PTC NPRM October 28, 2024

85462

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

proposed regulations to make phenethyl
bromide a list I chemical under the CSA
would have on industry.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Handling of Confidential or Proprietary
Information

49 CFR Part 236

Confidential or proprietary
information may be submitted as part of
a comment regarding this advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking. Please
see the ‘‘POSTING OF PUBLIC
COMMENTS’’ section above for a
discussion of the identification and
redaction of confidential business
information and personally identifying
information.
Regulatory Analyses
This ANPRM was developed in
accordance with the principles of
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ and E.O. 14094,
‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review.’’
Because this action is an ANPRM, the
requirement of E.O. 12866 to assess the
costs and benefits of this action does not
apply.
Furthermore, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply
to this action because, at this stage, it is
an ANPRM and not a ‘‘rule’’ as defined
in 5 U.S.C. 601. Following review of the
comments received in response to this
ANPRM, if DEA proceeds with a notice
of proposed rulemaking regarding this
matter, DEA will conduct all relevant
analyses as required by statute or E.O.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on October 10, 2024, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
DEA. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024–24616 Filed 10–25–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA–2023–0064]
RIN 2130–AC95

Positive Train Control Systems
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:

FRA is proposing to amend
certain regulations governing positive
train control (PTC) systems. Since
December 31, 2020, by law, PTC
systems have generally governed rail
operations on PTC-mandated main
lines, which encompass nearly 59,000
route miles today. Through FRA’s
oversight and continued engagement
with the industry, FRA has found that
its existing PTC regulations do not
adequately address temporary situations
during which PTC technology is not
enabled, including after certain
initialization failures or in cases where
a PTC system needs to be temporarily
disabled to facilitate repair,
maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or
capital projects. FRA expects PTC
systems to be reliable and robust,
further reducing the occurrence of
initialization failures and outages. This
NPRM proposes to establish strict
parameters and operating restrictions
under which railroads may continue to
operate safely in certain necessary
scenarios when PTC technology is
temporarily not governing rail
operations. The purpose of this NPRM
is to enable continued, safe operations
and improve rail safety by facilitating
prompt repairs, upgrades, and
restoration of PTC system service.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by December 27, 2024. FRA
believes a 60-day comment period is
appropriate to allow the public to
comment on this proposed rule. FRA
will consider comments received after
that date to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Comments related to
Docket No. FRA–2023–0064 may be
submitted by going to https://
www.regulations.gov and following the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name, docket
number (FRA–2023–0064), and
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for
this rulemaking (2130–AC95). All
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov; this includes any
personal information. Please see the
Privacy Act heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for Privacy Act
information related to any submitted
comments or materials.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the
docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal, Train
Control, and Crossings Division,
telephone: 816–516–7168, email:
[email protected]; or Stephanie
Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone:
202–834–0609, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary
Information
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC
Regulations
B. Public Participation Prior to the
Issuance of the NPRM
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by
Executive Order 14094
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 13272
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
F. Environmental Impact
G. Environmental Justice
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Energy Impact
J. Privacy Act Statement
K. Tribal Consultation
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4)

I. Executive Summary
Section 20157 of title 49 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) mandates each
Class I railroad, and each entity
providing regularly scheduled intercity
or commuter rail passenger
transportation, to implement an FRAcertified PTC system on: (1) its main
lines over which poison- or toxic-byinhalation hazardous materials are
transported, if the line carries five
million or more gross tons of any annual
traffic; (2) its main lines over which
intercity or commuter rail passenger
transportation is regularly provided; and
(3) any other tracks the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

regulation or order.1 By law, PTC
systems must be designed to prevent
certain accidents or incidents, including
train-to-train collisions, over-speed
derailments, incursions into established
work zones, and movements of trains
through switches left in the wrong
position.2
Currently, 37 host railroads 3—
including 7 Class I railroads,4 24 entities
that provide regularly scheduled
intercity or commuter rail passenger
transportation (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘intercity passenger railroads or
commuter railroads,’’ respectively), and
6 Class II or III, short line, or terminal
railroads—are directly subject to the
statutory mandate. On December 29,
2020, FRA announced that railroads had
fully implemented FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC systems on all PTCmandated main lines.5 49 U.S.C.
20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(7).
Today, PTC technology is governing
rail operations on nearly 59,000 route
miles. Based on FRA’s oversight of PTC
technology since FRA last amended its
PTC regulations in 2021, FRA identified
three aspects of its existing PTC
regulations that warrant revision to
address ongoing challenges. Overall, the
proposed amendments would benefit
the railroad industry, the public, and
FRA by facilitating repairs,
maintenance, upgrades, and capital
improvements; expanding certain
railroad informational requirements;
reducing costs; and enabling the safe,
1 See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public
Law 110–432, section 104, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16,
2008), as amended by the Positive Train Control
Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015,
Public Law 114–73, 129 Stat. 568 (Oct. 29, 2015);
the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act,
Public Law 114–94, section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312
(Dec. 4, 2015); and the Passenger Rail Expansion
and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law 117–58,
section 22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 2021),
codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also
49 CFR part 236, subpart I.
2 See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR
236.1005 (setting forth the technical specifications).
3 As this proposed rule primarily focuses on host
railroads, FRA references the current number of
PTC-mandated host railroads (37). A host railroad
is ‘‘a railroad that has effective operating control
over a segment of track,’’ and a tenant railroad is
‘‘a railroad, other than a host railroad, operating on
track upon which a PTC system is required.’’ See
49 CFR 236.1003(b).
4 FRA acknowledges that one Class I railroad
(Canadian Pacific Railway) recently acquired a
second Class I railroad (Kansas City Southern
Railway). However, for purposes of FRA’s PTC
regulations and related oversight, FRA is currently
counting these railroads separately, as they
presently submit separate PTC filings and have
indicated they will do so unless and until they fully
integrate their PTC systems.
5 Federal Railroad Administration, FRA
Announces Landmark Achievement with Full
Implementation of Positive Train Control (Dec. 29,
2020), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/
fra.dot.gov/files/2020-12/fra1920.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

reliable, and resilient movement of
people and goods, while preserving rail
safety.
This NPRM proposes to establish
strict parameters and operating
restrictions under which railroads may
continue to operate safely in three
specific scenarios when PTC technology
is temporarily not governing rail
operations:
1. When non-revenue passenger
equipment needs to operate to a
maintenance facility or yard, for the sole
purpose of repairing or exchanging PTC
technology;
2. When a PTC system needs to be
temporarily disabled to facilitate repair,
maintenance, an infrastructure upgrade,
or a capital project; and
3. When a system-level or widescale
problem occurs resulting in multiple
trains’ PTC systems failing to initialize.
FRA’s objective in this rulemaking is
to establish clear, uniform processes,
rather than addressing issues that arise
in a reactive and piecemeal manner.
FRA expects that establishing
predictable, prescriptive processes will
both enable continued operations and
improve railroad safety by facilitating
prompt repairs, upgrades, and
restoration of PTC system service and
eliminating uncertainty and
inconsistent application of FRA’s
regulations. FRA’s proposed parameters
and operating restrictions in this NPRM
are intended to be sufficiently strict to
ensure that railroads and PTC system
suppliers and vendors proactively
identify and remedy problems before
they arise and immediately correct any
problems that may surface despite
proactive measures.
First, FRA is proposing to establish an
exception, under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6),
to permit, under certain conditions,
non-revenue passenger equipment to
operate to maintenance facilities or
yards, without being governed by PTC
technology. This NPRM proposes to
extend the exception currently afforded
to certain freight movements to
movements of non-revenue passenger
equipment, including equipment that is
owned or controlled by an intercity
passenger railroad or commuter
railroad.
This proposed exception would
enable non-revenue passenger
equipment, including a locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train without
passengers onboard, to operate to a
maintenance facility or yard for the sole
purpose of repairing or exchanging 6 a
6 FRA’s existing regulations, including 49 CFR
236.1029(b)(6), refer to repairing or exchanging a
PTC system or component. To clarify, FRA notes
that ‘‘exchange’’ is intended to refer to the

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

85463

PTC system or component. Commuter
railroads have informed FRA this
proposed exception would be beneficial
and necessary, as it would enable them,
for example, to operate a PTC-equipped
locomotive, where the onboard PTC
technology is not functioning and
requires repair, to a maintenance facility
or yard to repair or exchange the PTC
system. To ensure rail safety, FRA is
proposing to impose six conditions on
each movement of non-revenue
passenger equipment subject to this
exception, including speed and distance
restrictions, the requirement to establish
an absolute block (meaning no other
traffic may be present in the area), and
other protections of the route.
Second, FRA proposes to improve the
existing process, under 49 CFR
236.1021(m), that railroads currently
utilize to request and obtain FRA’s
approval to disable their PTC systems
temporarily when necessary to facilitate
repair, maintenance, infrastructure
upgrades, and capital projects. This
NPRM proposes to add paragraph (m)(4)
to existing § 236.1021 to focus on this
specific type of request for amendment
(RFA) to PTC systems (i.e., where a
temporary PTC system outage is
proposed), as it is different from the
other types of RFAs that railroads
submit under § 236.1021 and requires
additional FRA oversight.
FRA proposes to require railroads to
provide additional, essential
information in an RFA that seeks to
temporarily disable a PTC system to
enable FRA to evaluate more fully the
scope, circumstances, and necessity of a
proposed temporary outage and
properly determine whether granting
the request is in the public interest and
consistent with railroad safety. For
example, this NPRM proposes to impose
nine additional content requirements for
this specific type of RFA, including
certain justifications, safety analyses,
mitigations, and other documentation to
demonstrate the proposed outage is as
narrow in scope, impact, and duration,
as possible.
Third, FRA proposes to reintroduce as
a permanent provision a version of a
temporary provision regarding PTC
system initialization failures, which
expired on December 31, 2022.7 The
expired regulatory provision previously
permitted any train, including an
individual train, to keep operating
subject to certain restrictions, if the train
failed to initialize for any reason prior
to the train’s departure from its initial
terminal. In FRA’s 2014 final rule, FRA
industry’s practice of, for example, swapping out a
defective component for a functioning component.
7 See 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(2).

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85464

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

authorized this provision temporarily,
recognizing that ‘‘there may be issues
that could be identified and resolved in
the early days following PTC system
implementation and revenue service
operation.’’ 8 In 2014, FRA also observed
that ‘‘[e]xperience over these
intervening years will provide more
empirical data on PTC system
reliability, and may be a basis for FRA
to revisit this issue at a later date should
circumstances warrant.’’ 9
FRA’s intention in this NPRM, by
proposing to reintroduce an updated
version of this provision, is to address
only system-level outages or failures
that result in multiple trains’ PTC
systems failing to initialize, impacting
the trains of the host railroad and often
most, if not all, of its tenant railroads.
Currently, if a PTC system fails to
initialize, trains are generally prohibited
from operating, which has resulted in
situations where passengers could be
stranded, and vital freight shipments
halted.
Although PTC technology is generally
reliable and robust, it is a complex
technology, composed of many
subsystems and dependent on external
networks, and it continues to experience

unplanned outages. For example,
railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC
System Performance 10 show that PTC
technology failed to initialize on
approximately 236 intercity passenger
or commuter trains and 894 freight
trains in 2023.11 Additionally, based on
voluntary reporting by railroads, FRA is
aware of eight (8) system-level outages
that occurred in 2023 that caused
multiple trains to fail to initialize.
FRA is proposing to impose two tiers
of operating restrictions that would
become increasingly restrictive as time
passes, to ensure both that railroads
utilize any operating flexibility only
when necessary and that railroads and
their vendors and suppliers identify and
resolve issues promptly. FRA expects
this will help strike the appropriate
balance between enabling continued
operations subject to speed restrictions,
pending resolution of a PTC failure, and
restoring PTC systems as quickly as
possible. In short, if a PTC system fails
to initialize, impacting multiple trains,
FRA proposes to permit railroads to
continue operating for 24 hours, subject
to the operating restrictions, including
speed limits, that previously applied to
initialization failures and that currently

apply to en route failures.12 After the
first 24 hours, FRA proposes to impose
a significant speed limit of restricted
speed, among other restrictions, both to
help ensure rail safety and to propel the
industry to act quickly to restore PTC
system service.
FRA analyzed the economic impact of
this proposed rule over a 10-year period
and estimated its benefits and costs,
which are shown in the table below.
The total estimated 10-year net benefits
would be $81.8 million (discounted at 2
percent), and the annualized net
benefits would be $9.1 million
(discounted at 2 percent). The industry
benefits associated with FRA’s proposal
to amend three provisions—i.e., to
introduce a new exception for certain
non-revenue passenger equipment
movements, improve the RFA process
regarding temporary PTC system
outages, and permit continued
operations following certain
initialization failures, subject to
operating restrictions—would outweigh
the industry costs and government
administrative costs associated with
FRA’s proposal to expand the content
requirements for RFAs related to
temporary outages.

TABLE A—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS
[2023 Dollars] 1
Present
value 2%
($)

Present
value 3%
($)

Present
value 7%
($)

Industry Benefits ........................................................
Total Costs .................................................................
Industry Costs ............................................................
Government Administrative Costs .............................

83,534,444
1,760,775
1,514,075
246,700

80,105,191
1,688,492
1,451,919
236,573

68,518,285
1,444,258
1,241,905
202,353

9,299,600
196,021
168,557
27,464

9,390,772
197,943
170,209
27,734

9,755,462
205,630
176,819
28,811

Net Benefits 2 ......................................................

81,773,669

78,416,699

67,074,027

9,103,579

9,192,829

9,549,832

Category

Annualized
2%
($)

Annualized
3%
($)

Annualized
7%
($)

1 Numbers

in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and benefits are calculated in this
analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present
value at the particular discount rate is: 1/(1+r)t, where ‘‘r’’ is the discount rate, and ‘‘t’’ is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used in
this analysis.
2 Net Benefits = Industry Benefits ¥ (Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and operating PTC systems.

II. Background
A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC
Regulations
Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 required the
Secretary to prescribe PTC regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

8 79

FR 49693, 49706 (Aug. 22, 2014).

