82400 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

created by case referrals. NCA proposes 

this rule to solidify the continuation of 

this effective partnership and provide 

public information regarding 

adjudication of character of discharge 

determinations involving potential 

statutory and regulatory bars to benefits. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521), no new or proposed 

revised collections of information are 

associated with this proposed rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. There 

are no small entities involved with the 

process for determining eligibility for 

interment or memorialization benefits. 

Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 

the initial and final regulatory flexibility 

analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 

and 604 do not apply. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 

13771 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this rule is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

VA’s impact analysis can be found as 

a supporting document at http://

www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 

hours after the rulemaking document is 

published. Additionally, a copy of the 

rulemaking and its Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) are available on VA’s 

website at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by 

following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations 

Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal 

Year to Date.’’ 

This proposed rule is not expected to 

be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 

action because this proposed rule is not 

significant under Executive Order 

12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in an 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This proposed rule would 

have no such effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.201, National Cemeteries; 64.202, 

Procurement of Headstones and Markers 

and/or Presidential Memorial 

Certificates; and 64.203, State Cemetery 

Grants. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 38 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cemeteries, Claims, 

Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Brooks D. Tucker, Assistant Secretary 

for Congressional and Legislative 

Affairs, Performing the Delegable Duties 

of the Chief of Staff, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on December 4, 2020, for 

publication. 

Luvenia Potts, 

Regulation Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of the Secretary, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 

CFR part 38 as follows: 

PART 38—NATIONAL CEMETERIES 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 38 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 107, 112, 501, 

512, 2306, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2407, 2408, 

2411, 5303, 7105. 

38.620 [AMENDED] 

■ 2. Amend § 38.620 by adding a Note 

following paragraph (i)(4) to read as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

Note to § 38.620: A benefit request 

pertaining to a decedent whose character of 

discharge may potentially bar eligibility to 

that benefit may be referred to the Veterans 

Benefits Administration for review in 

accordance with 38 CFR 3.12 (Character of 

discharge) or other applicable sections. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27106 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 236 

[Docket No. FRA–2019–0075] 

RIN 2130–AC75 

Positive Train Control Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to revise its 

regulations governing changes to 

positive train control (PTC) systems and 

reporting on PTC system functioning. 

First, recognizing that the railroad 

industry intends to enhance further 

FRA-certified PTC systems to continue 

improving rail safety and PTC 

technology’s reliability and operability, 

FRA proposes to modify the process by 

which a host railroad must submit a 

request for amendment (RFA) to FRA 

before making certain changes to its PTC 

Safety Plan (PTCSP) and FRA-certified 

PTC system. Second, to enable more 

effective FRA oversight, FRA proposes 

to: Expand an existing reporting 

requirement by increasing the frequency 

from annual to biannual; broaden the 

reporting requirement to encompass 

positive performance-related 

information, not just failure-related 

information; and require host railroads 

to utilize a new, standardized Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152). Overall, the 

proposed amendments would benefit 

the railroad industry, the public, and 

FRA, by reducing unnecessary costs, 

facilitating innovation, and improving 

FRA’s ability to oversee PTC system 

performance and reliability, while not 

negatively affecting rail safety. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by February 16, 2021. FRA 

believes a 60-day comment period is 

appropriate to allow the public to 

comment on this proposed rule. FRA 

will consider comments received after 

that date to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82401 

1See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public 

Law 110–432, 104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), 

as amended by the Positive Train Control 

Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, 

Public Law 114–73, 129 Stat. 568, 576–82 (Oct. 29, 

2015), and the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act, Public Law 114–94, section 

11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015), 

codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also 

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, 

subpart I. 

2See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 

236.1005 (setting forth the technical specifications). 

3Except a railroad’s controlling locomotives or 

cab cars that are subject to either a temporary or 

permanent exception under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)–(k) 

or 49 CFR 236.1006(b), Equipping locomotives 

operating in PTC territory. 

4The infographics on FRA’s PTC website (https:// 

railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-traincontrol-ptc) identify 41 railroads currently subject 

to the statutory mandate, but six of those 41 

railroads are tenant-only commuter railroads, not 

host railroads. As this proposed rule primarily 

focuses on requirements specific to host railroads, 

FRA will reference the current number of PTCmandated host railroads (35) and any host railroads 

that may become subject to the statutory mandate 

in the future. 

5See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), 

(i)(3), (j)–(k); 49 CFR 236.1003, 236.1006, 

236.1011(a)(3). 

