition to the increase in hourly burden, FRA estimates an
increased burden will result from the additional annual report this
proposed rule will require. Consistent with the previously stated
estimates, FRA assumes that 35 host railroads will submit these
biannual reports, and the number of applicable host railroads will
increase by 1.5 on average each year.
This analysis accounts for the marginal increase of four hours for
the first three years of a host railroad reporting and two hours for
each subsequent year. Table C below shows the marginal hourly burden
increase associated with railroads' reporting under the proposed rule.
Table C--Ten-Year Host Railroad Marginal Burden Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of host Number of host
railroad railroad
Year submissions with submissions with Total marginal
marginal 4-hour marginal 2-hour hourly burden
burden burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 35 0 140
2......................................................... 37 0 146
3......................................................... 38 0 152
4......................................................... 2 38 84
5......................................................... 3 38 88
6......................................................... 5 38 96
7......................................................... 4 40 96
8......................................................... 4 42 100
9......................................................... 4 43 102
10........................................................ 4 45 106
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 136 284 1,110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the marginal increase, host railroads will face an
additional reporting burden due to the proposed change from annual to
biannual reporting. This analysis accounts for the new burden of 12
hours for the first three years of a host railroad's reporting and 10
hours for each subsequent year to account for the proposed change from
annual to biannual reporting. Table D below shows the new hourly burden
under this proposed rule for the ten-year period of this analysis.
Table D--Ten-Year Host Railroad New Submissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of host Number of host
railroad railroad
Year submissions with submissions Total new hourly
new 12-hour with new 10-hour burden
burden burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 35 0 420
2......................................................... 37 0 438
3......................................................... 38 0 456
4......................................................... 2 38 404
5......................................................... 3 38 416
6......................................................... 5 38 440
7......................................................... 4 40 448
8......................................................... 4 42 468
9......................................................... 4 43 478
10........................................................ 4 45 498
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 136 284 4,466
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 82413]]
FRA calculated the total additional burden hours for submissions by
multiplying the respective number of submissions with their associated
annual burden for each individual year. The summation of the hourly
burden is multiplied by the fully burdened wage rate of a Professional
and Administrative employee. For purposes of this analysis, FRA uses
the fully burdened rate of $77.47 to calculate both the costs and cost
savings throughout this analysis.\46\ Table E provides the ten-year
cost to the railroad industry associated with the expanded reporting
requirement, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 2019 Composite Surface Transportation Board (STB)
Professional and Administrative hourly wage rate of $44.27 burdened
by 75-percent ($44.27 x 1.75 = $77.47).
\47\ Total Annual Host Railroad Submissions Cost = Total New
Complete Hour Burden x $77.47.
Table E--Ten-Year Total Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual
Total marginal Total new Total new host railroad
Year hour burden submission complete hour submissions cost 7-Percent 3-Percent
hour burden burden \47\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................................... 140 420 560 $43,385 $43,385 $43,385
2..................................................... 146 438 584 45,244 42,284 43,926
3..................................................... 152 456 608 47,103 41,142 44,399
4..................................................... 84 404 488 37,807 30,861 34,598
5..................................................... 88 416 504 39,046 29,788 34,692
6..................................................... 96 440 536 41,525 29,607 35,820
7..................................................... 96 448 544 42,145 28,083 35,296
8..................................................... 100 468 568 44,004 27,404 35,780
9..................................................... 102 478 580 44,934 26,152 35,471
10.................................................... 106 498 604 46,793 25,453 35,863
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 1,110 4,466 5,576 431,987 324,158 379,231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Table may not sum due to rounding.
FRA estimates that the total cost to the railroad industry will be
$324,158, discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, discounted at 3
percent. In terms of governmental costs associated with the expanded
reporting requirement, including the proposed increase from annual to
biannual reporting, FRA expects it will cost approximately $10,000,
over the ten-year period, to review the additional data railroads will
submit in the proposed Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form
FRA F 6180.152). As FRA considers these additional governmental costs
to be de minimis, they are not included in the economic analysis.
Cost Savings
There are currently 35 host railroads that are required to submit
an RFA before changing safety-critical elements of their PTC systems
and their PTCSPs. FRA estimates that over the next ten years, the
number of PTC-governed host railroads will increase by approximately
14, for a total of 49 host railroads. For purposes of this analysis,
FRA estimates that approximately 1.5 new host railroads are added each
year, beginning in year two.
Currently, under FRA's existing regulations, FRA estimates that
host railroads will submit 67 annual RFAs to their PTCSPs that FRA must
review and approve before those host railroads change and improve their
PTC systems. Under this proposed rule, FRA is proposing to permit host
railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to
their PTCDPs and PTCSPs.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ FRA expects its proposal to allow host railroads to submit
joint RFAs to impact primarily host railroads implementing I-ETMS
and E-ATC because each I-ETMS system is relatively similar and
manufactured by the same set of suppliers, and each E-ATC system is
relatively similar and manufactured by the same set of suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table F below shows the number of RFAs to PTCSPs that would be
submitted under the existing regulation and the proposed rule. Over a
ten-year period, FRA estimates that the changes described in this
proposed rule will result in railroads submitting approximately 590
fewer RFAs.
Table F--Estimated Number of RFAs to PTCSPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
number of RFAs Approximate
to PTCSPs per number of RFAs Total number of
Current types of PTC systems year under to PTCSPs per reduction of
existing year under RFAs to PTCSPs
regulations proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES II..................................................... 8 8 0
CBTC......................................................... 1 1 0
E-ATC........................................................ 5 1 4
ITCS......................................................... 1 1 0
I-ETMS....................................................... 52 \49\ 4 48
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal in Year 1....................................... 67 15 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 82414]]
FRA estimates the current burden is 160 hours per RFA to a PTCSP
based on the existing RFA content requirements. FRA's proposed
simplification of the content requirements would reduce the burden
hours by 50 percent, resulting in 80 burden hours per RFA. Table G
provides the estimated ten-year cost to host railroads based on FRA's
proposal to simplify the RFA process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ For I-ETMS systems, FRA estimates the total number of
annual RFAs to PTCSPs would be reduced from 52 (under the existing
regulation) to 4 (under the proposed rule)--i.e., 2 RFAs per year
from the set of railroads whose I-ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC
system and 2 RFAs per year from the set of railroads whose I-ETMS is
certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system.