9 Id.
10 Form FRA F 6180.152, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2130–0553; 49
U.S.C. 20157(m) (as amended by the Passenger Rail
Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law
117–58, section 22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15,
2021)).
11 The referenced initialization failures exclude
any initialization failures where the source or cause
was the onboard subsystem, as proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

necessary to implement the statutory
mandate, including regulations
specifying the essential technical
functionalities of PTC systems and how
FRA certifies PTC systems.13 The
Secretary delegated to the Administrator
of the Federal Railroad Administration

the authority to carry out the functions
and exercise the authority vested in the
Secretary by the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR
1.89(b).
In accordance with its authority under
49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49 CFR 1.89(b),

§ 236.1029(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures
from receiving the flexibility afforded under
proposed § 236.1029(g), as they typically impact
one train. FRA is citing to the relevant initialization
failures where the source or cause was, for example,
the back office, wayside, or communications
subsystems because those types of issues would
generally impact more than one train and would be
within the scope of this proposed provision.
12 An en route failure is a situation where a
controlling locomotive experiences a ‘‘PTC system

failure or the PTC system is otherwise cut out while
en route (i.e., after the train has departed its initial
terminal).’’ 49 CFR 236.1029(b) (emphasis added).
FRA’s current regulations provide that when an en
route failure occurs, a train may continue operating
in accordance with certain restrictions, including
speed limits that are based on the underlying signal
or train control system still in effect, outlined under
49 CFR 236.1029(b)(1) through (6).
13 Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16,
2008), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
FRA published its first final PTC rule on
January 15, 2010, which is set forth, as
amended, under 49 CFR part 236,
subpart I.14 FRA’s PTC regulations
under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I,
prescribe ‘‘minimum, performancebased safety standards for PTC systems
. . . including requirements to ensure
that the development, functionality,
architecture, installation,
implementation, inspection, testing,
operation, maintenance, repair, and
modification of those PTC systems will
achieve and maintain an acceptable
level of safety.’’ 49 CFR 236.1001(a).
FRA subsequently amended its PTC
regulations via final rules published in
2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2021.15
Most recently, on July 27, 2021, FRA
amended its PTC regulations to improve
the process by which railroads submit,
and FRA reviews, RFAs to railroads’
FRA-certified PTC systems and their
associated PTC Safety Plans (PTCSPs),
and to establish more robust reporting
requirements to enable FRA to oversee
the reliability and performance of
railroads’ PTC systems effectively. Also,
in January 2023, FRA announced that it
issued a guidance document addressing
requirements related to the submission
of requests for waivers, applications to
modify or discontinue a signal system,
and other special approval requests to
FRA, and FRA underscored the
importance of ensuring that railroads’
filings contain sufficient, nonconfidential information for the public
to review and on which to comment.16
In this proposed rule, FRA proposes
to revise three sections, 49 CFR
236.1006, 236.1021, and 236.1029, of
FRA’s existing PTC regulations pursuant
to its specific authority under 49 CFR
1.89 and 49 U.S.C. 20157(g), and its
general authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103
to prescribe regulations and issue orders
for every area of railroad safety.
B. Public Participation Prior to the
Issuance of the NPRM
FRA regularly engages with host
railroads, tenant railroads, PTC system
vendors and suppliers, industry
associations, and labor organizations, as
part of FRA’s oversight of railroads’
14 75

FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010).
75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285
(May 14, 2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81
FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016); and 86 FR 40154 (July
27, 2021).
16 88 FR 1448 (Jan. 10, 2023); Federal Railroad
Administration, Guidance on Submitting Requests
for Waivers, Block Signal Applications, and Other
Approval Requests to FRA (Dec. 2022), available at
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/
2022-12/Guidance%20on%20Submitting%20
Waiver%20Special%20Approval%20Other%20
Requests%20for%20Approval%20
to%20FRA%20%28Dec%202022%29%20final.pdf.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

15 See

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

operation of PTC systems on the
mandated main lines under 49 U.S.C.
20157 and the other lines where
railroads are voluntarily implementing
PTC technology. The purpose of this
section is to summarize FRA’s pertinent
meetings prior to the issuance of this
NPRM, pursuant to 49 CFR 5.5.
From November 2023 to February
2024, FRA met with the following four
industry associations and their member
railroads to discuss the objectives of this
NPRM and solicit their feedback: the
American Public Transportation
Association (APTA), the American
Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association (ASLRRA), the Association
of American Railroads (AAR), and the
Commuter Rail Coalition (CRC).
Representatives from the following 35
Class I railroads, commuter and
passenger railroads, and short line and
regional railroads, listed alphabetically,
attended one or more of the AAR,
APTA,17 ASLRRA, and CRC meetings
referenced immediately above: Alaska
Railroad; Altamont Corridor Express;
BNSF Railway (BNSF); Canadian
National Railway (CN); Canadian Pacific
Kansas City Limited (CPKC); Capital
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(CMTY); Central Florida Rail Corridor
(CFRC); CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX);
Denton County Transportation
Authority; Genesee & Wyoming Inc.
(G&W); Long Island Rail Road (LIRR);
Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC);
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA); Metro-North
Railroad (Metro-North); National
Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak); New Jersey Transit (NJT);
New Mexico Rail Runner Express;
Norfolk Southern Railway (NS); North
County Transit District (NCTD);
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter
Railroad Corporation (Metra); Northern
Indiana Commuter Transportation
District (NICD); Northstar Commuter
Rail; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board (Caltrain); Regional
Transportation District (Denver RTDC);
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART); Sound Transit; South Florida
Regional Transportation Authority
(SFRTA); Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA);
Southern California Regional Rail
Authority (Metrolink); TEXRail; TriCounty Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon (TriMet); Trinity
Railway Express (TRE); Union Pacific
Railroad (UP); Utah Transit Authority
17 In addition to FRA’s meeting with APTA, FRA
met with the following two user groups in February
2024, as coordinated through APTA: the Enhanced
Automatic Train Control (E–ATC) User Group and
the Interoperable Electronic Train Management
System (I–ETMS) User Group.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

85465

(UTA FrontRunner); and Virginia
Railway Express (VRE).
In addition, for the same purpose,
FRA met with the following 10 labor
organizations in February 2024: the
American Train Dispatchers Association
(ATDA); the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of
the Rail Conference of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET); the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employes Division of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED);
the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(BRS); the Brotherhood of Railway
Carmen Division, Transportation
Communications International Union
(BRC); the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers
(IAM); the International Association of
Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and
Transportation Workers—
Transportation Division (SMART–TD);
the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW); the
Transport Workers Union of America
(TWU); and the Transportation Trades
Department, AFL–CIO (TTD).
In general, the four industry
associations and 35 railroads strongly
supported the three objectives of this
NPRM. The labor organizations FRA
met with supported FRA’s objective of
enabling operations while maintaining
rail safety, but they expressed concern
that regulatory flexibility might have the
unintended consequence of degrading
safety or delaying repairs to PTC
technology. Accordingly, with all
feedback in mind, FRA drafted its
proposed requirements and restrictions
in 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6),
236.1021(m)(4), and 236.1029(g) to
prioritize rail safety, address limited
circumstances for facilitating repairs,
maintenance, and infrastructure
upgrades, and enable the safe, reliable,
and resilient movement of passengers,
commuters, and freight.
As the detailed feedback the
associations, railroads, and labor
organizations provided during the
meetings was directed at a specific
proposal in this NPRM, FRA discusses
the feedback in the appropriate portions
of Section III (Section-by-Section
Analysis) of this NPRM.
The proposals in this NPRM are based
on FRA’s own review and analysis and,
in part, on the feedback provided during
the meetings in 2023 and 2024,
specified above. FRA seeks comments
on all proposals made in this NPRM.

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85466

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

III. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 236.1006 Equipping
Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory
Existing paragraph (b) in § 236.1006
contains a list of exceptions to the
general requirement under paragraph (a)
that each locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train that operates on any
PTC-governed track segment ‘‘be
controlled by a locomotive equipped
with an onboard PTC apparatus that is
fully operative and functioning in
accordance with the applicable PTCSP
approved under this subpart.’’ 49 CFR
236.1006(a), (b)(1) through (5).
FRA proposes to add a new exception,
under proposed paragraph (b)(6), to
permit non-revenue passenger
equipment to operate to maintenance
facilities or yards, without being
governed by PTC technology, under
certain conditions. Currently, a similar
exception is available only to freight
railroads under existing paragraph (b)(5)
of this section. The purpose of new
proposed paragraph (b)(6) is to extend
that type of exception to movements of
certain non-revenue passenger
equipment, which would include
equipment owned or controlled by an
intercity passenger railroad or
commuter railroad.
The sole purpose of new proposed
paragraph (b)(6) is to enable nonrevenue passenger equipment, including
a locomotive, locomotive consist, or
train, to operate to a maintenance
facility or yard for the purpose of
repairing or exchanging a PTC system.
During FRA’s APTA and CRC meetings
in February 2024, several commuter
railroads, including CMTY, MARC,
Metro-North, NICD, and NJT,
commented that this proposed
exception would be beneficial and
necessary, as it would enable them, for
example, to operate a PTC-equipped
locomotive, where the onboard PTC
technology is not functioning and
requires repair, to a maintenance facility
or yard to repair or exchange the PTC
system or component. Without this
proposed provision, intercity passenger
railroads and commuter railroads would
need to utilize rescue trains or, in other
words, use an operative, PTC-equipped
locomotive, locomotive consist, or train
to move the non-operative, PTCequipped equipment to a maintenance
facility or yard. This proposed provision
will enable a railroad to repair the
equipment more efficiently, thus
helping improve rail safety.
During FRA’s meetings in February
2024, commuter railroads cited often
experiencing issues with transporting
equipment requiring repair to their
maintenance facilities, including

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

unavailability of equipment and
cascading schedule delays, and they
supported this proposed exception,
even though it would potentially
constrain some operations. For example,
the introductory text of proposed
paragraph (b)(6) makes it clear that this
proposed exception would apply only to
non-revenue movements, meaning no
intercity passenger or commuter rail
service could be provided while moving
this equipment not governed by a PTC
system.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through
(v) and (vii) outline the six additional
conditions FRA proposes an intercity
passenger railroad or commuter railroad
must satisfy while utilizing this
proposed exception. First, proposed
paragraph (b)(6)(i) would limit the
speed of the locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train to a maximum of 49
miles per hour (mph), which is
significantly slower than the normal
maximum authorized speed for
passenger equipment, which generally
ranges between 79 mph and 150 mph.
Second, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(ii)
would require an absolute block 18 to be
established in front of the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train. This would
help ensure safety by essentially
eliminating the possibility of a train-totrain collision. During FRA’s February
2024 meetings, CMTY, SMART, and
UTA FrontRunner commented that they
currently use absolute blocks in similar
circumstances and supported the
proposal of this condition.
Third, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iii)
specifies that there cannot be any
working limits established under part
214 of this chapter on any part of the
route. FRA proposes to eliminate the
risk of an incursion into an established
work zone by not permitting work zones
or any roadway workers at all on the
route the non-revenue passenger
equipment uses to reach the
maintenance facility or yard to repair or
exchange its PTC technology. To be
clear, roadway workers may not perform
any work on the route where the nonrevenue passenger equipment operates
subject to this proposed exception, until
after the equipment arrives at its
destination, the maintenance facility or
yard.
Fourth, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iv)
specifies that the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train could
operate in non-revenue service no
farther than the next forward location
designated in the railroad’s PTCSP for
18 Under

49 CFR 236.709, an absolute block is
defined as a ‘‘block in which no train is permitted
to enter while it is occupied by another train.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

the repair or exchange 19 of PTC
technology. During FRA’s meeting with
labor organizations in February 2024,
BLET and BRS commented that they
were concerned a railroad might utilize
this proposed exception to avoid
repairing the PTC system or to delay
repairing the PTC system by operating
the equipment to a more distant repair
location than available.
Relatedly, during a meeting in
February 2024, NICD observed that the
structure of commuter rail operations
would inherently prevent railroads from
overusing any exception or provision
that involves speed restrictions because
of the negative impact that has on their
operations. For example, even a single
train operating at a slower speed can
create scheduling issues and cascading
delays for commuter trains. In addition,
FRA expects that its proposed
conditions, including the imposition of
a speed restriction, the prohibition
against work zones, and an absolute
block requirement, would prevent
overuse of this exception. Also, FRA
crafted proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iv)
with BLET and BRS’s comments in
mind, and this proposed condition
would explicitly prohibit the nonrevenue passenger equipment from
operating farther than the next forward
designated location in the railroad’s
FRA-approved PTCSP.
Fifth, similar to a condition in the
existing freight version of this exception
in paragraph (b)(5) of this section,
proposed (b)(6)(v) would require the
railroad to protect the route against
conflicting operations and establish and
comply with sufficient operating rules
to protect against a train-to-train
collision and the movement of a train
through a switch left in the wrong or
improper position. This condition
would further reduce the possibility of
a train-to-train collision as it would
address traffic on intersecting tracks.
Furthermore, to protect against the
movement of a train through a switch
left in the wrong or improper position,
a railroad’s operating rules could, for
example, explain that the railroad
utilizes a system or technology capable
of monitoring switches. If a railroad
does not have such a system or
technology, a switch’s position must be
manually verified before any movement
over the switch points. To accomplish
this, a switch tender must check the
switch, or the train crew must stop and
then confirm the switch position before
operating over the switch.
19 To clarify, FRA notes that ‘‘exchange’’ is
intended to refer to the industry’s practice of, for
example, swapping out a defective component for
a functioning component.

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
During an FRA meeting in February
2024, SFRTA inquired whether FRA
intends to limit the distance of the
movement of non-revenue passenger
equipment in this proposed exception,
as it does in the freight railroad
exception in existing paragraph (b)(5).
FRA notes that the purpose of the two
exceptions is different: the purpose of
the freight exception in paragraph (b)(5)
is to facilitate freight switching and
freight transfer train service, including
in revenue service, in or near yards,
whereas the purpose of the proposed
paragraph (b)(6) exception would be to
enable non-revenue passenger
equipment to reach maintenance
facilities or yards, without being
governed by PTC technology, for the
specific purpose of repairing or
exchanging a PTC system. The
commuter railroad SMART commented
that it would not be possible to identify
a specific distance that applies to all
cases because the distance to each
intercity passenger or commuter
railroad’s maintenance facilities and
yards, based on the starting point, is
unique. FRA agrees, as the applicable
distance varies greatly based on case-bycase circumstances. Accordingly, rather
than imposing an exact distance limit,
FRA expects that the five conditions in
proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through
(v) would sufficiently define the scope
of this exception.
Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vi)
provides that FRA may, in its discretion,
approve alternative criteria and
conditions, in a PTCSP or an RFA to a
PTCSP, if the railroad demonstrates that
the alternative criteria and conditions
would provide an equivalent or greater
level of safety than the default criteria
and conditions. FRA is proposing to add
this paragraph to mirror that
discretionary element of the freight yard
movements exception in existing
paragraph (b)(5)(vii). Proposed
paragraph (b)(6)(vi) provides the
opportunity for railroads to propose
alternative applications of this
exception to FRA for review and
approval. An intercity passenger
railroad or commuter railroad must
obtain FRA’s approval only if it seeks to
use alternative exception criteria or
conditions under proposed paragraph
(b)(6)(vi), whereas the standard
exception for non-revenue passenger
equipment movements would be
immediately available for use for any
movement that meets all default criteria
and conditions in proposed paragraphs
(b)(6)(i) through (v).20
20 FRA notes that railroads would report any use
of the proposed exception under 49 CFR
236.1006(b)(6) in their Quarterly Reports of PTC