Comments: Comments related to 

Docket No. FRA–2019–0075 may be 

submitted by going to http://

www.regulations.gov and following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket 

number (FRA–2019–0075), and 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for 

this rulemaking (2130–AC75). All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov; this includes any 

personal information. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabe Neal, Acting Staff Director, Signal, 

Train Control, and Crossings Division, 

telephone: 816–516–7168, email: 

Gabe.Neal@dot.gov; or Stephanie 

Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone: 

202–493–0445, email: 

Stephanie.Anderson@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background and Summary of the Main 

Proposals in the NPRM 

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC 

Regulations 

B. Public Participation Prior to the 

Issuance of the NPRM 

C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for 

Modifying FRA-Certified PTC Systems 

and the Associated PTCSPs 

D. Proposal To Expand the PerformanceRelated Reporting Requirements 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. International Trade Impact Assessment 

F. Environmental Impact 

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

I. Energy Impact 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

I. Executive Summary 

Section 20157 of title 49 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) mandates each 

Class I railroad, and each entity 

providing regularly scheduled intercity 

or commuter rail passenger 

transportation, to implement an FRAcertified PTC system fully on: (1) Its 

main lines over which poison- or toxicby-inhalation hazardous materials are 

transported, if the line carries five 

million or more gross tons of any annual 

traffic; (2) its main lines over which 

intercity or commuter rail passenger 

transportation is regularly provided; and 

(3) any other tracks the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by 

regulation or order.1 By law, PTC 

systems must be designed to prevent 

certain accidents or incidents, including 

train-to-train collisions, over-speed 

derailments, incursions into established 

work zones, and movements of trains 

through switches left in the wrong 

position.2

In general, the statutory mandate 

requires that by December 31, 2020, 

FRA-certified and interoperable PTC 

systems must govern operations on all 

PTC-mandated main lines, currently 

encompassing nearly 58,000 route miles 

nationwide.3 See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 

CFR 236.1005(b)(6)–(7). Currently, 35 

host railroads 4—including 7 Class I 

railroads, 23 intercity passenger 

railroads or commuter railroads, and 5 

Class II or III, short line, or terminal 

railroads—are directly subject to the 

statutory mandate to implement an 

FRA-certified and interoperable PTC 

system on their PTC-mandated main 

lines by December 31, 2020. For 

purposes of FRA’s PTC regulations, a 

host railroad is ‘‘a railroad that has 

effective operating control over a 

segment of track,’’ and a tenant railroad 

is ‘‘a railroad, other than a host railroad, 

operating on track upon which a PTC 

system is required.’’ See 49 CFR 

236.1003(b). 

For context, under the statutory 

mandate, ‘‘interoperability’’ is the 

general requirement that the controlling 

locomotives and cab cars of any host 

railroad and tenant railroad operating 

on the same main line must 

communicate with and respond to the 

PTC system, including uninterrupted 

movements over property boundaries, 

except as otherwise permitted by law.5

As of September 2020, according to host 

railroads’ PTC Implementation Plans 

(PTCIP), approximately 93 distinct PTCrequired tenant railroads operate on 

main lines subject to the statutory 

mandate. Because many railroads 

operate on multiple host railroads’ PTCmandated main lines, there are 

approximately 219 host-tenant railroad 

relationships in which PTC system 

interoperability must be achieved by 

December 31, 2020. 

From 2018 through 2020, FRA held 

three PTC Symposia and Collaboration 

Sessions per year to underscore the 

importance of the mandate, ensure the 

industry understands the statutory and 

regulatory requirements, and facilitate 

timely compliance. In addition, the six 

Collaboration Sessions during 2019 and 

2020 provided the opportunity for FRA 

to convene the industry’s technical 

experts to share best practices and 

jointly resolve common technical 

problems. 

Through these meetings and regular 

coordination with all railroads 

implementing PTC systems, PTC system 

vendors and suppliers, and other 

stakeholders, FRA began proactively 

identifying aspects of FRA’s existing 

PTC regulations that could impede 

either PTC-related innovation or FRA’s 

oversight, following the December 31, 

2020, statutory deadline for full PTC 

system implementation. Specifically, 

FRA identified two existing regulatory 

provisions, 49 CFR 236.1021 and 

236.1029(h), which, if not revised, could 

impede the industry’s ability to advance 

PTC technology efficiently and FRA’s 

ability to oversee the performance and 

reliability of PTC systems effectively. 

First, understanding that the railroad 

industry intends to update FRAcertified PTC systems continually to 

ensure safe operations (e.g., through 

ongoing, necessary maintenance) and to 

enhance further the technology (e.g., by 

adding new functionality or improving 

a PTC system’s reliability and 

operability), FRA is proposing to modify 

the process under 49 CFR 236.1021 for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82402 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

6The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) will be placed 

in the docket (Docket No. FRA–2019–0075) for 

review when this NPRM is published. 

7Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 

2008), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g). 

8 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010). 

9See 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 

(May 14, 2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 

FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016). 

10Public Law 114–73, 129 Stat. 568, 576–82 (Oct. 

29, 2015), as amended by the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114–94, 

section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 

2015). See also 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016), 

amending 49 CFR part 236, subpart I. 