Table G--Ten-Year Cost of Joint RFAs and Simplified RFAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hour burden per Total annual
Year Submissions submission cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................ 15 80 $92,967 $92,967 $92,967
2................................................................ 15 80 92,967 86,885 90,259
3................................................................ 15 80 92,967 81,201 87,630
4................................................................ 15 80 92,967 75,889 85,078
5................................................................ 15 80 92,967 70,924 82,600
6................................................................ 15 80 92,967 66,284 80,194
7................................................................ 15 80 92,967 61,948 77,858
8................................................................ 15 80 92,967 57,895 75,591
9................................................................ 15 80 92,967 54,108 73,389
10............................................................... 15 80 92,967 50,568 71,251
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 150 .................. 929,670 698,669 816,818
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, FRA expects that simplifying the content requirements for
RFAs to PTCSPs, as well as permitting host railroads utilizing the same
type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs, will result in a ten-year cost
savings of $6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 million,
discounted at 3 percent.
Table H--Total Ten-Year Cost Savings Associated With Proposed Sec. 236.1021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current host
railroad costs Cost of joint RFAs
Year (without and simplified RFA Total annual 7-Percent 3-Percent
proposed process (with cost savings
regulation) proposed rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................ $830,505 $92,967 $737,538 $737,538 $737,538
2................................................................ 855,296 92,967 762,329 712,457 740,126
3................................................................ 867,692 92,967 774,725 676,675 730,253
4................................................................ 892,483 92,967 799,516 652,643 731,671
5................................................................ 904,879 92,967 811,912 619,404 721,373
6................................................................ 929,670 92,967 836,703 596,558 721,747
7................................................................ 942,066 92,967 849,099 565,790 711,107
8................................................................ 966,857 92,967 873,890 544,215 710,552
9................................................................ 979,252 92,967 886,285 515,826 699,642
10............................................................... 1,004,044 92,967 911,077 495,565 698,264
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 9,172,744 929,670 8,243,074 6,116,671 7,202,273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FRA's proposed changes to the RFA process will result
in cost savings for the government, through a reduction in time needed
to review an RFA with the existing contents under 49 CFR
236.1021(d)(1)-(7). Under the proposed rule, FRA will review a
streamlined RFA with the more focused information that new proposed
paragraph (m)(2) would require.
Table I below outlines the assumptions that FRA used to calculate
the governmental cost savings. FRA's estimates assume there will be PTC
system changes that are complex and will require additional time to
review, as well as system changes that are less complex.
Table I--Government Administrative Cost Assumptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings
Staff level Average employee Average hourly Average hourly Fully burdened per staff
count needed burden salary rate level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS-15............................................................ 1 10 $77.75 $136.07 $1,315
GS-14............................................................ 2 105 62.34 109.10 19,171
GS-13............................................................ 2 119 49.71 86.99 20,646
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 5 234 189.81 332.17 41,132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 82415]]
Without the proposed rule, FRA would be required to review and
approve or deny all 67 of the RFAs to PTCSPs that would be submitted
annually. FRA estimated that over the next ten years, the total cost to
the government would be $30.4 million. Table J provides an overview of
the ten-year government burden without the proposed rule.
Table J--Ten-Year Government Burden
[Without proposed rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government cost to
Year Submissions review each Total annual 7-Percent 3-Percent
submission cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................ 67 $41,132 $2,755,871 $2,755,871 $2,755,871
2................................................................ 69 41,132 2,838,136 2,652,463 2,755,471
3................................................................ 70 41,132 2,879,268 2,514,864 2,713,986
4................................................................ 72 41,132 2,961,533 2,417,493 2,710,222
5................................................................ 73 41,132 3,002,665 2,290,719 2,667,829
6................................................................ 75 41,132 3,084,930 2,199,512 2,661,088
7................................................................ 76 41,132 3,126,062 2,083,027 2,618,028
8................................................................ 78 41,132 3,208,327 1,997,985 2,608,664
9................................................................ 79 41,132 3,249,460 1,891,215 2,565,153
10............................................................... 81 41,132 3,331,724 1,812,237 2,553,489
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 740 411,324 30,437,976 22,615,387 26,609,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the proposed changes to Sec. 236.1021, the number of RFAs
that FRA would be required to review will decrease from 67 to 15 per
year, beginning in the first year. This reduction is the same as seen
in the cost savings above. The resulting reduction would mean that the
new government cost to review the RFAs would be reduced to $6.2 million
over the ten-year period. Table K below outlines the government costs
under the proposed rule.
Table K--Ten-Year New Government Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government cost to
Year Submissions review each Total annual 7-Percent 3-Percent
submission cost savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................ 15 $41,132 $616,986 $616,986 $616,986
2................................................................ 15 41,132 616,986 576,622 599,016
3................................................................ 15 41,132 616,986 538,899 581,568
4................................................................ 15 41,132 616,986 503,644 564,630
5................................................................ 15 41,132 616,986 470,696 548,184
6................................................................ 15 41,132 616,986 439,902 532,218
7................................................................ 15 41,132 616,986 411,124 516,716
8................................................................ 15 41,132 616,986 384,228 501,666
9................................................................ 15 41,132 616,986 359,091 487,054
10............................................................... 15 41,132 616,986 335,600 472,868
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 150 411,324 6,169,860 4,636,793 5,420,906
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA estimates that its proposed changes will result in a ten-year
government cost savings of $18.0 million, discounted at 7 percent, or
$21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent.
Table L--Government Administrative Cost Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
government cost Government cost to
to review review submissions Total annual
Year submissions (with proposed cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent
(without rule)
proposed rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... $2,755,871 $616,986 $2,138,885 $2,138,885 $2,138,885
2............................................................... 2,838,136 616,986 2,221,150 2,075,841 2,156,456
3............................................................... 2,879,268 616,986 2,262,282 1,975,965 2,132,418
4............................................................... 2,961,533 616,986 2,344,547 1,913,849 2,145,592
5............................................................... 3,002,665 616,986 2,385,679 1,820,023 2,119,645
6............................................................... 3,084,930 616,986 2,467,944 1,759,610 2,128,870
7............................................................... 3,126,062 616,986 2,509,076 1,671,904 2,101,312
8............................................................... 3,208,327 616,986 2,591,341 1,613,757 2,106,998
[[Page 82416]]
9............................................................... 3,249,460 616,986 2,632,474 1,532,124 2,078,099
10.............................................................. 3,331,724 616,986 2,714,738 1,476,638 2,080,621
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 30,437,976 6,169,860 24,268,116 17,978,594 21,188,896
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results
This proposed rule would reduce the burden on railroads while not
adversely affecting railroad safety. To oversee the performance and
reliability of railroads' PTC systems, FRA is proposing to expand the
reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h), as described above. FRA
estimates that the total ten-year industry cost associated with the
expanded reporting requirement under Sec. 236.1029(h) will be
$324,158, discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, discounted at 3
percent.