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vii)
imposes a notification requirement that
a railroad must satisfy before moving
non-revenue passenger equipment
pursuant to this exception. Specifically,
this paragraph proposes that before
utilizing the default exception under
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (v) or the
discretionary exception under
paragraph (b)(6)(vi), the railroad must
notify each person involved with the
movement of the non-revenue passenger
equipment, including any dispatchers
and train crews, in addition to any
roadway workers who may no longer
work on that segment during the
movement subject to this exception.
Section 236.1021 Discontinuances,
Material Modifications, and
Amendments
On December 31, 2022, the regulatory
provision under 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(3)
expired, which previously permitted a
railroad to temporarily disable its PTC
system when necessary to perform PTC
system repair or maintenance, after
notifying an FRA regional office. As
§ 236.1029(g)(3) has expired, a simple
notification to FRA no longer suffices,
and a railroad must obtain FRA’s
approval through an RFA pursuant to 49
CFR 236.1021(m) before a railroad
temporarily disables its PTC system and
continues rail operations.
The purpose of existing § 236.1021, in
relevant part, is to prohibit a railroad
from making certain changes to its PTC
system or disabling or discontinuing its
PTC system, unless the railroad first
submits an RFA to its PTC system with
certain information and obtains FRA’s
approval.
This NPRM proposes to add a new
paragraph (m)(4) to § 236.1021 to clarify
that the RFA process under existing
paragraph (m) applies to a case where a
railroad seeks to temporarily disable its
PTC system, and to continue operations
during that time, to facilitate repair,
maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or
capital projects. During FRA’s meetings
with AAR, APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and
their member railroads in November
2023 and February 2024 to discuss this
NPRM, these four associations and
several railroads, including all Class I
railroads, Alaska Railroad, Amtrak,
G&W, Metra, Metro-North, Metrolink,
and SFRTA, expressed general support
for FRA’s proposal to revise existing
paragraph (m) to acknowledge explicitly
that it covers RFAs to PTC systems
involving temporary outages.
System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB
Control No. 2130–0553), as either a ‘‘cut out’’ or
‘‘initialization failure’’ depending on the
circumstances and based on the definitions under
49 CFR 236.1003.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

85467

Specifically, proposed paragraph
(m)(4) clarifies that a host railroad must
utilize the RFA process under paragraph
(m) to request and obtain FRA’s
approval of a temporary PTC system
outage, during which train movements
may continue, including a short-term
outage related to repair, maintenance,
an infrastructure upgrade, or a capital
project.21 To provide non-exhaustive
examples of what a temporary PTC
system outage includes, proposed
paragraph (m)(4) clarifies that the term
includes, but is not limited to, any
scenario when the onboard PTC
apparatus or subsystem, wayside
subsystem, communications subsystem,
or back office subsystem would be
disabled. FRA interprets the term
‘‘disabled’’ broadly and acknowledges
the industry also uses the verb
‘‘disengage’’ interchangeably in this
context.
Consistent with the current process
under existing paragraph (m), proposed
paragraph (m)(4)(i) provides that a
railroad may temporarily disable PTC
technology pursuant to this paragraph
only after it obtains approval from the
Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad
Systems and Technology.
Based on FRA’s experience reviewing
RFAs involving temporary outages
throughout 2023 and 2024 to date, FRA
found that the current content
requirements for RFAs to PTC systems
under existing paragraph (m)(2) do not
yield sufficient information for FRA to
assess the full scope and circumstances
of each proposed temporary outage.
Accordingly, proposed paragraphs
(m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I) identify nine
additional content elements this type of
RFA must include, in addition to the
standard content requirements under
paragraph (m)(2), which apply to a
broader cross-section of RFAs to PTC
systems and PTCSPs.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A)
would require this specific type of RFA
to describe the necessity for the
proposed temporary outage. For
example, in 2023 and 2024, railroads
have filed RFAs seeking to temporarily
disable a PTC system to facilitate the
installation of automatic train control or
a new interlocking, or to execute an
upgrade of a computer-aided dispatch
system, a back office server migration or
replacement, or an electrical
infrastructure upgrade. This section of
the RFA would explain why temporarily
21 Several railroads have expressed that their
chief concern is a path forward for undertaking
non-PTC-related capital projects that necessitate
temporarily disabling the PTC system, and FRA is
using the general term ‘‘capital projects’’ in this
NPRM to avoid any ambiguity and clarify that this
process applies to such projects.

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

85468

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

disabling a PTC system is technically
necessary to perform that type of repair,
maintenance, infrastructure upgrade, or
capital project.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(B)
would require the RFA to describe the
physical limits and PTC system
functions that would be affected by the
proposed temporary outage. This
section of the RFA would require an
analysis that demonstrates the affected
physical limits and affected functions
pose the least risk to railroad safety,
compared to other options. To assess the
RFA, FRA needs to understand the exact
location(s) that will be impacted,
including milepost limits and other
descriptors. Identifying the precise PTC
system functions that would be
impacted is also essential for FRA to
understand the scope of the temporary
outage, as an outage might impact only
a narrow set of PTC system capabilities.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(C)
would require the RFA to include an
explanation about how the proposed
temporary outage is in the public
interest and consistent with railroad
safety. Existing § 236.1021(f) requires
FRA to determine whether granting a
request is in the public interest and
consistent with railroad safety, and it is
important for an RFA to provide such
information.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(D)
would require the railroad to provide
the proposed timeframe of the
temporary outage and an analysis that
demonstrates the proposed period poses
the least risk to railroad safety,
compared to other times. This proposal
mirrors a similar requirement under
former § 236.1029(g)(3)(ii), which
expired in December 2022. FRA has
seen railroads prudently identify the
timeslot of a specific day of the week
with the least traffic, which is what FRA
expects this content requirement will
help ensure in future RFAs.
As a note, FRA has also seen cases
where a railroad avoids needing to
submit and obtain FRA’s approval of an
RFA involving a temporary outage, as
the railroad either ceases all operations
until it finishes the relevant work, or the
railroad selects a time when no trains
will operate. FRA commends railroads
for structuring their projects that way
and expects railroads to submit an RFA,
seeking to disable its PTC system
temporarily with continued rail service,
under proposed paragraph (m)(4) only
when ceasing operations would not be
feasible.
Relatedly, proposed paragraph
(m)(4)(ii)(E) would require the RFA to
include both a justification and an
analysis that show how the proposed
duration of the temporary outage is the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

minimum time necessary to complete
the pertinent work, test the PTC system,
and place the PTC system back into
service without undue delay. FRA
highlights that proposed paragraph
(m)(4) is intended to address short-term
outages only, and FRA will deny an
RFA that seeks to disable a PTC system
for an unreasonable, extensive period.
In general, PTC-mandated main lines
must be governed by PTC technology,
given the presence of intercity passenger
rail, commuter rail, or certain freight
transportation. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C.
20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b),
236.1006(a). Railroads must show how
the length of the proposed temporary
outage is the minimum amount of time
needed based on the circumstances,
which could include outlining a precise
schedule and the number of hours
involved in each phase and
justifications for each timeframe.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(F)
would require the RFA to outline the
type and frequency of rail operations
that would continue during the
proposed temporary outage, including
those of the host railroad and each
tenant railroad.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(G)
would require the RFA to identify the
applicable speed limit of any train that
would operate during the proposed
temporary outage, and any other
operating restrictions in place to ensure
rail safety. For example, a properly
drafted RFA will outline the railroad’s
proposed reduced speed for each type of
freight train, based on the commodity
transported, and each intercity
passenger or commuter train, compared
to the normal authorized speeds.
Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(H)
would require the railroad to specify in
its RFA the additional safety measures
that the host railroad and each tenant
railroad must comply with during the
proposed temporary outage, to ensure
each type of PTC-preventable accident
or incident does not occur. Specifically,
such safety measures must be designed
to prevent a train-to-train collision, an
over-speed derailment, an incursion
into an established work zone, and a
movement of a train through a switch
left in the wrong position. It is integral
that FRA understands exactly how the
railroad will mitigate and eliminate the
risk of each type of PTC-preventable
accident and incident during the shortterm PTC system outage. For example,
a railroad might propose to utilize an
absolute block to mitigate and eliminate
the risk of a train-to-train collision,
enforce speed limits through the use of
other technology, suspend the
establishment of work zones, and

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

protect switches through other specific
means.
Finally, proposed paragraph
(m)(4)(ii)(I) would require the railroad to
confirm in its RFA that each impacted
railroad (including the host railroad and
any applicable tenant railroads) will
notify all applicable dispatchers, train
crews, and roadway workers about the
temporary PTC system outage (if FRA
authorizes it), including the specific
location and duration of the temporary
outage, the additional safety measures
with which the railroad must comply,
and any actions the individual must
take during the temporary outage. FRA
expects that the proposed specific
information an RFA must contain under
proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A)
through (H) would aid the railroad in
these notifications. The railroad may
make these notifications in accordance
with the railroad’s operating rules and
practices, which may require, for
example, such information to be
provided via track bulletins, dispatcher
bulletins, or special instructions.
Also, FRA notes that its 45-day
review-and-decision period under
existing paragraph (m) begins when a
railroad properly files a complete RFA
with all information required under
paragraph (m). To be clear, the 45-day
clock will not begin on that initial filing
date, if an RFA to a PTC system,
involving a temporary outage, fails to
include any of the contents explicitly
required under existing paragraphs
(m)(2)(i) through (iv) or the additional
content requirements FRA is proposing
in paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I).22
Instead, consistent with the current
§ 236.1021(m) process, the 45-day clock
begins on the date the railroad or
railroads properly submit any remaining
information required under existing
paragraph (m)(2)(i) through (iv) and
proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A)
through (I). FRA expects this will help
ensure a railroad submits a complete
RFA, with all required information, in
its initial filing.
In addition, FRA acknowledges that it
currently publishes a notice in the
Federal Register when a railroad
submits an RFA to its PTC system under
existing § 236.1021(m) and invites
public comment on the RFA. See 49
CFR 236.1021(e). During FRA’s meeting
with labor organizations in February
2024, TTD requested confirmation that
FRA will not eliminate the opportunity
for the public to comment on these
RFAs. FRA confirmed during that
22 Consistent with FRA’s current practice, if an
RFA is missing required information, an FRA PTC
specialist will contact the railroad via email to
inform the railroad of the missing, required
content(s).

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
meeting that RFAs submitted pursuant
to proposed paragraph (m)(4), like all
RFAs submitted pursuant to paragraph
(m), will be announced in the Federal
Register, and the public will be afforded
an opportunity to review and comment
on such RFAs. That notice and
comment requirement under
§ 236.1021(e) is outside the scope of this
NPRM and will remain part of FRA’s
regulations. As a reminder, FRA’s
December 2022 guidance document
underscores the importance of ensuring
that railroads’ filings contain sufficient,
non-confidential information for the
public to review and on which to
comment.23

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and
Failures
Currently, paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3), entitled ‘‘Temporary exceptions,’’ of
this section set forth expired
regulations. Specifically, existing
paragraph (g) indicates that paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) were in effect from
October 21, 2014, through December 31,
2022. FRA proposes to replace existing
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) with new
provisions that deal directly with
initialization failures. FRA’s existing
regulations, at 49 CFR 236.1003, define
‘‘initialization failure’’ as ‘‘any instance
when a PTC system fails to activate on
a locomotive or train, unless the PTC
system successfully activates during a
subsequent attempt in the same location
or before entering PTC-governed
territory.’’ 24 In relevant part, nowexpired paragraph (g)(2) previously
permitted any train to continue
operating subject to certain speed limits,
potentially indefinitely, if a PTC system
failed to initialize for any reason.
FRA recognizes that unplanned
outages and other technical issues
continue to occur, causing PTC systems
to fail to initialize, based on FRA’s
oversight and railroads’ Quarterly
Reports of PTC System Performance.25
Railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC
23 88 FR 1448 (Jan. 10, 2023); Federal Railroad
Administration, Guidance on Submitting Requests
for Waivers, Block Signal Applications, and Other
Approval Requests to FRA (Dec. 2022), available at
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/
2022-12//Guidance%20/on%20/Submitting%20/
Waiver%20/Special%20Approval%20/
Other%20Requests%20/for%20Approval%20/
to%20FRA%20%28/Dec%202022%29%/20final./
pdf.
24 The definition under 49 CFR 236.1003 also
clarifies, ‘‘For the types of PTC systems that do not
initialize by design, a failed departure test is
considered an initialization failure for purposes of
the reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h),
unless the PTC system successfully passes the
departure test during a subsequent attempt in the
same location or before entering PTC-governed
territory.’’
25 Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB Control No. 2130–
0553; 49 U.S.C. 20157(m).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

System Performance show, for example,
that PTC technology failed to initialize
on approximately 236 intercity
passenger or commuter trains and 894
freight trains in 2023.26 Additionally,
FRA, based on voluntary reporting by
railroads, is aware of eight (8) systemlevel outages that occurred in 2023 that
caused trains to fail to initialize.
During FRA’s meetings in November
2023 and February 2024, AAR, APTA,
ASLRRA, CRC, and many railroads 27
conveyed strong support for FRA’s
proposal to reintroduce requirements
analogous to the provision that expired
in 2022. Consistent with FRA’s own
observations, AAR, APTA, ASLRRA,
CRC, and their member railroads
underscored the need for FRA to
establish a process to enable railroads to
continue operating safely, following
certain initialization failures, because
otherwise freight, intercity passenger,
and commuter trains will be unable to
depart from their initial terminals or
other locations and provide necessary
transportation.
Specifically, FRA’s intention in this
NPRM is to address only system-level
outages or failures that result in
multiple trains’ PTC systems failing to
initialize, like when a back office server
goes down, impacting the trains of the
host railroad and most, if not all, of its
tenant railroads. Accordingly, FRA
proposes to provide a caveat in
proposed paragraph (g)(4), which would
specify that the relief under paragraph
(g)(1), discussed below, does not apply
to a single train that experiences an
onboard PTC system failure when
attempting to initialize. The purpose of
proposed paragraph (g) is to address
issues affecting multiple trains.
During FRA’s meeting with labor
organizations in February 2024, BLET,
BRS, and TTD acknowledged that FRA’s
objective in proposed paragraph (g) is to
enable operations while maintaining rail
safety, but they expressed concern for
the potential unintended consequence
of degrading safety or delaying repairs
to PTC technology. FRA agrees that it is
important to structure proposed
26 The referenced initialization failures exclude
any initialization failures where the source or cause
was the onboard subsystem, as proposed paragraph
(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures from
receiving the flexibility afforded under proposed
paragraph (g). FRA is citing to the relevant
initialization failures where the source or cause
was, for example, the back office, wayside, or
communications subsystems because those types of
issues would generally impact more than one train
and would be within the scope of this proposed
provision.
27 Including, for example, Alaska Railroad,
Amtrak, BNSF, Caltrain, CN, CPKC, CSX, Denver
RTDC, G&W, MARC, MBTA, Metra, Metrolink,
NICD, NJT, NS, OmniTRAX, TEXRail, TRE, UP,
UTA FrontRunner, VRE, and Watco.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

85469

paragraph (g) to ensure railroads,
vendors, and suppliers identify and fix
any issues causing initialization failures
immediately.
To ensure this provision is utilized
only when necessary and railroads and
their vendors and suppliers identify and
promptly resolve the root cause of
initialization failures, FRA is proposing
to impose two tiers of operating
requirements that would become
increasingly restrictive over time. FRA
expects this will help strike the
appropriate balance between enabling
continued operations, subject to
restrictions, and restoring PTC systems
as quickly as possible.
First, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i)
provides that when a PTC system fails
to initialize as defined in § 236.1003, a
train may proceed, during the first 24
hours, only as prescribed under existing
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of
§ 236.1029. FRA is proposing to require
railroads to utilize the current operating
restrictions set forth in existing
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) because
railroads, including train crews, are
accustomed to complying with those
speed limits and other restrictions when
they experience en route failures, and
those restrictions are based on the
underlying signal or train control
system still in effect. During FRA’s
meetings, the following railroads
explicitly recommended this approach,
based on industry’s longstanding use of
these operating restrictions when PTC
technology fails or is otherwise cut out
en route: Alaska Railroad, Amtrak,
BNSF, CN, CPKC, CSX, G&W, MARC,
Metra, Metrolink, NICD, NS, and UP.
Second, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(ii)
states that after the first 24 hours, the
train may proceed only as prescribed
under paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of
this section and must not exceed
restricted speed as defined in
§ 236.1003. FRA proposes to require
compliance with existing paragraphs
(b)(4) through (6) as they contain other
applicable restrictions and
communication requirements.28
However, instead of the standard speed
restrictions under existing paragraph
(b), this stricter tier of operating
restrictions would limit any train that
utilizes this provision beyond 24 hours
to restricted speed, which is defined as
a ‘‘speed that will permit stopping
28 Specifically, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4) through (6)
require notifying the designated railroad officer of
the failure or cut out as soon as safe and practicable,
impose further operating restrictions if the PTC
system is the exclusive method of delivering
mandatory directives, and prohibit operating farther
than the next forward designated location for the
repair or exchange of onboard PTC apparatuses, if
the failure or cut out was the result of a defective
onboard PTC apparatus.