Though FRA is proposing to expand certain reporting requirements,
the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads will be
reduced overall. The proposed simplification of RFAs to PTCSPs will
reduce the number of burden hours per RFA. Also, FRA is proposing to
permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit
joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of
submissions railroads will need to submit in the future.
FRA expects that its proposed changes will result in a ten-year
cost savings for the railroad industry of $6.1 million, discounted at 7
percent, or $7.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. In addition, during
the same period, FRA expects that the proposed changes will produce
government cost savings amounting to $18.0 million, discounted at 7
percent, or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent.
FRA estimates that the total net cost savings for this proposed
rule will be $23.8 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $28.0 million,
discounted at 3 percent. The annualized cost savings will be $3.4
million, discounted at 7 percent, or $3.3 million, discounted at 3
percent.
Table M--Total Ten-Year Net Cost Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Total industry government Total industry Total net cost 7-Percent 3-Percent
cost savings cost savings costs savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... $737,538 $2,138,885 $43,385 $2,833,038 $2,833,038 $2,833,038
2....................................................... 762,329 2,221,150 45,244 2,938,235 2,746,014 2,852,655
3....................................................... 774,725 2,262,282 47,103 2,989,904 2,611,498 2,818,271
4....................................................... 799,516 2,344,547 37,807 3,106,256 2,535,631 2,842,665
5....................................................... 811,912 2,385,679 39,046 3,158,545 2,409,639 2,806,326
6....................................................... 836,703 2,467,944 41,525 3,263,122 2,326,561 2,814,797
7....................................................... 849,099 2,509,076 42,145 3,316,030 2,209,611 2,777,123
8....................................................... 873,890 2,591,341 44,004 3,421,227 2,130,568 2,781,770
9....................................................... 886,285 2,632,474 44,934 3,473,825 2,021,798 2,742,269
10...................................................... 911,077 2,714,738 46,793 3,579,022 1,946,751 2,743,022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 8,243,074 24,268,116 431,987 32,079,203 23,771,107 28,011,938
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 3,384,471 3,283,854
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA requests comments on the assumptions and burden estimates that
are used within this analysis.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' (67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) require agency
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small
entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. FRA has not determined whether
this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, FRA seeks comment on
the potential small business impacts of the proposed requirements in
this NPRM. FRA prepared an IRFA, which is included below, to aid the
public in commenting on the potential small business impacts of the
proposed requirements in this NPRM.
1. Reasons for Considering Agency Action
FRA is initiating the proposed rulemaking to enable railroads to
make technological advancements to their PTC systems more efficiently,
with FRA's continued oversight, by improving and streamlining the RFA
process under 49 CFR 236.1021. Without the proposed rule, each host
railroad would be required to submit independently an RFA, with the
information required under 49 CFR 236.1021(d)(1)-(7), several times per
year and wait for FRA to approve each RFA prior to implementing
[[Page 82417]]
enhancements or necessary changes to existing FRA-certified technology.
In addition, FRA is proposing to improve the reporting requirement
under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) by, for example, increasing the reporting
frequency from annual to biannual, updating the provision to use
certain statutory terminology for consistency, and expanding the
reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related
information, so FRA can oversee PTC systems' performance and
reliability more effectively. To reduce the burden on host railroads,
FRA has developed an Excel-based form (Form FRA F 6180.152) in which
all the information could be succinctly input and sent to FRA
electronically.
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for,
the Proposed Rule
The objective of this proposed rule is to establish an improved
process to enable the industry to make technological advancements to
FRA-certified PTC systems more efficiently, and with FRA's continued
oversight. Instead of the existing approval process under Sec.
236.1021, FRA proposes to require host railroads to comply with a
streamlined process, which includes providing certain safety assurances
and analysis. This improved process is expected to result in cost
savings for both the host railroads and the government. Furthermore,
FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC
system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, which would
benefit both the industry and FRA.
FRA is also proposing to expand the reporting requirement under
Sec. 236.1029(h) to enable FRA to oversee PTC systems' performance and
reliability effectively. The expanded reporting requirement would
increase the costs to host railroads, but that minimal cost would be
offset by the cost savings associated with FRA's proposed changes to
Sec. 236.1021.
The Secretary has broad statutory authority to ``prescribe
regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety'' under
49 U.S.C. 20103 and regarding PTC technology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).
This proposed rule will reduce the burden on railroads while not
adversely affecting railroad safety. In this proposed rule, FRA
proposes to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on
regulated entities by reducing the complexity and number of RFAs host
railroads must submit regarding certain enhancements and necessary
changes to their FRA-certified PTC systems under Sec. 236.1021 and
providing more clarity and precision regarding the reporting
requirement under Sec. 236.1029(h), using a form.
3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires a review of
proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities,
unless the Secretary certifies that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business concern
that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has
authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and
stipulates in its size standards that a ``small entity'' in the
railroad industry is a for-profit ``line-haul railroad'' that has fewer
than 1,500 employees, a ``short line railroad'' with fewer than 500
employees, or a ``commuter rail system'' with annual receipts of less
than seven million dollars. See ``Size Eligibility Provisions and
Standards,'' 13 CFR part 121, subpart A.
The proposed rule would directly apply to all host railroads
subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157, including, in relevant part, 5 Class II or
III, short line, or terminal railroads, and 23 intercity passenger
railroads or commuter railroads, some of which may be small entities.
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the Class
of Small Entities That Will be Subject to the Requirements and the Type
of Professional Skill Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record
The proposed RFA process would allow railroads to make enhancements
and necessary changes to their PTC systems more efficiently. FRA
understands that only 5 of the current PTC-mandated host railroads are
small entities; however, because this proposed rule would reduce the
regulatory costs and hourly burdens on these railroads, the proposed
changes would result in a positive impact on those railroads.