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

85470

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

within one-half the range of vision, but
not exceeding 20 miles per hour.’’ 29
During FRA’s meetings with APTA,
CRC, and their member railroads in
February 2024, several commuter
railroads, including Denver RTD,
MARC, Metra, NICD, NJT, TEXRail,
TRE, and UTA FrontRunner supported
FRA’s intention to propose a two-tiered
framework. For example, MARC and
NICD noted that the unplanned outages
they recently experienced were resolved
in approximately two hours, which
means those trains, in a similar scenario
under this proposed framework, would
be subject to the standard operating
restrictions under existing paragraph
(b). Furthermore, these commuter
railroads expressed appreciation that
this proposed framework—with more
flexibility on day one—would enable
them to transport commuters to their
destination if PTC technology fails
midday and trains are unable to
initialize the PTC system for the
remainder of the day. Without this
proposed provision, if a train’s PTC
system fails midday and is not restored
by the evening rush hour, commuters
attempting to return home would be
forced to rely on alternative modes of
transportation, with little to no notice.
These eight commuter railroads also
recognized that a clear, tiered
approach—which introduces additional
restrictions, including restricted speed,
24 hours after the onset of the technical
issue—would enable railroads to
communicate effectively with their
customers if the railroad finds that an
issue cannot be remedied within the
first 24 hours. Commuter railroads
emphasized the importance of being
able to provide advance notice to their
customers about the speed restrictions
that would apply the following day, as
that could result in service reductions.
Several stakeholders, including
ASLRRA, ATD, NJT, and UTA
FrontRunner, stressed that the operating
restrictions FRA proposes in paragraph
(g) should be as simple, straightforward,
and objective as possible given the
complexity of other PTC regulations.
Furthermore, FRA recognizes that
predictability and transparency are vital
when it comes to a process that will
govern whether and how intercity
passenger, commuter, and freight rail
transportation may continue.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) imposes a
notification requirement that a railroad
must, as early as is possible, ensure
workers are aware of PTC system-level
outages and corresponding operating
restrictions. Specifically, proposed
29 49 CFR 236.1003 (citing to the definition in
subpart G, at 49 CFR 236.812).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

paragraph (g)(2) requires each railroad
operating in accordance with (g)(1) to
notify, as early as is possible, all
dispatchers, train crews, and roadway
workers about PTC system-level outages
or failures that result in multiple trains’
PTC systems failing to initialize, which
result in trains proceeding in
accordance with operating restrictions.
Railroads must ensure job safety
briefings reflect such operations.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3) proposes to
require railroads to attempt to initialize
the PTC system again, when the reason
it is not initializing is loss of
communications or lack of navigational
information, like temporary lack of
access to the Global Positioning System
(GPS)TM. FRA is aware of multiple PTC
systems that rely on GPS, like I–ETMS
and the Incremental Train Control
System. Specifically, proposed
paragraph (g)(3) would require,
notwithstanding the relief under
paragraph (g)(1), that when a PTC
system fails to initialize due to loss of
communications or lack of navigational
information, the train must attempt to
initialize the PTC system again at the
next forward, available location. The
next forward, available location,
depending on the circumstances, could
be a segment of a main line, a siding, a
yard, or a station, whichever is closest.
In addition, FRA acknowledges that
PTC systems are comprised of many
subsystems and are often interfaced
with other technology. For example, at
an AAR meeting in November 2023, CN
emphasized that the nature of a system
of subsystems, like PTC technology,
means there is always the possibility of
an outage, as a PTC system relies or
depends on the proper functioning of
many subsystems. Similarly, FRA is also
aware that PTC systems have failed to
initialize due to a failure of an
interfaced system, like a dispatching
system or an electronic storage system.
Accordingly, FRA wants to clarify that
proposed paragraphs (g)(1) through (5)
of this section likewise apply to cases in
which a PTC system fails to initialize
due to an issue or failure arising from
a subsystem or an interfaced system.
In addition, FRA wants to offer a
clarification about the application of
proposed paragraphs (g)(1) to (5) to the
Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement
System II (ACSES II). An initialization
failure is defined in existing § 236.1003
as ‘‘any instance when a PTC system
fails to activate on a locomotive or train,
unless the PTC system successfully
activates during a subsequent attempt in
the same location or before entering
PTC-governed territory.’’ Section
236.1003 specifies that for the types of
PTC systems that do not initialize by

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

design, like ACSES II, a failed departure
test is considered an initialization
failure, unless the PTC system
successfully passes the departure test
during a subsequent attempt in the same
location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. ACSES II typically
encompasses automatic train control
(ATC), and FRA wants to emphasize
that the FRA-certified PTC system,
however, is ACSES II.30 If ACSES II fails
to initialize (i.e., fails its departure test),
an ACSES II-equipped train may utilize
the relief outlined in proposed
paragraph (g) of § 236.1029. By contrast,
however, if ATC fails its departure test,
a railroad must comply with all
applicable signal and train control
prohibitions and restrictions in other
subparts of part 236. FRA wants to
address this nuance to clarify that
proposed paragraph (g) does not
supersede other existing signal and train
control regulations that directly govern
ATC.
Finally, proposed paragraph (g)(5)
recognizes that FRA may impose
additional operating restrictions and
other conditions to address recurring
issues that result in multiple trains’ PTC
systems failing to initialize. For
example, under proposed paragraph
(g)(5), FRA could require the applicable
railroads and PTC system vendors and
suppliers to take certain actions or
satisfy additional reporting
requirements, as they resolve the
recurring issues. In addition, proposed
paragraph (g)(4) would clarify that FRA
reserves the right to deny the relief
under proposed paragraph (g)(1) for
recurring issues that result in multiple
trains’ PTC systems failing to initialize.
Although the relief under proposed
paragraph (g)(1) is generally selfexecuting, FRA may choose to intervene
under proposed paragraph (g)(5) and
deny such relief if, for example, a
railroad and/or its applicable PTC
system vendor and supplier are not
sufficiently correcting a recurrent
problem.
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended
by Executive Order 14094
This proposed rule is a nonsignificant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094, Modernizing Regulatory
Review,31 and DOT Order 2100.6A
(‘‘Rulemaking and Guidance
Procedures’’). FRA made this
30 Or in NJT’s case, the Advanced Speed
Enforcement System II (ASES II).
31 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 11, 2023), available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/
04/11/2023-07760/modernizing-regulatory-review.

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
determination by finding that the
economic effects of this proposed
regulatory action would not exceed the
$100 million annual threshold defined
by Executive Order 12866.
FRA complied with OMB Circular A–
4 when accounting for benefits, costs,
and cost savings relative to a baseline
condition. Typically, a baseline
represents a best judgement about what
the world would be like in the absence
of the regulatory interventions.32
In this analysis, discount rates are
used to account for differences in the
timing of the estimated benefits and
costs. Benefits and costs that accrue
further in the future are more heavily
discounted than those impacts that
occur today. Discounting reflects
individuals’ general preference to
receive benefits sooner rather than later
(and defer costs) and recognizes that
costs incurred today are more expensive

than future costs because businesses
must forgo an expected rate of return on
investment of that capital.33 OMB
recommends using a discount rate of 2
percent.34 This represents the real
(inflation-adjusted) rate of return on
long-term Federal Government debt over
the last 30 years, calculated between
1993 and 2022, and is considered a
reasonable approximation of the social
rate of time preference.
FRA analyzed the economic impact of
this proposed rule over a 10-year period
and estimated its costs and benefits, as
shown in the table below. The total
estimated 10-year net benefits of this
proposed rule would be $81.8 million
(discounted at 2 percent), and the
annualized net benefits would be $9.1
million (discounted at 2 percent). The
industry benefits associated with FRA’s
proposal to amend three provisions—
i.e., to introduce a new exception for

85471

certain non-revenue passenger
equipment movements, improve the
RFA process regarding temporary PTC
system outages, and permit continued
operations following certain
initialization failures, subject to
operating restrictions—would outweigh
the industry costs and government
administrative costs associated with
FRA’s proposal to expand the content
requirements for RFAs related to
temporary outages.
The following table shows the
estimated 10-year benefits, net benefits,
and costs of the proposed rule. The total
10-year estimated benefits would be
$83.5 million (discounted at 2 percent),
with annualized benefits at $9.3 million
(discounted at 2 percent). The total 10year estimated costs would be $1.8
million (discounted at 2 percent), with
annualized costs at $0.2 million
(discounted at 2 percent).

TABLE B—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS
[2023 Dollars] 1
Category
Industry Benefits ........................................................
Total Costs 2 ...............................................................
Industry Costs ............................................................
Government Administrative Costs .............................
Net Benefits 3 ......................................................

Present
value 2%
($)

Present
value 3%
($)

Present
value 7%
($)

83,534,444
1,760,775
1,514,075
246,700
81,773,669

80,105,191
1,688,492
1,451,919
236,573
78,416,699

68,518,285
1,444,258
1,241,905
202,353
67,074,027

Annualized
2%
($)
9,299,600
196,021
168,557
27,464
9,103,579

Annualized
3%
($)
9,390,772
197,943
170,209
27,734
9,192,829

Annualized
7%
($)
9,755,462
205,630
176,819
28,811
9,549,832

1 Numbers in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and benefits are calculated in this
analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present
value at the particular discount rate is: 1/(1+r)t, where ‘‘r’’ is the discount rate, and ‘‘t’’ is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used in
this analysis.
2 Total Costs = Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs.
3 Net Benefits = Industry Benefits—(Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and operating PTC systems.

1. Ten-Year Benefits
Proposed 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6)

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

FRA analyzed the potential industry
benefits of the three proposed
amendments. Overall, the three
proposed amendments would benefit
the railroad industry, the public, and
FRA by facilitating repairs,
maintenance, upgrades, and capital
improvements; expanding certain
railroad informational requirements;
reducing costs; and enabling the safe,
reliable, and resilient movement of
people and goods, while preserving rail
safety.

32 U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Circular A–4 (Nov. 9, 2023), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

The proposed exception under
§ 236.1006(b)(6) would enable nonrevenue passenger equipment, including
a locomotive, locomotive consist, or
train without passengers onboard, to
operate to a maintenance facility or yard
for the sole purpose of repairing or
exchanging a PTC system. To ensure rail
safety, FRA is proposing to impose five
conditions on each movement of nonrevenue passenger equipment subject to
this exception, including speed and
distance restrictions, the requirement to
establish an absolute block, and other
protections of the route.
In assessing the potential benefits of
the proposed provision, FRA focused on

the impact on train operations in the
absence of this proposed rule. The
methodology employed involved
estimating the transportation costs
associated with relocating nonoperative, PTC-equipped passenger
equipment to a maintenance facility or
yard to repair or exchange the PTC
technology. For example, without this
proposed provision, intercity passenger
railroads and commuter railroads would
need to use an operative, PTC-equipped
locomotive, locomotive consist, or train
to move the non-operative, PTCequipped equipment to a maintenance
facility or yard.

CircularA-4.pdf. See Section 4, Developing an
Analytic Baseline, pages 11–14.

33 U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Circular A–4 (Nov. 9, 2023). See Section 12,
Discount Rates, pages 75–82.
34 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85472

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

Based on consultation with FRA
subject matter experts, FRA calculated
the potential benefits for train
operations, under proposed
§ 236.1006(b)(6), by multiplying the
expected number of impacted passenger
equipment by the transportation cost of
moving that equipment to a
maintenance facility or yard. FRA
estimated a range of $3,000 to $4,000 to
transport this type of equipment, or an
average cost of $3,500 per piece of
equipment, similar to the amount
utilized in another FRA NPRM 35 to

estimate the transportation cost of
moving an empty car. FRA estimates
that the transportation cost savings of
moving this equipment is the estimated
number of non-revenue passenger
equipment that may use this proposed
exception (i.e., 30 per year or 1 per
intercity passenger or commuter
railroad 36), multiplied by the expected
transportation cost of $3,500, resulting
in an overall transportation cost savings
of $105,000 annually. Given the
uncertainty about the amount of affected
equipment and the five safety

conditions or restrictions that FRA is
proposing a railroad must comply with
while utilizing this exception, FRA is
seeking input from the public on
whether the cost of these five safety
conditions, which FRA did not calculate
due to insufficient data, might reduce
the calculated net benefits.
Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates
that this proposed provision would
result in potential benefits of $1 million,
at the 2-percent discount, or on an
annual basis, $107,100, at the 2 percent
discount.

TABLE C—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM PERMITTING NON-REVENUE PASSENGER EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE TO
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES OR YARDS WITHOUT PTC—10-YEAR BENEFIT
Undiscounted
benefit
($)

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Year

Present
value 2%
($)

Present
value 3%
($)

Present
value 7%
($)

1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................................................
6 .......................................................................................................................
7 .......................................................................................................................
8 .......................................................................................................................
9 .......................................................................................................................
10 .....................................................................................................................

105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000
105,000

105,000
102,941
100,923
98,944
97,004
95,102
93,237
91,409
89,616
87,859

105,000
101,942
98,973
96,090
93,291
90,574
87,936
85,375
82,888
80,474

105,000
98,131
91,711
85,711
80,104
74,864
69,966
65,389
61,111
57,113

Total ..........................................................................................................
Annualized ................................................................................................

1,050,000
........................

962,035
107,100

922,541
108,150

789,099
112,350

Proposed 49 CFR 236.1021(m)(4)
Under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4), a
railroad seeking to temporarily disable
its PTC system, for certain purposes, can
request FRA’s approval through the
standard RFA process under existing
§ 236.1021(m). There have been no
accidents or incidents associated with
railroads’ RFAs for temporary PTC
system outages from 2022 to early 2024,
the relevant period during which FRA
began approving such outages by
regulation.
Based on past RFA filings from 2022
to early 2024 involving temporary PTC
system outages, FRA estimates that
railroads will file approximately 15
RFAs, on average on an annual basis,
under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4) in the
future. FRA estimates that two-thirds of
railroads’ RFAs would involve a PTC
system outage lasting for a few hours,
while one-third would seek to disable
PTC technology for a period of days,
given the different nature of underlying
capital improvement or maintenance
projects. FRA used the Bureau of
35 87

FR 43467 (July 21, 2022).
FRA is counting any intercity passenger
railroad or commuter railroad, including tenant
railroads that provide such service, as the proposed
exception is not limited to host railroads.
36 Here,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) 2021
fare rates for intercity passenger and
commuter rail transportation—i.e., a
$72.10 average rate for Amtrak and a
$6.30 average rate for commuter
railroads. FRA estimated weighted fare
rates by using those average 2021 BTS
fare rates and analyzing past, pertinent
RFAs to estimate that the average fare
rate would be approximately $11 for
each intercity passenger railroad or
commuter railroad that submits an RFA
pursuant to § 236.1021(m)(4) in the
future.37
Similarly, FRA analyzed the average
number of passengers or commuters per
train movement 38 during a temporary
PTC system outage by analyzing past
RFAs and found that each train carries,
on average, approximately 200
passengers or commuters. Likewise,
FRA analyzed the average number of
train movements during a temporary
PTC system outage by analyzing past
RFAs and estimating the expected
number of filings by type of railroad.
Based on past RFAs, FRA estimates that

on average, 5 trains operate during a
freight railroad’s temporary PTC system
outage; 12 trains operate during an
intercity passenger or commuter
railroad’s PTC system outage that lasts
24 hours or less; and 1,700 trains
operate during an intercity passenger or
commuter railroad’s PTC system outage
that lasts longer (days). For freight
railroads, the average cost per train
movement is $250, based on previous
FRA estimates.
Then, the expected annual number of
RFAs, involving temporary PTC system
outages, is multiplied by: (1) the average
number of train movements during the
temporary outage; (2) the average cost
per fare or train movement; and (3) the
average number of passengers or
commuters per train (for intercity
passenger or commuter railroads), and is
then adjusted for reduced speed.39 As
shown in the tables below, the 15
relevant RFAs that FRA expects to
receive annually would result in
$8,578,734 in total benefits,
undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this

37 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Transportation Economic
Trends (2022), available at https://data.bts.gov/
stories/s/5h3f-jnbe#transportation-fares.
38 By ‘‘train movement,’’ FRA is referring to the
movement or operation of a train.

39 In its decision letters approving such RFAs,
FRA typically requires railroads to comply with the
operating restrictions under 49 CFR 236.1029(b),
which limit the speed of trains depending on the
underlying signal or train control system.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
calculation did not include variable
operating costs such as fuel expenses
and other operational costs.
Determining these costs is challenging
when assessing benefits. Therefore, the

estimated benefits could be reduced by
these variable operating costs, although
the exact amount is unclear.40
Additionally, FRA is seeking comments
on this economic analysis, its

85473

underlying assumptions, and any
additional benefits that could be
quantified, like the potential impact to
ridership from avoiding related train
delays or cancelations.

TABLE D—RFA FILINGS INVOLVING TEMPORARY PTC SYSTEM OUTAGES—BENEFITS
Estimated
number of
RFAs per year

Average
number of
train
movements
during outage

Average
cost per fare
or train
movement
($)

Average
number of
passengers
per train

RFA average
benefit
(adjusted for
reduced
speed)
($)

PTC System Outages (Hours)—Freight Railroads ..............
PTC System Outages (Hours)—Passenger or Commuter
Railroads ..........................................................................
PTC System Outages (Days)—Passenger or Commuter
Railroads ..........................................................................

2

5

250

N/A

2,076

10

12

11

200

197,165

3

1,700

11

200

8,379,494

Total ..............................................................................

15

........................

........................

........................

8,578,734

Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates
railroads will submit approximately 150
RFAs under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4)

with potential benefits of $78.6 million,
at the 2-percent discount, or $8.8

million, at the 2-percent discount, on an
annual basis.

TABLE E—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM CONTINUOUS TRAIN OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RFAS FOR TEMPORARY PTC
SYSTEM OUTAGES—10-YEAR BENEFIT
Undiscounted
($)

Year

Present
value 3%
($)

Present
value 7%
($)

1 .......................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................
5 .......................................................................................................................
6 .......................................................................................................................
7 .......................................................................................................................
8 .......................................................................................................................
9 .......................................................................................................................
10 .....................................................................................................................

8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734
8,578,734

8,578,734
8,410,524
8,245,612
8,083,933
7,925,425
7,770,024
7,617,671
7,468,305
7,321,867
7,178,301

8,578,734
8,328,868
8,086,280
7,850,757
7,622,094
7,400,092
7,184,555
6,975,296
6,772,132
6,574,886

8,578,734
8,017,509
7,492,999
7,002,803
6,544,675
6,116,519
5,716,373
5,342,405
4,992,902
4,666,263

Total ..........................................................................................................
Annualized ................................................................................................

85,787,345
........................

78,600,396
8,750,309

75,373,696
8,836,097

64,471,182
9,179,246

Proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(g)
The proposed exception under
§ 236.1029(g) would reintroduce a
revised version of a provision regarding
PTC system initialization failures that
expired on December 31, 2022. This
proposed exception would be beneficial
even with the conditions and
restrictions outlined under this
proposed provision.
In assessing the potential benefits of
this proposed provision, FRA focused
on the impact on train operations in the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Present
value 2%
($)

40 Another method for assessing the benefits
regarding this proposed provision is to calculate the
revenue per ton-mile, provided that information
regarding the number of miles that would be
utilized is available for the affected railroads. Since
FRA does not currently possess that level of
information, the methodology described above was
employed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

absence of this proposed rule. Currently,
if a PTC system fails to initialize, trains
are generally prohibited from operating,
which could result in situations where
passengers are stranded and vital freight
shipments halted, as the prior regulatory
process expired on December 31, 2022.
Based on consultation with FRA subject
matter experts, FRA estimates the
number of future PTC system
initialization failures by analyzing
railroads’ initialization failures in
calendar year 2023, as reported to FRA

in railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC
System Performance 41 and projecting to
the future. In total, based on past data,
FRA expects freight railroads to
experience approximately 900
initialization failures per year and
intercity passenger or commuter
railroads to experience approximately
200 initialization failures per year in the
future.42 Then, the expected annual
number of initialization failures is
multiplied by: (1) the average cost of
$11 per fare for intercity passenger or

41 Form FRA F 6180.152 (OMB Control No. 2130–
0553), under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR
236.1029(h). These reports include information
about railroads’ initialization failures.
42 The estimated 1,100 initialization failures
exclude any initialization failures where the source
or cause is the onboard subsystem, as proposed
§ 236.1029(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures
from receiving the flexibility afforded under

proposed § 236.1029(g), as they typically impact
one train. FRA’s estimate refers to the number of
initialization failures where the source or cause is,
for example, the back office, wayside, or
communications subsystems because those types of
issues would generally impact more than one train
and would be within the scope of this proposed
provision.

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85474

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

commuter railroads and $250 per train
movement for freight railroads; and (2)
the average number of passengers or
commuters per train of 200 (for intercity
passenger or commuter railroads), and is
then adjusted for the reduced speed,
based on the proposed speed
restrictions under 49 CFR 236.1029(g).
As shown in the table below, FRA’s
proposal to permit the operation of

approximately 1,100 trains that FRA
expects might experience PTC system
initialization failures would result in
$433,520 in total benefits,
undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this
calculation did not include variable
operating costs such as fuel expenses
and other operational costs. Therefore,
the estimated benefit could be reduced

by these variable operating costs,
although the exact amount is unclear.
Additionally, FRA is seeking comments
on this economic analysis, its
underlying assumptions, and any
additional benefits that could be
quantified, like the potential impact on
ridership from avoiding related train
delays or cancelations.

TABLE F—ENABLING THE OPERATION OF TRAINS IMPACTED BY INITIALIZATION FAILURES—BENEFITS
Estimated
trains
impacted
annually

Railroad type

Average cost
per fare or
train
movement

Average
number of
passengers
per train

Average
benefit
(adjusted
for reduced
speed)
($)

Freight ..............................................................................................................
Intercity Passenger or Commuter ....................................................................

900
200

250
11

N/A
200

$159,220
274,300

Total ..........................................................................................................

1,100

........................

........................

433,520

Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates
that proposed § 236.1029(g) would
result in potential benefits of $4.0

million, or on an annualized basis,
$442,190, discounted at 2 percent.

TABLE G—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM CONTINUOUS TRAIN OPERATIONS DUE TO PROCESS REGARDING CERTAIN
INITIALIZATION FAILURES—10-YEAR BENEFIT

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Year

Freight
railroads
($)

Passenger
railroads
($)

Undiscounted
benefit
($)

a

b

c=a+b

Present
value 2%
($)

Present
value 3%
($)

Present
value 7%
($)

1 ...............................................................................
2 ...............................................................................
3 ...............................................................................
4 ...............................................................................
5 ...............................................................................
6 ...............................................................................
7 ...............................................................................
8 ...............................................................................
9 ...............................................................................
10 .............................................................................

159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220
159,220

274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300
274,300

433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520
433,520

433,520
425,020
416,686
408,516
400,505
392,652
384,953
377,405
370,005
362,750

433,520
420,893
408,634
396,732
385,177
373,958
363,066
352,491
342,225
332,257

433,520
405,159
378,653
353,881
330,730
309,094
288,873
269,974
252,313
235,806

Total ..................................................................
Annualized ........................................................

1,592,200
....................

2,743,000
....................

4,335,200
......................

3,972,013
442,190

3,808,954
446,526

3,258,003
463,866

In addition to these direct benefits,
there are potential societal benefits to
the proposals in the NPRM. For
example, there are possible fuel and
emission savings from people not using
alternative transportation modes like
traditional buses or cars that use fuel or
non-carbon technologies like batteries,
which would be necessary if the
proposals in this NPRM did not exist,
and railroads were not allowed to
operate trains in certain circumstances.
Freight trains are generally known for
their fuel efficiency compared to fuelpowered trucks, and intercity passenger
or commuter trains are more efficient
than driving fuel-powered vehicles,
potentially resulting in lower carbon

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

emissions. Specifically, a single freight
train can be up to 75% more fuelefficient than a fuel-powered truck.43
Similarly, passenger trains are up to
46% more efficient than driving fuelpowered vehicles.44 However, policies
promoting electric vehicle use may lead
to increased adoption of electric
vehicles, which could reduce the
anticipated emission benefits.
43 Federal Railroad Administration, FRA
Announces Climate Challenge to Meet Net-Zero
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 (Apr. 22, 2022),
available at https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/
press-releases/federal-railroad-administrationannounces-climate-challenge-meet-net-zero-0.
44 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

2. Ten-Year Costs
FRA analyzed the potential industry
costs of the proposed amendments,
which would: (1) permit non-revenue
passenger equipment to operate to
maintenance facilities or yards, without
being governed by PTC technology and
with no passengers onboard, for the sole
purpose of repairing or exchanging a
PTC system, under certain conditions;
(2) improve the existing process
railroads utilize to request and obtain
FRA’s approval to disable their PTC
systems temporarily—when necessary
to facilitate repair, maintenance,
infrastructure upgrades, and capital
projects—by requiring railroads to
provide additional, essential

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85475

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
information in their requests to amend
their PTC systems; and (3) reintroduce
a limited version of a provision
regarding PTC system initialization
failures, which expired on December 31,
2022, under certain conditions.
Of the three proposed amendments,
FRA analyzed the cost of railroads filing
RFAs regarding temporary PTC system
outages under proposed
§ 236.1021(m)(4), which contains
additional content requirements to
enable FRA to assess the full scope and
circumstances of each proposed
temporary outage. Since the other two
proposed provisions, under
§§ 236.1006(b)(6) and 236.1029(g),
would establish an exception or process
with certain conditions, there may be

Based on consultation with FRA
subject matter experts, FRA calculated
the total cost for filing an RFA by
multiplying the number of submissions
by its associated hourly burden. The
hourly burden is then multiplied by the
wage rate of an Executive, Official, &
Staff Assistant employee. For this
analysis, FRA used the fully burdened
wage rate of $118.46 to calculate both
costs (i.e., the cost of submitting a new
RFA and the cost of submitting a revised
RFA).45 This wage rate includes factors
such as salary, benefits, and overhead
costs associated with employing staff
members involved in the RFA filing
process.

minimal potential costs tied to these
proposed provisions. However, FRA
expects the potential benefits of these
proposed provisions to outweigh any
potential costs they might present. FRA
welcomes comments on the potential
impact.
Also, FRA acknowledges that a
proposal to establish a new exception
for non-revenue passenger equipment
and reintroduce a limited version of an
expired process might appear to present
safety risks, if not properly addressed.
Accordingly, FRA’s proposed rule
contains multiple operating restrictions
and other protections to help mitigate or
eliminate any associated risks and help
preserve or improve rail safety.

TABLE H—COSTS OF RFAS TO PTC SYSTEMS INVOLVING TEMPORARY OUTAGES
Hourly
wage rate
($)

Number of
RFAs per year

Number of
hours per RFA

Total cost of
RFAs per year
($)

a

b

c

d=a*b*c

New RFAs ........................................................................................................
Revised RFAs ..................................................................................................

118.46
118.46

15
1

90
45

159,921
5,331

Total ..........................................................................................................

........................

........................

........................

165,252

The following table provides the 10year cost to the railroad industry
associated with the filing of an RFA

involving a temporary PTC system
outage under proposed
§ 236.1021(m)(4). FRA estimates that the

total cost to the railroad industry would
be $1.5 million, or $168,557 annualized,
discounted at 2 percent.

TABLE I—TOTAL COSTS OF RFAS ABOUT TEMPORARY PTC SYSTEM OUTAGES
Cost of new
RFAs per
year

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Year

Cost of
revised RFAs
per year
($)

Undiscounted
cost of RFAs
($)

Present
value 2%
($)

Present
value 3%
($)

Present
value 7%
($)

1 .........................................................................
2 .........................................................................
3 .........................................................................
4 .........................................................................
5 .........................................................................
6 .........................................................................
7 .........................................................................
8 .........................................................................
9 .........................................................................
10 .......................................................................

159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921
159,921

5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331
5,331

165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252
165,252

165,252
162,011
158,835
155,720
152,667
149,674
146,739
143,862
141,041
138,275

165,252
160,439
155,766
151,229
146,824
142,548
138,396
134,365
130,451
126,652

165,252
154,441
144,337
134,895
126,070
117,822
110,114
102,910
96,178
89,886

Total ............................................................
Annualized ..................................................

159,921
......................

5,331
......................

1,652,517
........................

1,514,075
168,557

1,451,919
170,209

1,241,905
176,819

Additionally, alongside the railroad
industry’s cost of filing RFAs under
proposed § 236.1021(m)(4), there are
governmental costs associated with the

filing of these RFAs. The following table
shows the annual estimated government
costs for reviewing railroads’ RFAs
pertaining to temporary PTC system

outages and issuing related decision
letters.

45 Throughout this document, the dollar
equivalent cost or benefit for the industry is derived
from the Surface Transportation Board’s 2023 Full

Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate
employee group hourly wage rate, which includes
an additional 75 percent for fringe benefits and

overhead. For instance, the 2023 hourly wage rate
of $67.69 is burdened by 75 percent ($67.69 × 1.75
= $118.46).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85476

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE J—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FROM RFA REVIEW AND APPROVAL—ANNUAL COSTS
Average
number of
employees

Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
Attorney

Hourly wage
rate
($) 46

Number of
hours per RFA

Estimated
RFAs per year

Total cost ($)

a

b

c

d=a*b*c

Safety Specialist (GS–13)—All locations ..............
Safety Specialist (GS–14)—All locations ..............
Safety Specialist (GS–14)—All locations ..............
Safety Specialist Supervisor (GS–15)—DC Metro
Safety Specialist Senior Executive—DC Metro ....
(GS–15)—DC Metro ..............................................