FRA is also proposing to amend the reporting requirement under
Sec. 236.1029(h) by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual,
clarifying the types of statistics and information the reports must
include, and expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive
performance-related information.\50\ Though this expanded reporting
requirement would double the number of submissions and increase the
hourly burden, the proposed changes are necessary to enable FRA to
oversee the performance and reliability of railroads' PTC systems
effectively. FRA estimates that the additional costs associated with
the increased reporting requirement will be more than offset by the
proposed changes to Sec. 236.1021. Furthermore, FRA assumes that as
host railroads become more familiar with the reporting requirements
proposed under Sec. 236.1029(h), the hourly burden per submission will
be reduced from 12 hours to 10 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ In addition, with respect to tenant railroads, FRA's
proposed changes to Sec. 236.1029(h) are generally consistent with
the existing regulatory requirement specifying that a tenant
railroad must report a PTC system failure or cut out to ``a
designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and
practicable.'' See Sec. 236.1029(b)(4) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA expects that the proposed reporting requirement tasks will be
completed by one Professional and Administrative employee per host
railroad and require a basic understanding of Microsoft Excel.
To calculate the individual costs for small entities, FRA divided
the total cost for each year by the number of estimated host railroads.
FRA assumes that the hourly burden to submit an RFA is independent of
an entity's size because the RFA depends upon the PTC system and not
the individual railroad making the submission. The total cost for all
host railroads in year one would be $43,385. FRA estimates that the
individual cost to each host railroad would be approximately $1,240.
The estimated ten-year cost per host railroad that FRA considers a
small entity would be approximately $7,997, discounted at 7 percent, or
$9,247, discounted at 3 percent. Though the proposed rule would impose
costs on those host railroads that are small entities, it would also
result in cost savings.
To calculate the individual cost savings for small entities, FRA
divided the total cost savings for each year by the number of estimated
host railroads. The total annual cost savings in the first year would
be $737,538. FRA estimates that the individual cost savings for each
host railroad would be $21,073. The estimated ten-year cost savings per
host railroad that FRA considers a small entity would be $149,476,
discounted at 7 percent, or $173,984, discounted at 3 percent. FRA
requests comments on the burden that small entities would face under
this proposed rule.
[[Page 82418]]
5. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
FRA is not aware of any relevant Federal rule that duplicates,
overlaps with, or conflicts with the proposed rule. As described in
this NPRM, the existing and proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(h) (proposed
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance, Form FRA F 6180.152)
constitutes a permanent reporting requirement, whereas the Statutory
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control
No. 2130-0553) under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) is a temporary reporting
requirement and expires on approximately December 31, 2021. FRA invites
all interested parties to submit comments, data, and information
demonstrating the potential economic impact on small entities that will
result from the adoption of this proposed rule. FRA particularly
encourages small entities potentially impacted by the proposed
amendments to participate in the public comment process. FRA will
consider all comments received during the public comment period for
this NPRM when making a final determination of the rule's economic
impact on small entities.
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
FRA is proposing this rulemaking to alleviate burdens on industry
and improve the process associated with changes and upgrades to FRA-
certified PTC systems and the associated PTCSPs. FRA's proposed changes
to Sec. 236.1021 are expected to result in cost savings for both the
host railroads and the government. Furthermore, FRA proposes to permit
host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint
RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, which will benefit both the industry
and FRA. The main alternative to this rulemaking would be to maintain
the status quo.
In the absence of this proposed rule, railroads would continue to
submit information under Sec. 236.1029(h) that may not be sufficient
for FRA to oversee PTC systems' performance and reliability
effectively. FRA notes the NPRM proposes to establish a new form \51\
to report the required information under Sec. 236.1029(h), which will
help clarify and facilitate this reporting requirement for the
industry. The alternative of not issuing the proposed rule would also
forgo the more efficient process of allowing host railroads to submit
joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, and to implement certain changes
to their PTC systems under the proposed streamlined process under Sec.
236.1021(l) and (m), which would reduce the overall burden of FRA's PTC
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are
being submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Please note that any new or revised
requirements, as proposed in this NPRM, are marked by asterisks (*) in
the table below. The sections that contain the proposed and current
information collection requirements under OMB Control No. 2130-0553
\52\ and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See also 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 2019) (60-day ICR notice);
85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020) (30-day ICR notice). On June 5, 2020,
OMB approved the revised ICR, entitled ``PTC and Other Signal
Systems'' under OMB Control No. 2130-0553, for a period of three
years, expiring on June 30, 2023.
\53\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2019 STB
Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group
hourly wage rate that includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For
Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost amounts to
$120 per hour. For Professional/Administrative staff, this cost
amounts to $77 per hour.
\54\ A railroad's final Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA
F 6180.165) will be due on January 31, 2021, assuming the railroad
fully implements an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system by
the statutory deadline of December 31, 2020.
\55\ A railroad's final Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F
6180.166) will be due on March 31, 2021, assuming it fully
implements an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system by the
statutory deadline of December 31, 2020.
\56\ The temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures
(Form FRA F 6180.177) expires on approximately December 31, 2021 per
49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual
CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per Total annual dollar cost
response burden hours equivalent \53\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
235.6(c)--Expedited application 42 railroads................ 10 expedited applications... 5 hours................. 50 $3,850
for approval of certain changes
described in this section.
--Copy of expedited application 42 railroads................ 10 copies................... 30 minutes.............. 5 385
to labor union.
--Railroad letter rescinding its 42 railroads................ 1 letter.................... 6 hours................. 6 462
request for expedited
application of certain signal
system changes.
--Revised application for certain 42 railroads................ 1 application............... 5 hours................. 5 385
signal system changes.
--Copy of railroad revised 42 railroads................ 1 copy...................... 30 minutes.............. .5 39
application to labor union.
236.1--Railroad maintained signal 700 railroads............... 25 plan changes............. 15 minutes.............. 6.3 485
plans at all interlockings,
automatic signal locations, and
controlled points, and updates
to ensure accuracy.
236.15--Designation of automatic 700 railroads............... 10 timetable instructions... 30 minutes.............. 5 385
block, traffic control, train
stop, train control, cab signal,
and PTC territory in timetable
instructions.
236.18--Software management 2 railroads................. 2 plans..................... 160 hours............... 320 24,640
control plan--New railroads.
236.23(e)--The names, 700 railroads............... 2 modifications............. 1 hour.................. 2 154
indications, and aspects of
roadway and cab signals shall be
defined in the carrier's
Operating Rule Book or Special
Instructions. Modifications
shall be filed with FRA within
30 days after such modifications
become effective.
236.587(d)--Certification and 742 railroads............... 4,562,500 train departures.. 5 seconds............... 6,337 487,949
departure test results.
236.905(a)--Railroad Safety 2 railroads................. 2 RSPPs..................... 40 hours................ 80 6,160
Program Plan (RSPP)--New
railroads.
236.913(a)--Filing and approval 742 railroads............... 1 joint plan................ 2,000 hours............. 2,000 240,000
of a joint Product Safety Plan
(PSP).