1
1
1
1
1
1

98.77
116.71
116.71
147.96
175.00
147.96

6
3
2
1
1
2

15
15
15
15
15
15

8,889
5,252
3,501
2,219
2,625
4,439

Annual Total Cost .........................................................

........................

........................

15

15

26,926

The followingtable shows the 10-year
estimated government costs for
reviewing RFAs pertaining to temporary
PTC system outages and issuing related

decision letters. FRA expects it would
cost approximately $246,700 over the
10-year period, or $27,464 annualized,
discounted at 2 percent, to review and

approve or deny these RFAs, as shown
in the following table.

TABLE K—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FROM RFA REVIEW AND APPROVAL—10-YEAR COSTS
Undiscounted
government
administrative
cost
($)

Year

Present
value 2%
($)

Present
value 3%
($)

Present
value 7%
($)

1 .................................................................................................................
2 .................................................................................................................
3 .................................................................................................................
4 .................................................................................................................
5 .................................................................................................................
6 .................................................................................................................
7 .................................................................................................................
8 .................................................................................................................
9 .................................................................................................................
10 ...............................................................................................................

26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926
26,926

26,926
26,398
25,880
25,373
24,875
24,387
23,909
23,440
22,981
22,530

26,926
26,142
25,380
24,641
23,923
23,226
22,550
21,893
21,255
20,636

26,926
25,164
23,518
21,979
20,542
19,198
17,942
16,768
15,671
14,646

Total ....................................................................................................
Annualized ..........................................................................................

269,258
..............................

246,700
27,464

236,573
27,734

202,353
28,811

3. Results
The industry benefits associated with
FRA’s proposal to amend three
provisions—i.e., to introduce a new
exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment movements,
improve the RFA process regarding
temporary PTC system outages, and

permit continued operations following
certain initialization failures, subject to
operating restrictions—would outweigh
the industry costs and government
administrative costs associated with
FRA’s proposal to expand the content
requirements for RFAs related to
temporary outages.

The following table shows the
estimated 10-year costs, benefits, and
net benefits of the proposed rule. The
total estimated 10-year net benefits
would be $81.8 million (discounted at 2
percent) and annualized net benefits
would be $9.1 million (discounted at 2
percent).

TABLE L—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS
[2023 Dollars]
Present
value 2%
($)

Present
value 3%
($)

Present
value 7%
($)

Industry Benefits ........................................................
Total Costs .................................................................
Industry Costs ............................................................
Government Administrative Costs .............................

83,534,444
1,760,775
1,514,075
246,700

80,105,191
1,688,492
1,451,919
236,573

68,518,285
1,444,258
1,241,905
202,353

9,299,600
196,021
168,557
27,464

9,390,772
197,943
170,209
27,734

9,755,462
205,630
176,819
28,811

Net Benefits ........................................................

81,773,669

78,416,699

67,074,027

9,103,579

9,192,829

9,549,832

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Category

46 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, ‘‘2023
General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables,’’
available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2023/generalschedule/. The base salary is burdened with an

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Annualized
2%
($)

Annualized
3%
($)

Annualized
7%
($)

additional 75 percent to account for fringe benefits
and overhead.

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and Executive
Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’
(67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) require
agency review of proposed and final
rules to assess their impacts on small
entities. An agency must prepare an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) unless it determines and certifies
that a rule, if promulgated, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
FRA has not determined whether this
proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
FRA invites all interested parties to
submit comments, data, and information
demonstrating the potential economic
impact on small entities that will result
from the adoption of this proposed rule.
FRA particularly encourages small
entities potentially impacted by the
proposed amendments to participate in
the public comment process. FRA will
consider all comments received during
the public comment period for this
NPRM when making a final
determination of the rule’s economic
impact on small entities. FRA prepared
an IRFA, which is included below, to
aid the public in commenting on the
potential small business impacts of the
proposed requirements in this NPRM.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

1. Reasons for Considering Agency
Action
Through FRA’s oversight and
continued engagement with the
industry, FRA has found that its existing
PTC regulations do not adequately
address temporary situations during
which PTC technology is not enabled,
including after certain initialization
failures or in cases where a PTC system
needs to be temporarily disabled to
facilitate repair, maintenance,
infrastructure upgrades, or capital
projects. This NPRM proposes to
establish parameters and operating
restrictions under which railroads may
continue to operate safely in certain
scenarios when PTC technology is
temporarily not governing rail
operations. Overall, the proposed
amendments would benefit the railroad
industry, the public, and FRA by
facilitating repairs, maintenance,
upgrades, and capital improvements;
expanding certain railroad
informational requirements; reducing
costs; and enabling the safe, reliable,
and efficient movement of people and
goods, while preserving rail safety.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

2. A Succinct Statement of the
Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for,
the Proposed Rule
FRA is proposing to revise three PTC
regulations based on the statutory
general authority of the Secretary. The
Secretary has broad statutory authority
to ‘‘prescribe regulations and issue
orders for every area of railroad safety’’
under 49 U.S.C. 20103 and regarding
PTC technology under 49 U.S.C.
20157(g). The Secretary delegated this
authority to the Federal Railroad
Administrator. 49 CFR 1.89(b).
This proposed rule would provide
flexibility to certain train movements
and improve existing processes, which
would result in net benefits to railroads.
The industry benefits associated with
FRA’s proposal to amend
§§ 236.1006(b), 236.1021(m) and
236.1029(g)—i.e., to introduce a new
exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment movements,
improve the RFA process regarding
temporary PTC system outages, and
permit continued operations following
certain initialization failures, subject to
operating restrictions—would outweigh
the industry costs and government
administrative costs associated with
FRA’s proposal to expand the content
requirements for RFAs related to
temporary outages under § 236.1021(m),
while also maintaining rail safety.
FRA’s objective in this rulemaking is
to establish clear, uniform processes,
rather than addressing issues that arise
in a reactive and piecemeal manner.
FRA expects that establishing
predictable, prescriptive processes will
both enable continued operations and
improve railroad safety by eliminating
uncertainty and inconsistent application
of FRA’s regulations and facilitating
prompt repairs, upgrades, and
restoration of PTC system service. FRA’s
proposed parameters and operating
restrictions in this NPRM are intended
to be sufficiently strict to ensure that
railroads and PTC system suppliers and
vendors proactively identify and
remedy problems before they arise and
immediately correct any problems that
may surface despite proactive measures.
3. A Description of and, Where Feasible,
an Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities to Which the Proposed Rule
Would Apply
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires a review of proposed and final
rules to assess their impact on small
entities, unless the Secretary certifies
that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

85477

601 as a small business concern that is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field of operation.
The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) has authority to regulate issues
related to small businesses, and
stipulates in its size standards that a
‘‘small entity’’ in the railroad industry is
a for-profit ‘‘line-haul railroad’’ that has
fewer than 1,500 employees, a ‘‘short
line railroad’’ with fewer than 500
employees, or a ‘‘commuter rail system’’
with annual receipts of less than seven
million dollars. See ‘‘Size Eligibility
Provisions and Standards,’’ 13 CFR part
121, subpart A.
The proposed rule would directly
apply to all 37 host railroads subject to
49 U.S.C. 20157—including 7 Class I
railroads, 24 intercity passenger
railroads or commuter railroads, and 6
Class II or III, short line, or terminal
railroads. Only 5 of the current PTCmandated host railroads are small
entities.
4. A Description of the Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule,
Including an Estimate of the Class of
Small Entities That Will be Subject to
the Requirements and the Type of
Professional Skill Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
The proposed amendments would
improve the process railroads use to file
an RFA involving a temporary PTC
system outage. Those entities would be
subject to the requirements of this
proposed rule and would also benefit
from the additional flexibility associated
with this proposed rule.
FRA expects that a railroad’s RFA
pursuant to proposed § 236.1021(m)(4)
would be completed by an executive or
senior manager and require analytical
and writing skills.
To calculate the individual costs for
small entities, FRA divided the total
annualized cost by the number of
estimated host railroads. FRA assumes
that the hourly burden to submit an
RFA is independent of an entity’s size
because the RFA depends upon the PTC
system and not the individual railroad
making the submission. The total
annualized cost for all host railroads
would be $168,557, discounted at 2
percent. FRA estimates that the
annualized cost to each host railroad
would be approximately $4,556,
discounted at 2 percent. Although the
proposed rule would impose costs on
those host railroads that are small
entities, benefits would also accrue.
To calculate the individual benefit for
small entities, FRA divided the total
annualized benefits by the number of
estimated host railroads. The total

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85478

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

annualized benefits for all host railroads
would be $9.3 million, discounted at 2
percent. FRA estimates that the
annualized benefit for each host railroad
would be $251,341, discounted at 2
percent. FRA requests comments on the
economic impact that small entities
would face under this proposed rule.
5. Identification, to the Extent
Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or
Conflict With the Proposed Rule
FRA is not aware of any relevant
Federal rule that duplicates, overlaps
with, or conflicts with the proposed
rule. This proposed rule intends to
improve the process associated with
RFAs for temporary PTC system
outages, establish a new exception for
certain non-revenue passenger
equipment, and reintroduce a limited

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

235.6(c)—Expedited application for approval of certain changes described
in this section.
—Copy of expedited application to labor
union.
—Railroad letter rescinding its request
for expedited application of certain
signal system changes.
—Revised application for certain signal
system changes.
—Copy of railroad revised application to
labor union.
236.1—Railroad maintained signal
plans at all interlockings, automatic
signal locations, and controlled
points, and updates to ensure accuracy.
236.15—Designation of automatic
block, traffic control, train stop, train
control, cab signal, and PTC territory
in timetable instructions.
236.18—Software management control
plan—New railroads.
236.23(e)—The names, indications, and
aspects of roadway and cab signals
shall be defined in the carrier’s Operating Rule Book or Special Instructions. Modifications shall be filed with
FRA within 30 days after such modifications become effective.
236.587(d)—Certification and departure
test results.
236.905(a)—Railroad Safety Program
Plan (RSPP)—New railroads.
236.913(a)—Filing and approval of a
joint Product Safety Plan (PSP).
—(c)(1) Informational filing/petition for
special approval.

Jkt 265001

would not be afforded the same type of
exception currently available to freight
railroads under § 236.1006(b). In
addition, without this rule, railroads
would not be able to operate in certain
scenarios when PTC technology is
temporarily not governing rail
operations under proposed
§ 236.1029(g).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
FRA is submitting the information
collection requirements in this proposed
rule to OMB 47 under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.48 Please note
that any new or revised requirements, as
proposed in this NPRM, are marked by
asterisks (*) in the table below. The
sections that contain the proposed and
current information collection
requirements under OMB Control No.
2130–0553 and the estimated time to
fulfill each requirement are as follows:

Total annual
responses

Average time per
response

Total annual
burden hours

Total cost
equivalent
in USD

(A)

(B)

(C = A * B)

(D = C * wage
rates)

42 railroads ...........

10 expedited applications.

5.00 hours .............

50.00 hours ...........

$4,456.50

42 railroads ...........

10 copies ..............

30.00 minutes .......

5.00 hours .............

445.65

42 railroads ...........

1 letter ...................

6.00 hours .............

6.00 hours .............

534.78

42 railroads ...........

1 application ..........

5.00 hours .............

5.00 hours .............

445.65

42 railroads ...........

1 copy ...................

30.00 minutes .......

0.50 hours .............

44.57

700 railroads .........

25 plan changes ...

15.00 minutes .......

6.25 hours .............

557.06

700 railroads .........

10 timetable instructions.

30.00 minutes .......

5.00 hours .............

445.65

2 railroads .............

2 plans ..................

160.00 hours .........

320.00 hours .........

28,521.60

700 railroads .........

2 modifications ......

1.00 hour ...............

2.00 hours .............

178.26

742 railroads .........

5.00 seconds ........

6,336.81 hours ......

564,799.88

2 railroads .............

4,562,500 train departures.
2 RSPPs ...............

40.00 hours ...........

80.00 hours ...........

7,130.40

742 railroads .........

1 joint plan ............

2,000.00 hours ......

2,000.00 hours ......

236,920.00

742 railroads .........

0.5 filings/approval
petitions.

50.00 hours ...........

25.00 hours ...........

2,228.25

47 FRA will be using the OMB control number
2130–0553 for this information collection.

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

6. A Description of Significant
Alternatives to the Rule
The proposed amendments in this
rulemaking would benefit the railroad
industry, the public, and FRA by
facilitating repairs, maintenance,
upgrades, and capital improvements;
expanding certain railroad
informational requirements; reducing
costs; and enabling the safe, reliable,
and resilient movement of people and
goods, while preserving rail safety.
The main alternative to this
rulemaking would be to maintain the
status quo. The alternative of not issuing
the proposed rule would forgo
improving the process under
§ 236.1021(m) that host railroads use to
submit RFAs for temporary PTC system
outages. In the absence of this proposed
rule, non-revenue passenger equipment

Respondent
universe

CFR section

VerDate Sep<11>2014

version of a provision that previously
expired.

48 44

PO 00000

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Frm 00024

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85479

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Total annual
responses

Average time per
response

Total annual
burden hours

Total cost
equivalent
in USD

(A)

(B)

(C = A * B)

(D = C * wage
rates)

0.25 data calls/documents.
0.25 data calls/documents.

5.00 hours .............

1.25 hour ...............

111.41

1.00 hour ...............

0.25 hours .............

22.28

742 railroads .........

0.25 technical consultations.

5.00 hours .............

1.25 hour ...............

111.41

742 railroads .........

0.25 petitions ........

1.00 hour ...............

0.25 hours .............

22.28

742 railroads .........

1 request ...............

50.00 hours ...........

50.00 hours ...........

4,456.50

742 railroads .........

0.5 comments/letters.

10.00 hours ...........

5.00 hours .............

445.65

742 railroads .........
742 railroads .........

20.00 hours ...........
100.00 hours .........

40.00 hours ...........
100.00 hours .........

3,565.20
8,913.00

13 railroads with
PSP.

2 amendments ......
1 field test/document.
13 PSP safety results.

160.00 hours .........

2,080.00 hours ......

185,390.40

13 railroads ...........

1 report .................

40.00 hours ...........

40.00 hours ...........

3,565.20

13 railroads ...........

1 report .................

10.00 hours ...........

10.00 hours ...........

891.30

13 railroads ...........

1 OMM update ......

40.00 hours ...........

40.00 hours ...........

3,565.20

13 railroads ...........

1 plan update ........

40.00 hours ...........

40.00 hours ...........

3,565.20

13 railroads ...........

1 revision ..............

40.00 hours ...........

40.00 hours ...........

3,565.20

13 railroads ...........

1 program .............

40.00 hours ...........

40.00 hours ...........

3,565.20

13 railroads ...........

350 records ...........

10.00 minutes .......

58.33 hours ...........

5,198.95

38 railroads ...........

1 rule or instruction

40.00 hours ...........

40.00 hours ...........

4,738.40

Respondent
universe

CFR section

—(c)(2) Response to FRA’s request for
further data after informational filing.
—(d)(1)(ii) Response to FRA’s request
for further information within 15 days
after receipt of the Notice of Product
Development (NOPD).
—(d)(1)(iii) Technical consultation by
FRA with the railroad on the design
and planned development of the
product.
—(d)(1)(v) Railroad petition to FRA for
final approval of NOPD.
—(d)(2)(ii) Response to FRA’s request
for additional information associated
with a petition for approval of PSP or
PSP amendment.
—(e) Comments to FRA on railroad informational filing or special approval
petition.
—(h)(3)(i) Railroad amendment to PSP
—(j) Railroad field testing/information filing document.
236.917(a)—Railroad retention of
records: results of tests and inspections specified in the PSP.
—(b) Railroad report that frequency of
safety-relevant hazards exceeds
threshold set forth in PSP.
—(b)(3) Railroad final report to FRA on
the results of the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-relevant hazards.
236.919(a)—Railroad Operations and
Maintenance Manual (OMM).
—(b) Plans for proper maintenance, repair, inspection, and testing of safetycritical products.
—(c) Documented hardware, software,
and firmware revisions in OMM.
236.921 and 923(a)—Railroad Training
and Qualification Program.
236.923(b)—Training records retained
in a designated location and available
to FRA upon request.
236.1001(b)—A railroad’s additional or
more stringent rules than prescribed
under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I.

742 railroads .........
742 railroads .........

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

236.1005(b)(4)(i)–(ii)—A railroad’s submission of estimated traffic projections for the next 5 years, to support
a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA, not
to implement a PTC system based on
reductions in rail traffic.
236.1005(b)(4)(iii)—A railroad’s request
for a de minimis exception, in a
PTCIP or an RFA, based on a minimal quantity of PIH materials traffic.

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.

7 Class I railroads

—(b)(5) A railroad’s request to remove
a line from its PTCIP based on the
sale of the line to another railroad
and any related request for FRA review from the acquiring railroad.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

1 exception request.

40.00 hours ...........

40.00 hours ...........

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

3,565.20

85480

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe

CFR section

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

—(g)(1)(i) A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute trains not equipped with
a PTC system onto PTC-equipped
tracks and vice versa during certain
emergencies.
—(g)(1)(ii) A railroad’s written or telephonic notice to FRA of the conditions necessitating emergency rerouting and other required information
under 236.1005(i).
—(g)(2) A railroad’s temporary rerouting
request due to planned maintenance
not exceeding 30 days.
—(h)(1) A response to any request for
additional information from FRA, prior
to commencing rerouting due to
planned maintenance.
—(h)(2) A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute trains due to planned
maintenance exceeding 30 days.

Total annual
responses

Average time per
response

Total annual
burden hours

Total cost
equivalent
in USD

(A)

(B)

(C = A * B)

(D = C * wage
rates)

38 railroads ...........

45 routing extension requests.

8.00 hours .............

360.00 hours .........

32,086.80

38 railroads ...........

45 written or telephonic notices.

2.00 hours .............

90.00 hours ...........

8,021.70

38 railroads ...........

720 requests .........

8.00 hours .............

5,760.00 hours ......

513,388.80

38 railroads ...........

10 responses ........

2.00 hours .............

20.00 hours ...........

1,782.60

38 railroads ...........

160 requests .........

8.00 hours .............

1,280.00 hours ......

114,086.40

236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)—A progress report due by December 31, 2020, and
by December 31, 2022, from any
Class II or III railroad utilizing a temporary exception under this section.

The paperwork requirement is no longer applicable.

—(b)(5)(vii) A railroad’s request to utilize different yard movement procedures, as part of a freight yard movements exception—.

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.

—(b)(6) Establishing a new exception to
permit non-revenue passenger equipment to operate to maintenance facilities or yards, without being governed
by PTC technology, under certain
conditions (*New proposed
provision*).

There is no paperwork requirement associated with this proposed provision.

236.1007(b)(1)—For any high-speed
service over 90 miles per hour (mph),
a railroad’s PTC Safety Plan
(PTCSP) must additionally establish
that the PTC system was designed
and will be operated to meet the failsafe operation criteria in appendix C.

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.

—(c) An HSR–125 document accompanying a host railroad’s PTCSP, for
operations over 125 mph.
—(c)(1) A railroad’s request for approval to use foreign service data,
prior to submission of a PTCSP.
—(d) A railroad’s request in a PTCSP
that FRA excuse compliance with one
or more of this section’s requirements.
236.1009(a)(2)—A PTCIP if a railroad
becomes a host railroad of a main
line requiring the implementation of a
PTC system, including the information under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and
49 CFR 236.1011.
—(a)(3) Any new PTCIPs jointly filed by
a host railroad and a tenant railroad.
—(b)(1) A host railroad’s submission,
individually or jointly with a tenant
railroad or PTC system supplier, of
an unmodified Type Approval.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

38 railroads ...........

1 HSR–125 document.

3,200.00 hours ......

3,200.00 hours ......

379,072.00

38 railroads ...........

0.33 requests ........

8,000.00 hours ......

2,640.00 hours ......

235,303.20

38 railroads ...........

1 request ...............

1,000.00 hours ......

1,000.00 hours ......

118,460.00

264 railroads .........

1 PTCIP ................

535.00 hours .........

535.00 hours .........

63,376.10

264 railroads .........

1 joint PTCIP ........

267.00 hours .........

267.00 hours .........

31,628.82

264 railroads .........

1 document ...........

8.00 hours .............

8.00 hours .............

713.04

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe

CFR section

—(b)(2) A host railroad’s submission of
a PTCDP with the information required under 49 CFR 236.1013, requesting a Type Approval for a PTC
system that either does not have a
Type Approval or has a Type Approval that requires one or more
variances.

264 railroads .........

—(d) A host railroad’s submission of a
PTCSP.
—(e)(3) Any request for full or partial
confidentiality of a PTCIP, Notice of
Product Intent (NPI), PTCDP, or
PTCSP.
—(h) Any responses or documents submitted in connection with FRA’s use
of its authority to monitor, test, and
inspect processes, procedures, facilities, documents, records, design and
testing materials, artifacts, training
materials and programs, and any
other information used in the design,
development, manufacture, test, implementation, and operation of the
PTC system, including interviews with
railroad personnel.
—(j)(2)(iii) Any additional information
provided in response to FRA’s consultations or inquiries about a PTCDP
or PTCSP.
236.1011(a) through (b)—PTCIP content requirements.
—(e) Any public comment on PTCIPs,
NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

236.1013—PTCDP and NPI content requirements.
236.1015—Any new host railroad’s
PTCSP meeting all content requirements under 49 CFR 236.1015.
—(g) A PTCSP for a PTC system replacing an existing certified PTC system.
—(h) A quantitative risk assessment, if
FRA requires one to be submitted.
236.1017(a)—An independent thirdparty assessment, if FRA requires
one to be conducted and submitted.
—(b) A railroad’s written request to confirm whether a specific entity qualifies
as an independent third party.
—Further information provided to FRA
upon request.
—(d) A request not to provide certain
documents otherwise required under
appendix F for an independent, thirdparty assessment.
—(e) A request for FRA to accept information certified by a foreign regulatory entity for purposes of 49 CFR
236.1017 and/or 236.1009(i).
236.1019(b)—A request for a passenger terminal main line track exception (MTEA).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

85481

Total annual
responses

Average time per
response

Total annual
burden hours

Total cost
equivalent
in USD

(A)

(B)

(C = A * B)

(D = C * wage
rates)

1 PTCDP ...............

2,000.00 hours ......

2,000.00 hours ......

178,260.00

The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1015.
38 railroads ...........

10 confidentiality
requests.

8.00 hours .............

80.00 hours ...........

7,130.40

38 railroads ...........

36 interviews and
documents.

4.00 hours .............

144.00 hours .........

12,834.72

38 railroads ...........

1 set of additional
information.

400.00 hours .........

400.00 hours .........

35,652.00

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.
38 railroads ...........

2 public comments

8.00 hours .............

16.00 hours ...........

1,426.08

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.
264 railroads .........

1 PTCSP ...............

8,000.00 hours ......

8,000.00 hours ......

713,040

38 railroads ...........

0.33 PTCSPs ........

3,200.00 hours ......

1,056.00 hours ......

94,121.28

38 railroads ...........

0.33 assessments

800.00 hours .........

264.00 hours .........

23,530.32

38 railroads ...........

0.33 assessments

1,600.00 hours ......

528.00 hours .........

62,546.88

38 railroads ...........

0.33 written requests.

8.00 hours .............

2.64 hours .............

235.30

38 railroads ...........

6.60 hours .............

588.26

38 railroads ...........

0.33 sets of addi20.00 hours ...........
tional information.
0.33 requests ........ 20.00 hours ...........

6.60 hours .............

588.26

38 railroads ...........

0.33 requests ........

32.00 hours ...........

10.56 hours ...........

941.21

38 railroads ...........

1 MTEA .................

160.00 hours .........

160.00 hours .........

14,260.80

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85482

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe

CFR section

—(c)(1) A request for a limited operations exception (based on restricted
speed, temporal separation, or a risk
mitigation plan).
—(c)(2) A request for a limited operations exception for a non-Class I,
freight railroad’s track.
—(c)(3) A request for a limited operations exception for a Class I railroad’s track.
—(d) A railroad’s collision hazard analysis in support of an MTEA, if FRA
requires one to be conducted and
submitted.

—(l) Any jointly filed RFA to a PTCDP
or PTCSP.
—(m) Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCSP ..
—(m)(4) Any RFA to a railroad’s PTC
system that involves a proposed temporary PTC system outage (*New
proposed provision*).
—(m) A railroad’s revised RFA, if needed.
236.1023(a)—A railroad’s PTC Product
Vendor List, which must be continually updated.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

Total cost
equivalent
in USD

(A)

(B)

(C = A * B)

(D = C * wage
rates)

160.00 hours .........

160.00 hours .........

14,260.80

10 railroads ...........

1 request ...............

160.00 hours .........

160.00 hours .........

14,260.80

7 railroads .............

1 request ...............

160.00 hours .........

160.00 hours .........

14,260.80

38 railroads ...........

0.33 collision hazard analyses.

50.00 hours ...........

16.50 hours ...........

1,470.65

The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1019(c)(1).

38 railroads ...........

10 RFAs ................

160.00 hours .........

1,600.00 hours ......

142,608.00

5 Interested parties

10 RFA public
comments.

16.00 hours ...........

160.00 hours .........

14,260.80

The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1021(a) through (d) and (m).
38 railroads ...........
38 railroads ...........

15 RFAs ................
15 RFAs ................

80.00 hours ...........
90.00 hours ...........

1,200.0 hours ........
1,350.0 hours ........

106,956.00
159,921.00

38 railroads ...........

1 revised RFA .......

45.00 hours ...........

45.00 hours ...........

5,330.70

38 railroads ...........

2 updated lists ......

8.00 hours .............

16.00 hours ...........

1,426.08

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.

10 vendors or suppliers.

—(c)(1) through (2) A railroad’s process
and procedures for taking action
upon being notified of a safety-critical
failure or a safety-critical upgrade,
patch, revision, repair, replacement,
or modification, and a railroad’s configuration/revision control measures,
set forth in its PTCSP.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Total annual
burden hours

1 request and/or
plan.

—(b)(1) The railroad shall specify within
its PTCSP all contractual arrangements between a railroad and its
hardware and software suppliers or
vendors for certain immediate notifications.
—(b)(2) through (3) A vendor’s or supplier’s notification, upon receipt of a
report of any safety-critical failure of
its product, to any railroads using the
product.

Average time per
response

38 railroads ...........

—(e) Any temporal separation procedures utilized under the 49 CFR
236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.
236.1021(a) through (d)—An RFA to a
railroad’s PTCIP or PTCDP.
—(e) Any public comments, if an RFA
includes a request for approval of a
discontinuance or material modification of a signal or train control system
and a Federal Register notice is
published.

Total annual
responses

10 notifications ......

8.00 hours .............

80.00 hours ...........

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

7,130.40

85483

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

—(d) A railroad’s submission, to the applicable vendor or supplier, of the railroad’s procedures for action upon notification of a safety-critical failure, upgrade, patch, or revision to the PTC
system and actions to be taken until
it is adjusted, repaired, or replaced.
—(e) A railroad’s database of all safetyrelevant hazards, which must be
maintained after the PTC system is
placed in service.
—(e)(1) A railroad’s notification to the
vendor or supplier and FRA if the frequency of a safety-relevant hazard
exceeds the threshold set forth in the
PTCDP and PTCSP, and about the
failure, malfunction, or defective condition that decreased or eliminated
the safety functionality—Form FRA F
6180.179—Errors and Malfunctions
Notification.
—(e)(2) Continual updates about any
and all subsequent failures.
—(f) Any notifications that must be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR
236.1023.
—(g) A railroad’s and vendor’s or supplier’s report, upon FRA request,
about an investigation of an accident
or service difficulty due to a manufacturing or design defect and their corrective actions.
—(h) A PTC system vendor’s or supplier’s reports of any safety-relevant
failures, defective conditions, previously unidentified hazards, recommended mitigation actions, and
any affected railroads—Form FRA F
6180.179—Errors and Malfunctions
Notification.
—(k) A report of a failure of a PTC system resulting in a more favorable aspect than intended or other condition
hazardous to the movement of a
train, including the reports required
under part 233.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Total annual
responses

Average time per
response

Total annual
burden hours

Total cost
equivalent
in USD

(A)

(B)

(C = A * B)

(D = C * wage
rates)

38 railroads ...........

2.50 notifications ...

16.00 hours ...........

40.00 hours ...........

3,565.20

38 railroads ...........

38 database updates.

16.00 hours ...........

608.00 hours .........

54,191.04

38 railroads ...........

8 notifications ........

7.50 hours .............

60.00 hours ...........

5,347.80

38 railroads ...........

1 update ................

8.00 hours .............

8.00 hours .............

713.04

Respondent
universe

CFR section

The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1023(e)(1), (g), and (h)(1)(2).

38 railroads ...........

0.50 reports ...........

40.00 hours ...........

20.00 hours ...........

1,782.60

10 vendors ............

20 reports ..............

7.50 hours .............

150.00 hours .........

13,370

The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1023(e)(1), (g), and (h)(1)(2) and 49 CFR
233.7.

—236.1029(b)(4)—A report of an en
route failure, other failure, or cut out
to a designated railroad officer of the
host railroad.

150 host and tenant railroads.

—(g) Reintroducing a provision regarding initialization failures that previously expired in December 2022,
and establishing operating restrictions
under which railroads may continue
to operate safely when a PTC system
fails to initialize (* New proposed requirement *).

In this proposed provision, there is no paperwork requirement. However, under an existing regulation,
FRA requires host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC systems to submit Quarterly Reports of
PTC System Performance, using Form FRA F 6180.152, under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR
236.1029(h). These reports include information about railroads’ initialization failures.

—(h) Form FRA F 6180.152—Report of
PTC System Performance.

38 railroads ...........

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

PO 00000

Frm 00029

1,000 reports .........

148 reports ............

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

30.00 minutes .......

32.00 hours ...........

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

500.00 hours .........

4,736.00 hours ......

28OCP1

44,565

422,119.68

85484

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Respondent
universe

CFR section

Average time per
response

Total annual
burden hours

Total cost
equivalent
in USD

(A)

(B)

(C = A * B)

(D = C * wage
rates)

236.1031(a)–(d)—A railroad’s Request
for Expedited Certification.

FRA anticipates that there will be zero requests for expedited certification during this 3-year ICR.

236.1033—Communications and security requirements.

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009 and 236.1015.

236.1035(a) through (b)—A railroad’s
38 railroads ...........
request for authorization to field test
an uncertified PTC system and any
responses to FRA’s testing conditions.
236.1037(a)(1) through (2)—Records
retention.