(c)(1)--Informational filing/ 742 railroads............... 0.5 filings/approval 50 hours................ 25 1,925
petition for special approval. petitions.
(c)(2)--Response to FRA's request 742 railroads............... 0.25 data calls/documents... 5 hours................. 1 77
for further data after
informational filing.
[[Page 82419]]
(d)(1)(ii)--Response to FRA's 742 railroads............... 0.25 data calls/documents... 1 hour.................. 0.25 19
request for further information
within 15 days after receipt of
the Notice of Product
Development (NOPD).
(d)(1)(iii)--Technical 742 railroads............... 0.25 technical consultations 5 hours................. 1.3 100
consultation by FRA with the
railroad on the design and
planned development of the
product.
(d)(1)(v)--Railroad petition to 742 railroads............... 0.25 petitions.............. 1 hour.................. 0.25 19
FRA for final approval of NOPD.
(d)(2)(ii)--Response to FRA's 742 railroads............... 1 request................... 50 hours................ 50 3,850
request for additional
information associated with a
petition for approval of PSP or
PSP amendment.
(e)--Comments to FRA on railroad 742 railroads............... 0.5 comments/letters........ 10 hours................ 5 385
informational filing or special
approval petition.
(h)(3)(i)--Railroad amendment to 742 railroads............... 2 amendments................ 20 hours................ 40 3,080
PSP.
(j)--Railroad field testing/ 742 railroads............... 1 field test document....... 100 hours............... 100 7,700
information filing document.
236.917(a)--Railroad retention of 13 railroads with PSP....... 13 PSP safety results....... 160 hours............... 2,080 160,160
records: results of tests and
inspections specified in the PSP.
(b)--Railroad report that 13 railroads................ 1 report.................... 40 hours................ 40 3,080
frequency of safety-relevant
hazards exceeds threshold set
forth in PSP.
(b)(3)--Railroad final report to 13 railroads................ 1 report.................... 10 hours................ 10 770
FRA on the results of the
analysis and countermeasures
taken to reduce the frequency of
safety-relevant hazards.
236.919(a)--Railroad Operations 13 railroads................ 1 OMM update................ 40 hours................ 40 3,080
and Maintenance Manual (OMM).
(b)--Plans for proper 13 railroads................ 1 plan update............... 40 hours................ 40 3,080
maintenance, repair, inspection,
and testing of safety-critical
products.
(c)--Documented hardware, 13 railroads................ 1 revision.................. 40 hours................ 40 3,080
software, and firmware revisions
in OMM.
236.921 and 923(a)--Railroad 13 railroads................ 1 program................... 40 hours................ 40 3,080
Training and Qualification
Program.
236.923(b)--Training records 13 railroads................ 350 records................. 10 minutes.............. 58 4,466
retained in a designated
location and available to FRA
upon request.
Form FRA F 6180.165--Quarterly 35 railroads................ 11.7 reports/forms.......... 23.22 hours............. 271 20,867
PTC Progress Report (49 U.S.C.
20157(c)(2)) \54\.
Form FRA F 6180.166--Annual PTC 35 railroads................ 11.7 reports/forms.......... 40.12 hours............. 468 36,036
Progress Report (49 U.S.C.
20157(c)(1) and 49 CFR
236.1009(a)(5)) \55\.
Form FRA F 6180.177--Statutory 38 railroads................ 144 reports/forms........... 1 hour.................. 144 11,088
Notification of PTC System
Failures (Under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4)) \56\.
236.1001(b)--A railroad's 38 railroads................ 1 rule or instruction....... 40 hours................ 40 4,800
additional or more stringent
rules than prescribed under 49
CFR part 236, subpart I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(i)-(ii)--A The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
railroad's submission of
estimated traffic projections
for the next 5 years, to support
a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA,
not to implement a PTC system
based on reductions in rail
traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(4)(iii)--A railroad's request 7 Class I railroads......... 1 exception request......... 40 hours................ 40 3,080
for a de minimis exception, in a
PTCIP or an RFA, based on a
minimal quantity of PIH
materials traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(5)--A railroad's request to The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
remove a line from its PTCIP
based on the sale of the line to
another railroad and any related
request for FRA review from the
acquiring railroad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)(1)(i)--A railroad's request 38 railroads................ 45 rerouting extension 8 hours................. 360 27,720
to temporarily reroute trains requests.
not equipped with a PTC system
onto PTC-equipped tracks and
vice versa during certain
emergencies.
(g)(1)(ii)--A railroad's written 38 railroads................ 45 written or telephonic 2 hours................. 90 6,930
or telephonic notice of the notices.
conditions necessitating
emergency rerouting and other
required information under
236.1005(i).
(g)(2)--A railroad's temporary 38 railroads................ 720 requests................ 8 hours................. 5,760 443,520
rerouting request due to planned
maintenance not exceeding 30
days.
(h)(1)--A response to any request 38 railroads................ 10 requests................. 2 hours................. 20 1,540
for additional information from
FRA, prior to commencing
rerouting due to planned
maintenance.
(h)(2)--A railroad's request to 38 railroads................ 160 requests................ 8 hours................. 1,280 98,560
temporarily reroute trains due
to planned maintenance exceeding
30 days.
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)--A 262 railroads............... 5 reports................... 16 hours................ 80 6,160
progress report due by December
31, 2020, and by December 31,
2022, from any Class II or III
railroad utilizing a temporary
exception under this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(5)(vii)--A railroad's request The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
to utilize different yard
movement procedures, as part of
a freight yard movements
exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 82420]]
236.1007(b)(1)--For any high- The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
speed service over 90 miles per
hour (mph), a railroad's PTC
Safety Plan (PTCSP) must
additionally establish that the
PTC system was designed and will
be operated to meet the fail-
safe operation criteria in
Appendix C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)--An HSR-125 document 38 railroads................ 1 HSR-125 document.......... 3,200 hours............. 3,200 384,000
accompanying a host railroad's
PTCSP, for operations over 125
mph.
(c)(1)--A railroad's request for 38 railroads................ 0.3 requests................ 8,000 hours............. 2,667 205,359
approval to use foreign service
data, prior to submission of a
PTCSP.
(d)--A railroad's request in a 38 railroads................ 1 request................... 1,000 hours............. 1,000 120,000
PTCSP that FRA excuse compliance
with one or more of this
section's requirements.