—(b) Results of inspections and tests
specified in a railroad’s PTCSP and
PTCDP.
—(c) A contractor’s records related to
the testing, maintenance, or operation
of a PTC system maintained at a
designated office.
—(d)(3) A railroad’s final report of the
results of the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-related hazards
below the threshold set forth in the
PTCSP.
236.1039(a) through (c), (e)—A railroad’s PTC Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM), which must be
maintained and available to FRA
upon request.
—(d) A railroad’s identification of a PTC
system’s safety-critical components,
including spare equipment.
236.1041(a) through (b) and
236.1043(a)—A railroad’s PTC Training and Qualification Program (i.e., a
written plan).
236.1043(b)—Training records retained
in a designated location and available
to FRA upon request.
Total ................................................

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

40.00 hours ...........

400.00 hours .........

35,652.00

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).
38 railroads ...........

800 records ...........

1.00 hour ...............

800.00 hours .........

71,304.00

20 contractors .......

1,600 records ........

10.00 minutes .......

266.67 hours .........

23,768.30

38 railroads ...........

8 final reports ........

160.00 hours .........

1,280 hours ...........

114,086.40

38 railroads ...........

2 OMM updates ....

10.00 hours ...........

20.00 hours ...........

1,782.60

38 railroads ...........

1 identified new
component.

1.00 hour ...............

1.00 hour ...............

89.13

38 railroads ...........

2 programs ............

10.00 hours ...........

20.00 hours ...........

1,782.60

150 host and tenant railroads.

150 PTC training
records.

1.00 hour ...............

150.00 hours .........

13,369.50

742 railroads and
10 vendors.

4,567,839 responses.

N/A ........................

53,309 hours .........

5,014,416

All estimates include the time for
reviewing instructions; searching
existing data sources; gathering or
maintaining the needed data; and
reviewing the information. Pursuant to
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits
comments concerning: whether these
information collection requirements are
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of FRA, including whether
the information has practical utility; the
accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who

VerDate Sep<11>2014

10 requests ...........

The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009 and 236.1015.

—(a)(3) through (4) Records retention ..

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Total annual
responses

are to respond, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology, may be minimized.
Organizations and individuals desiring
to submit comments on the collection of
information requirements or to request a
copy of the paperwork package
submitted to OMB should contact Ms.
Arlette Mussington, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
[email protected] or
telephone: (571) 609–1285, or Ms.
Joanne Swafford, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at email:
[email protected] or telephone:
(757) 897–9908.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
FRA is not authorized to impose a
penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements that
do not display a current OMB control
number, if required.

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
D. Federalism Implications
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
requires FRA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ See 64 FR 43255 (Aug.
10, 1999). ‘‘Policies that have federalism
implications’’ are defined in Executive
Order 13132 to include regulations
having ‘‘substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ Id. Under
Executive Order 13132, the agency may
not issue a regulation with federalism
implications that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
Government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments or the agency consults
with State and local government
officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. Where a
regulation has federalism implications
and preempts State law, the agency
seeks to consult with State and local
officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule
under the principles and criteria
contained in Executive Order 13132.
FRA has determined this proposed rule
would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States or their political
subdivisions; on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
the States or their political subdivisions;
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. In addition, FRA
has determined this proposed rule does
not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local
governments. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
This proposed rule could have
preemptive effect by the operation of
law under a provision of the former
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970,
repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C.
20106. Section 20106 provides that
States may not adopt or continue in
effect any law, regulation, or order
related to railroad safety or security that
covers the subject matter of a regulation
prescribed or order issued by the
Secretary of Transportation (with
respect to railroad safety matters) or the
Secretary of Homeland Security (with
respect to railroad security matters),
except when the State law, regulation,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

or order qualifies under the ‘‘essentially
local safety or security hazard’’
exception to section 20106.
FRA has analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. As explained above, FRA has
determined that this proposed rule has
no federalism implications, other than
the possible preemption of State laws
under Federal railroad safety statutes,
specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106.
Accordingly, FRA has determined that
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement for this proposed rule
is not required.
E. International Trade Impact
Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related
activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. Legitimate domestic
objectives, such as safety, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. This proposed rule is
not expected to affect trade
opportunities for U.S. firms doing
business overseas or for foreign firms
doing business in the United States.
F. Environmental Impact
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule
consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42
U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council of
Environmental Quality’s NEPA
implementing regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500 through 1508, and FRA’s
NEPA implementing regulations at 23
CFR part 771, and determined that it is
categorically excluded from
environmental review and therefore
does not require the preparation of an
environmental assessment (EA) or
environmental impact statement (EIS).
Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions
identified in an agency’s NEPA
implementing regulations that do not
normally have a significant impact on
the environment and therefore do not
require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR
1508.4. Specifically, FRA has
determined that this proposed rule is
categorically excluded from detailed
environmental review pursuant to 23
CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘Promulgation of
rules, the issuance of policy statements,
the waiver or modification of existing
regulatory requirements, or
discretionary approvals that do not
result in significantly increased
emissions of air or water pollutants or
noise.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

85485

This proposed rule does not directly
or indirectly impact any environmental
resources and would not result in
significantly increased emissions of air
or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the
proposed rule is likely to result in safety
benefits. In analyzing the applicability
of a CE, FRA must also consider
whether unusual circumstances are
present that would warrant a more
detailed environmental review. See 23
CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that
no such unusual circumstances exist
with respect to this proposed rule and
the proposal meets the requirements for
categorical exclusion under 23 CFR
771.116(c)(15).
Pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and
its implementing regulations, FRA has
determined this undertaking has no
potential to affect historic properties.
See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also
determined that this rulemaking does
not approve a project resulting in a use
of a resource protected by section 4(f).
See Department of Transportation Act of
1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80
Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.
G. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations’’ requires DOT
agencies to achieve environmental
justice as part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects, including
interrelated social and economic effects,
of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and
low-income populations. DOT Order
5610.2C (‘‘U.S. Department of
Transportation Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’) instructs DOT agencies to
address compliance with Executive
Order 12898 and requirements within
DOT Order 5610.2C in rulemaking
activities, as appropriate, and also
requires consideration of the benefits of
transportation programs, policies, and
other activities where minority
populations and low-income
populations benefit, at a minimum, to
the same level as the general population
as a whole when determining impacts
on minority and low-income
populations.49 FRA has evaluated this
49 Executive Order 14096 ‘‘Revitalizing Our
Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice,’’
issued on April 26, 2023, supplements Executive
Order 12898, but is not currently referenced in DOT
Order 5610.2C.

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

85486

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules

proposed rule under Executive Orders
12898 and 14096 and DOT Order
5610.2C and has determined it would
not cause disproportionate and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on communities with environmental
justice concerns.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Under section 201 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal
agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of
Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector (other than to the extent
that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in
law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C.
1532) further requires that ‘‘before
promulgating any general notice of
proposed rulemaking that is likely to
result in promulgation of any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000
or more (adjusted annually for inflation)
in any 1 year, and before promulgating
any final rule for which a general notice
of proposed rulemaking was published,
the agency shall prepare a written
statement’’ detailing the effect on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. This proposed rule
would not result in the expenditure, in
the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more
(as adjusted annually for inflation) in
any one year, and thus preparation of
such a statement is not required.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

I. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001). As FRA acknowledged in section
IV, there are societal benefits to the
proposals in this NPRM. For example,
there are possible fuel savings and
carbon emission savings 50 from people
not using alternative transportation
modes like buses or cars, which would
be necessary if the proposed flexibilities
in this NPRM did not exist and railroads
were not allowed to operate trains in
certain circumstances. FRA evaluated
this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13211 and determined that this
50 As noted above, passenger trains are up to 46%
more efficient than driving and 34% more efficient
than flying. Also, a single freight train can be up
to 75% more fuel-efficient than a truck.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ within the meaning of
Executive Order 13211, based on
currently available information.
However, FRA welcomes comments on
the extent to which this proposed rule
would result in fuel and emission
savings.

1. The authority citation for part 236
continues to read as follows:

■

J. Privacy Act Statement
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its rulemaking process.
DOT posts these comments, without
edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible
through https://www.transportation.gov/
privacy. To facilitate comment tracking
and response, DOT encourages
commenters to provide their name, or
the name of their organization; however,
submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters
identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If
you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential
information, please contact the agency
for alternate submission instructions.
K. Tribal Consultation
FRA has evaluated this NPRM in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.’’ 51
The proposed rule would not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, would not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian Tribal governments, and would
not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, the
funding and consultation requirements
of Executive Order 13175 do not apply,
and a Tribal summary impact statement
is not required.
L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4)
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a
summary of this rulemaking can be
found in the Abstract section of the
Department’s Unified Agenda entry for
this rulemaking at: https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&
RIN=2130-AC95.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236
Penalties, Positive train control,
Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA
proposes to amend 49 CFR part 236 as
follows:
51 65

PO 00000

FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).

Frm 00032

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107,
20133, 20141, 20157, 20301–20303, 20306,
20501–20505, 20701–20703, 21301–21302,
21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR
1.89.

2. Amend § 236.1006 by adding
paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:

■

§ 236.1006 Equipping locomotives
operating in PTC territory.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(6) Exception for certain non-revenue
passenger equipment movements. This
exception is available to enable only
non-revenue passenger equipment,
including a locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train without passengers, to
operate to a maintenance facility or yard
for the purpose of repairing or
exchanging a PTC system. Such nonrevenue equipment may operate to a
maintenance facility or yard without
being governed by PTC technology, as
otherwise required under this part, only
if it meets the criteria in this paragraph
(b)(6) and the following conditions:
(i) The speed of the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train must not
exceed 49 miles per hour;
(ii) An absolute block must be
established in front of the locomotive,
locomotive consist, or train;
(iii) There cannot be any working
limits established under part 214 of this
chapter or any roadway workers on any
part of the route;
(iv) The locomotive, locomotive
consist, or train must operate no farther
than the next forward location
designated in the railroad’s PTCSP for
the repair or exchange of PTC
technology; and
(v) The railroad must protect the route
of the locomotive, locomotive consist, or
train against conflicting operations and
establish and comply with sufficient
operating rules to protect against a trainto-train collision and the movement of
a train through a switch left in the
improper position.
(vi) FRA may, in its discretion,
approve exception criteria and
conditions other than those outlined in
paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(6)(i) through
(v) of this section, in a PTCSP or an
RFA, if the proposed criteria and
conditions provide an equivalent or

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules
greater level of safety than these default
criteria and conditions.
(vii) Before utilizing the default
exception under paragraphs (b)(6)(i)
through (v) of this section or the
discretionary exception under
paragraph (b)(6)(vi) of this section, the
railroad must notify each person
involved with the movement of the nonrevenue passenger equipment, including
any dispatchers and train crews, and
any roadway workers who may no
longer work on that segment during the
movement subject to this exception.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 236.1021 by adding
paragraph (m)(4) to read as follows:
§ 236.1021 Discontinuances, material
modifications, and amendments.

*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(4) A host railroad must utilize the
RFA process under this paragraph (m) to
request and obtain FRA’s approval of a
temporary PTC system outage, during
which train movements may continue,
including a short-term outage related to
repair, maintenance, an infrastructure
upgrade, or a capital project. A
temporary PTC system outage includes,
but is not limited to, any scenario when
the onboard PTC apparatus or
subsystem, wayside subsystem,
communications subsystem, or back
office subsystem would be disabled to
perform a repair, maintenance, an
infrastructure upgrade, or a capital
project.
(i) A railroad may temporarily disable
PTC technology pursuant to paragraph
(m)(4) of this section only after it
obtains approval from the Director of
FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems and
Technology.
(ii) In addition to the content
requirements outlined in paragraph
(m)(2) of this section, an RFA that seeks
to disable a PTC system temporarily
must also contain the following
information:
(A) The technical necessity for the
proposed temporary outage to perform
the repair, maintenance, infrastructure
upgrade, or capital project;
(B) The physical limits and PTC
system functions that would be affected
by the proposed temporary outage, and
an analysis that demonstrates the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

*

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Oct 25, 2024

Jkt 265001

affected physical limits and affected
functions pose the least risk to railroad
safety, compared to other options;
(C) An explanation about how the
proposed temporary outage is in the
public interest and consistent with
railroad safety;
(D) The proposed timeframe of the
temporary outage, and an analysis that
demonstrates the proposed period of
time poses the least risk to railroad
safety, compared to other times;
(E) A justification and an analysis that
show how the proposed duration of the
temporary outage is the minimum time
necessary to complete the pertinent
work, test the PTC system, and place the
PTC system back into service without
undue delay;
(F) The type and frequency of rail
operations that would continue during
the proposed temporary outage,
including those of the host railroad and
each tenant railroad;
(G) The applicable speed limit of any
train that would operate during the
proposed temporary outage and the
speed limit prior to any proposed
temporary outage, and any other
operating restrictions;
(H) The additional safety measures
the host railroad and each tenant
railroad must comply with during the
proposed temporary outage, to ensure
each type of PTC-preventable accident
or incident does not occur. Specifically,
such safety measures must be designed
to prevent a train-to-train collision, an
over-speed derailment, an incursion
into an established work zone, and a
movement of a train through a switch
left in the wrong position; and
(I) A confirmation that before
initiating the proposed temporary
outage (if FRA authorizes it), each
impacted railroad will notify all
applicable dispatchers, train crews, and
roadway workers about the temporary
PTC system outage, including the
specific location and duration of the
temporary outage, the additional safety
measures with which the railroad must
comply, and any actions the individual
must take during the temporary outage.
■ 4. Amend § 236.1029 by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:

85487

(g) Initialization failures. (1) Except as
stated under paragraph (g)(3) or (4) of
this section, when a PTC system fails to
initialize as defined in § 236.1003, a
train may proceed only according to the
following operating restrictions:
(i) For the first 24 hours, the train may
proceed only as prescribed under
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section; and
(ii) After the first 24 hours, the train
may proceed only as prescribed under
paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this
section, and must not exceed restricted
speed as defined in § 236.1003.
(2) Each railroad operating in
accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this
section will notify, as early as is
possible, all dispatchers, train crews,
and roadway workers about PTC
system-level outages or failures that
result in multiple trains’ PTC systems
failing to initialize, thus resulting in
trains proceeding in accordance with
operating restrictions. Railroads must
ensure that job safety briefings reflect
such operations.
(3) Notwithstanding the relief under
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, when a
PTC system fails to initialize due to loss
of communications or lack of
navigational information, the train must
attempt to initialize the PTC system at
the next forward, available location,
including a main line, siding, yard, or
station, whichever is closest.
(4) The relief under paragraph (g)(1) of
this section does not apply to a single
train that experiences an onboard PTC
system failure at the initial terminal.
The purpose of this paragraph (g) is to
address issues affecting multiple trains.
(5) FRA reserves the right to impose
additional operating restrictions and
other conditions to address recurring
issues that result in multiple trains’ PTC
systems failing to initialize and to deny
the relief under paragraph (g)(1) of this
section for recurring issues that result in
multiple trains’ PTC systems failing to
initialize.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.

§ 236.1029

PTC system use and failures.

[FR Doc. 2024–24559 Filed 10–25–24; 8:45 am]

*

*

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

PO 00000

*

Frm 00033

*

Fmt 4702

*

Sfmt 9990

E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM

28OCP1