236.1009(a)(2)--A PTCIP if a 264 railroads............... 1 PTCIP..................... 535 hours............... 535 64,200
railroad becomes a host railroad
of a main line requiring the
implementation of a PTC system,
including the information under
49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR
236.1011.
(a)(3)--Any new PTCIPs jointly 264 railroads............... 1 joint PTCIP............... 267 hours............... 267 32,040
filed by a host railroad and a
tenant railroad.
(b)(1)--A host railroad's 264 railroads............... 1 document.................. 8 hours................. 8 616
submission, individually or
jointly with a tenant railroad
or PTC system supplier, of an
unmodified Type Approval.
(b)(2)--A host railroad's 264 railroads............... 1 PTCDP..................... 2,000 hours............. 2,000 154,000
submission of a PTCDP with the
information required under 49
CFR 236.1013, requesting a Type
Approval for a PTC system that
either does not have a Type
Approval or has a Type Approval
that requires one or more
variances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--A host railroad's submission The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015.
of a PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)(3)--Any request for full or 38 railroads................ 10 confidentiality requests. 8 hours................. 80 6,160
partial confidentiality of a
PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent
(NPI), PTCDP, or PTCSP.
(h)--Any responses or documents 38 railroads................ 36 interviews and documents. 4 hours................. 144 11,088
submitted in connection with
FRA's use of its authority to
monitor, test, and inspect
processes, procedures,
facilities, documents, records,
design and testing materials,
artifacts, training materials
and programs, and any other
information used in the design,
development, manufacture, test,
implementation, and operation of
the PTC system, including
interviews with railroad
personnel.
(j)(2)(iii)--Any additional 38 railroads................ 1 set of additional 400 hours............... 400 30,800
information provided in response information.
to FRA's consultations or
inquiries about a PTCDP or PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1011(a)-(b)--PTCIP content The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.
requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any public comment on 38 railroads................ 2 public comments........... 8 hours................. 16 1,232
PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1013, PTCDP and NPI content The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.
requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1015--Any new host railroad's 264 railroads............... 1 PTCSP..................... 8,000 hours............. 8,000 616,000
PTCSP meeting all content
requirements under 49 CFR
236.1015.
(g)--A PTCSP for a PTC system 38 railroads................ 0.3 PTCSPs.................. 3,200 hours............. 1,067 82,159
replacing an existing certified
PTC system.
(h)--A quantitative risk 38 railroads................ 0.3 assessments............. 800 hours............... 267 20,559
assessment, if FRA requires one
to be submitted.
236.1017(a)--An independent third- 38 railroads................ 0.3 assessments............. 1,600 hours............. 533 63,960
party assessment, if FRA
requires one to be conducted and
submitted.
(b)--A railroad's written request 38 railroads................ 0.3 written requests........ 8 hours................. 3 231
to confirm whether a specific
entity qualifies as an
independent third party.
--Further information provided to 38 railroads................ 0.3 sets of additional 20 hours................ 7 539
FRA upon request. information.
(d)--A request not to provide 38 railroads................ 0.3 requests................ 20 hours................ 7 539
certain documents otherwise
required under Appendix F for an
independent, third-party
assessment.
(e)--A request for FRA to accept 38 railroads................ 0.3 requests................ 32 hours................ 11 847
information certified by a
foreign regulatory entity for
purposes of 49 CFR 236.1017 and/
or 236.1009(i).
236.1019(b)--A request for a 38 railroads................ 1 MTEA...................... 160 hours............... 160 12,320
passenger terminal main line
track exception (MTEA).
(c)(1)--A request for a limited 38 railroads................ 1 request and/or plan....... 160 hours............... 160 12,320
operations exception (based on
restricted speed, temporal
separation, or a risk mitigation
plan).
(c)(2)--A request for a limited 10 railroads................ 1 request................... 160 hours............... 160 12,320
operations exception for a non-
Class I, freight railroad's
track.
(c)(3)--A request for a limited 7 railroads................. 1 request................... 160 hours............... 160 12,320
operations exception for a Class
I railroad's track.
[[Page 82421]]
(d)--A railroad's collision 38 railroads................ 0.3 collision hazard 50 hours................ 17 1,309
hazard analysis in support of an analysis.
MTEA, if FRA requires one to be
conducted and submitted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any temporal separation The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1).
procedures utilized under the 49
CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1021(a)-(d)--Any RFA to a 38 railroads................ 10 RFAs..................... 160 hours............... 1,600 123,200
railroad's PTCIP or PTCDP.
(e)--Any public comments, if an 5 interested parties........ 10 RFA public comments...... 16 hours................ 160 12,320
RFA includes a request for
approval of a discontinuance or
material modification of a
signal or train control system
and a Federal Register notice is
published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(l)--Any jointly filed RFA to a The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)-(d) and (m).
PTCDP or PTCSP (* Note: This is
a new proposed paragraph to
authorize host railroads to file
joint RFAs in certain cases, but
such RFAs are already required
under FRA's existing regulations
*).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(m)--Any RFA to a railroad's 38 railroads................ 15 RFAs..................... 80 hours................ 1,200 92,400
PTCSP (* Note: Revised
requirement. This is a new
proposed paragraph with a
simplified process governing
RFAs to PTCSPs *).
236.1023(a)--A railroad's PTC 38 railroads................ 2 updated lists............. 8 hours................. 16 1,232
Product Vendor List, which must
be continually updated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(1)--All contractual The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
arrangements between a railroad
and its hardware and software
suppliers or vendors for certain
immediate notifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(2)-(3)--A vendor's or 10 vendors or suppliers..... 10 notifications............ 8 hours................. 80 6,160
supplier's notification, upon
receipt of a report of any
safety-critical failure of its
product, to any railroads using
the product.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)(1)-(2)--A railroad's process The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
and procedures for taking action
upon being notified of a safety-
critical failure or a safety-
critical upgrade, patch,
revision, repair, replacement,
or modification, and a
railroad's configuration/
revision control measures, set
forth in its PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--A railroad's submission, to 38 railroads................ 2.5 notifications........... 16 hours................ 40 3,080
the applicable vendor or
supplier, of the railroad's
procedures for action upon
notification of a safety-
critical failure, upgrade,
patch, or revision to the PTC
system and actions to be taken
until it is adjusted, repaired,
or replaced.
(e)--A railroad's database of all 38 railroads................ 38 database updates......... 16 hours................ 608 46,816
safety-relevant hazards, which
must be maintained after the PTC
system is placed in service.
(e)(1)--A railroad's notification 38 railroads................ 8 notifications............. 8 hours................. 64 4,928
to the vendor or supplier and
FRA if the frequency of a safety-
relevant hazard exceeds the
threshold set forth in the PTCDP
and PTCSP, and about the
failure, malfunction, or
defective condition that
decreased or eliminated the
safety functionality.
(e)(2)--Continual updates about 38 railroads................ 1 update.................... 8 hours................. 8 616
any and all subsequent failures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f)--Any notifications that must The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h).
be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR
236.1023.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)--A railroad's and vendor's or 38 railroads................ 0.5 reports................. 40 hours................ 20 1,540
supplier's report, upon FRA
request, about an investigation
of an accident or service
difficulty due to a
manufacturing or design defect
and their corrective actions.
(h)--A PTC system vendor's or 10 vendors or suppliers..... 20 reports.................. 8 hours................. 160 12,320
supplier's reports of any safety-
relevant failures, defective
conditions, previously
unidentified hazards,
recommended mitigation actions,
and any affected railroads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k)--A report of a failure of a The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233.
PTC system resulting in a more
favorable aspect than intended
or other condition hazardous to
the movement of a train,
including the reports required
under part 233.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1029(b)(4)--A report of an en 150 host and tenant 1,000 reports............... 30 minutes.............. 500 38,500
route failure, other failure, or railroads.
cut out to a designated railroad
officer of the host railroad.
(h)--Form FRA F 6180.152-- 38 railroads................ 76 reports.................. 12 hours................ 912 70,224
Biannual Report of PTC System
Performance (*Revised
requirement and new form*).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 82422]]
236.1033--Communications and The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
security requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1035(a)-(b)--A railroad's 38 railroads................ 10 requests................. 40 hours................ 400 30,800
request for authorization to
field test an uncertified PTC
system and any responses to
FRA's testing conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1037(a)(1)-(2)--Records The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
retention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(3)-(4)--Records retention.... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)--Results of inspections and 38 railroads................ 800 records................. 1 hour.................. 800 61,600
tests specified in a railroad's
PTCSP and PTCDP.
(c)--A contractor's records 20 contractors.............. 1,600 records............... 10 minutes.............. 267 20,559
related to the testing,
maintenance, or operation of a
PTC system maintained at a
designated office.
(d)(3)--A railroad's final report 38 railroads................ 8 final reports............. 160 hours............... 1,280 98,560
of the results of the analysis
and countermeasures taken to
reduce the frequency of safety-
related hazards below the
threshold set forth in the PTCSP.
236.1039(a)-(c), (e)--A 38 railroads................ 2 OMM updates............... 10 hours................ 20 1,540
railroad's PTC Operations and
Maintenance Manual (OMM), which
must be maintained and available
to FRA upon request.
(d)--A railroad's identification 38 railroads................ 1 identified new component.. 1 hour.................. 1 77
of a PTC system's safety-
critical components, including
spare equipment.
236.1041(a)-(b) and 236.1043(a)-- 38 railroads................ 2 programs.................. 10 hours................ 20 1,540
A railroad's PTC Training and
Qualification Program (i.e., a
written plan).
236.1043(b)--Training records 150 host and tenant 150 PTC training record 1 hour.................. 150 11,550
retained in a designated railroads. databases.
location and available to FRA
upon request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ N/A......................... 4,567,923 responses......... N/A..................... 49,116 4,107,626
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan
Wells, Information Clearance Officer, at 202-493-0440 or via email at
[email protected].
D. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' requires FRA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations having ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Id. Under Executive Order 13132, the
agency may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments
or the agency consults with State and local government officials early
in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined this
proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States
or their political subdivisions; on the relationship between the
Federal government and the States or their political subdivisions; or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. In addition, FRA has determined this proposed
rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
This proposed rule could have preemptive effect by the operation of
law under a provision of the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of
1970, repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106
provides that States may not adopt or continue in effect any law,
regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security that covers
the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the
Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters)
or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad
security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order
qualifies under the ``essentially local safety or security hazard''
exception to section 20106.
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As
explained above, FRA has determined that this proposed rule has no
federalism implications, other than the possible preemption of State
laws under Federal railroad safety statutes, specifically 49 U.S.C.
20106. Accordingly, FRA has determined that preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement for this proposed rule is not required.
[[Page 82423]]
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. This proposed rule is purely domestic in nature and is not
expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business
overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.
F. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council
of Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508, and FRA's NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part
771, and determined that it is categorically excluded from
environmental review and therefore does not require the preparation of
an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement
(EIS). Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an
agency's NEPA implementing regulations that do not normally have a
significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require
either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 1508.4. Specifically, FRA has
determined that this proposed rule is categorically excluded from
detailed environmental review pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15),
``Promulgation of rules, the issuance of policy statements, the waiver
or modification of existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary
approvals that do not result in significantly increased emissions of
air or water pollutants or noise.''
This proposed rule does not directly or indirectly impact any
environmental resources and would not result in significantly increased
emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the proposed
rule is likely to result in safety benefits. In analyzing the
applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual
circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed
environmental review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that no
such unusual circumstances exist with respect to this proposed rule and
the proposal meets the requirements for categorical exclusion under 23
CFR 771.116(c)(15).
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking
has no potential to affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA
has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project
resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-670,
80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' and DOT
Order 5610.2B, dated November 18, 2020, require DOT agencies to
consider environmental justice principles by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT
Order instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order
12898, Executive Order 13771, and requirements within the DOT Order in
rulemaking activities, as appropriate. FRA has evaluated this proposed
rule and has determined it would not cause disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations
or low-income populations.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements
specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C.
1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general notice of
proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any
rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually
for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule
for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the
agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the effect on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This
proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of
$100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.
I. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any
``significant energy action.'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has
evaluated this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 and determined
that this proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' within
the meaning of Executive Order 13211.
Executive Order 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth,'' requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine
whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural
gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. 82 FR 16093 (Mar. 31, 2017).
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule under Executive Order 13783 and
determined that this rule would not burden the development or use of
domestically produced energy resources.
J. Privacy Act Statement
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and
response, DOT encourages commenters to provide their name, or the name
of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236
Penalties, Positive train control, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 236, as follows:
[[Page 82424]]
PART 236--RULES, STANDARDS, AND INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE
INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF SIGNAL AND
TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND APPLIANCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20157,
20301-20303, 20306, 20501-20505, 20701-20703, 21301-21302, 21304; 28
U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
0
2. Amend Sec. 236.1003 in paragraph (b) by adding the definitions of
``Cut out'', ``Initialization failure'', and ``Malfunction'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 236.1003 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Cut out means any disabling of a PTC system, subsystem, or
component en route, including when the PTC system cuts out on its own
or a person cuts out the system, unless the cut out was necessary to
exit PTC-governed territory and enter non-PTC territory.
* * * * *
Initialization failure means any instance when a PTC system fails
to activate on a locomotive or train, unless the PTC system
successfully activates during a subsequent attempt in the same location
or before entering PTC-governed territory. For the types of PTC systems
that do not initialize by design, a failed departure test is considered
an initialization failure for purposes of the reporting requirement
under Sec. 236.1029(h), unless the PTC system successfully passes the
departure test during a subsequent attempt in the same location or
before entering PTC-governed territory.
* * * * *
Malfunction means any instance when a PTC system, subsystem, or
component fails to perform the functions mandated under 49 U.S.C.
20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the applicable host railroad's PTCSP.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 236.1021 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) introductory text, and (d)(4);
0
b. Removing paragraph (d)(7); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (l) and (m).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 236.1021 Discontinuances, material modifications, and
amendments.
(a) No changes, as defined by this section, to a PTCIP or PTCDP may
be made unless:
(1) The railroad files a request for amendment (RFA) to the
applicable PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator; and
(2) The Associate Administrator approves the RFA.
* * * * *
(c) In lieu of a separate filing under part 235 of this chapter, a
railroad may request approval of a discontinuance or material
modification of a signal or train control system by filing an RFA to
its PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator.
(d) FRA will not approve an RFA to a PTCIP or PTCDP unless the
request includes:
* * * * *
(4) The changes to the PTCIP or PTCDP, as applicable;
* * * * *
(l) Any RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP pursuant to this section may be
submitted jointly with other host railroads utilizing the same type of
PTC system. However, only host railroads with the same PTC System
Certification classification under Sec. 236.1015(e) may jointly file
an RFA to their PTCSPs. Any joint RFA to multiple host railroads'
PTCSPs must include the information required under paragraph (m) of
this section. The joint RFA must also include the written confirmation
and statement specified under paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this
section from each host railroad jointly filing the RFA.
(m) No changes, as specified under paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this
section, may be made to an FRA-certified PTC system or an FRA-approved
PTCSP unless the host railroad first complies with the following
process:
(1) The host railroad revises its PTCSP to account for each
proposed change to its PTC system and summarizes such changes in a
chronological table of revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP;
(2) The host railroad electronically submits the following
information in an RFA to the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad
Systems, Technology, and Automation:
(i) A summary of the proposed changes to any safety-critical
elements of a PTC system, including a summary of how the changes to the
PTC system would affect its safety-critical functionality, how any new
hazards have been addressed and mitigated, whether each change is a
planned change that was previously included in all required analysis
under Sec. 236.1015 or an unplanned change, and the reason for the
proposed changes, including whether the changes are necessary to
address or resolve an emergency or urgent issue;
(ii) Any associated software release notes;
(iii) A confirmation that the host railroad has notified any
applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes, any associated
effect on the tenant railroads' operations, and any actions the tenant
railroads must take in accordance with the configuration control
measures set forth in the host railroad's PTCSP;
(iv) A statement from the host railroad's Chief Engineer and Chief
Operating Officer, or executive officers of similar qualifications,
verifying that the modified PTC system would meet all technical
requirements under this subpart, provide an equivalent or greater level
of safety than the existing PTC system, and not adversely impact
interoperability with any tenant railroads; and
(v) Any other information that FRA requests; and
(3) A host railroad shall not make any changes, as specified under
paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, to its PTC system until the
Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and
Automation approves the RFA.
(i) FRA will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the RFA
within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under paragraph
(m)(2) of this section.
(ii) FRA reserves the right to notify a railroad that changes may
proceed prior to the 45-day mark, including in an emergency or under
other circumstances necessitating a railroad's immediate implementation
of the proposed changes to its PTC system.
(iii) FRA may require a railroad to modify its RFA or its PTC
system to the extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the
requirements of this part.
(iv) Following any FRA denial of an RFA, each applicable railroad
is prohibited from making the proposed changes to its PTC system until
the railroad both sufficiently addresses FRA's questions, comments, and
concerns and obtains FRA's approval. Consistent with paragraph (l) of
this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system,
including the same certification classification under Sec.
236.1015(e), may jointly submit information to address FRA's questions,
comments, and concerns following any denial of an RFA under this
section.
0
4. Amend Sec. 236.1029 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 236.1029 PTC system use and failures.
* * * * *
(h) Biannual Report of PTC System Performance. (1) Each host
railroad
[[Page 82425]]
subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or this subpart shall electronically submit
a Biannual Report of PTC System Performance on Form FRA F 6180.152,
containing the following information for the applicable reporting
period, separated by the host railroad, each applicable tenant
railroad, and each PTC-governed track segment (e.g., territory,
subdivision, district, main line, branch, or corridor), consistent with
the railroad's PTC Implementation Plan:
(i) The total number of PTC system initialization failures, and
subtotals identifying the number of initialization failures where the
source or cause was the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem,
communications subsystem, back office subsystem, or a non-PTC
component;
(ii) The total number of PTC system cut outs, and subtotals
identifying the number of cut outs where the source or cause was the
onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, back
office subsystem, or a non-PTC component;
(iii) The total number of PTC system malfunctions, and subtotals
identifying the number of malfunctions where the source or cause was
the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem,
back office subsystem, or a non-PTC component;
(iv) The number of intended enforcements by the PTC system and any
other instances in which the PTC system prevented an accident or
incident;
(v) The number of scheduled attempts at initialization of the PTC
system;
(vi) The number of trains governed by the PTC system; and
(vii) The number of train miles governed by the PTC system.
(2) A host railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance
(Form FRA F 6180.152) shall also include a summary of any actions the
host railroad and its tenant railroads are continually taking to
improve the performance and reliability of the PTC system.
(3) Each host railroad shall electronically submit a Biannual
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA by the
following due dates: July 31 (covering the period from January 1 to
June 30), and January 31 (covering the period from July 1 to December
31 of the prior calendar year).
(4) Each tenant railroad that operates on a host railroad's PTC-
governed main line(s), unless the tenant railroad is currently subject
to an exception under Sec. 236.1006(b)(4) or (5), shall submit the
information required under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section to
each applicable host railroad by July 15 (for the report covering the
period from January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for the report
covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar
year).
Issued in Washington, DC
Quintin C. Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27097 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P