11 49 U.S.C. 20157(a). Please note that the PTCEI 

Act also required FRA to extend each deadline 

under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B) by three years, 

related to certain Class II and Class III railroads that 

operate in PTC territory. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(k); 81 

FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016). 

RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified 

systems. The improved process will 

enable the industry to deploy upgrades 

and technological enhancements more 

efficiently, and ensure FRA’s review of 

changes or modifications to FRAcertified systems is more predictable 

and consistent going forward. The 

proposed process will apply only to 

PTC systems FRA has already certified 

under 49 U.S.C. 20157(h). The statutory 

mandate generally requires FRA to 

certify that a host railroad’s PTC system 

complies with 49 CFR part 236, subpart 

I, before it operates in revenue service, 

and this proposed rule will not amend 

the existing certification process FRA 

developed to comply with this mandate 

(i.e., this proposed rule would not 

amend 49 CFR 236.1009 or 236.1015 

regarding PTCSPs and the PTC System 

Certification process). To be clear, 

FRA’s proposal to modify the process 

that currently requires a host railroad to 

submit, and obtain FRA’s approval of, 

an RFA to a PTCSP under 49 CFR 

236.1021 will not apply to any existing 

or new PTC system, unless and until 

FRA has certified that PTC system 

under 49 U.S.C. 20157(h). 

Instead of the existing RFA approval 

process with an indefinite decision 

timeline, FRA proposes to require 

railroads to comply with a streamlined 

RFA process, which includes providing 

certain documentation, analysis, and 

safety assurances. This proposed rule 

would establish a 45-day deadline for 

FRA to review and approve or deny 

railroads’ RFAs to their FRA-approved 

PTCSPs or FRA-certified PTC systems. 

In addition, FRA proposes to permit 

host railroads utilizing the same type of 

PTC system to submit joint RFAs to 

their PTCSPs and PTC Development 

Plans (PTCDP)—an option which, if 

exercised, would efficiently leverage 

industry’s resources, help ensure 

coordination among railroads operating 

the same types of PTC systems, and 

reduce the number of similar or 

identical RFA filings host railroads 

submit to FRA for review and approval. 

Second, FRA proposes to expand an 

existing reporting requirement—49 CFR 

236.1029(h), Annual report of system 

failures—by increasing the frequency of 

the reporting requirement from annual 

to biannual; broadening the reporting 

requirement to encompass positive 

performance-related information, not 

just failure-related information; and 

requiring host railroads to utilize a new, 

standardized Biannual Report of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152) 6 to enable more effective FRA 

oversight. In addition, FRA proposes to 

amend § 236.1029(h) by updating the 

provision to use certain statutory 

terminology for consistency; clarifying 

the ambiguous filing obligation by 

specifying that only host railroads 

directly submit these reports to FRA; 

and explicitly requiring tenant railroads 

to provide the necessary data to their 

applicable host railroads by a specific 

date before the biannual filing 

deadlines. 

FRA analyzed the economic impact of 

this proposed rule over a ten-year 

period and estimated its costs and cost 

savings, which are shown in the table 

below. The cost savings associated with 

FRA’s proposal to amend § 236.1021— 

i.e., to simplify the process for all RFAs 

to PTCSPs and authorize host railroads 

to file joint RFAs to PTCSPs and 

PTCDPs—would outweigh the costs 

associated with FRA’s proposal to 

expand the reporting requirement under 

paragraph (h) of § 236.1029. 

NET COST SAVINGS IN MILLIONS

[2019 Dollars] 

Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Industry Costs ............................................................................................................................... $324,158 $379,231 $46,153 $44,457 

Industry Cost Savings ................................................................................................................... 6,116,671 7,202,273 870,876 844,326 

Government Cost Savings ............................................................................................................ 17,978,594 21,188,896 2,559,747 2,483,985 

Net Cost Savings .......................................................................................................................... 23,771,107 28,011,938 3,384,471 3,283,854 

II. Background and Summary of the 

Main Proposals in the NPRM 

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC 

Regulations 

Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 required the 

Secretary to prescribe PTC regulations 

necessary to implement the statutory 

mandate, including regulations 

specifying the essential technical 

functionalities of PTC systems and the 

means by which FRA will certify PTC 

systems.7 The Secretary delegated to the 

Federal Railroad Administrator the 

authority to carry out the functions and 

exercise the authority vested in the 

Secretary by the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 

1.89(b). 

In accordance with its authority under 

49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49 CFR 1.89(b), 

FRA issued its first final PTC rule on 

January 15, 2010, which is set forth, as 

amended, under 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart I, Positive Train Control 

Systems.8 FRA’s PTC regulations under 

49 CFR part 236, subpart I, prescribe 

‘‘minimum, performance-based safety 

standards for PTC systems . . . 

including requirements to ensure that 

the development, functionality, 

architecture, installation, 

implementation, inspection, testing, 

operation, maintenance, repair, and 

modification of those PTC systems will 

achieve and maintain an acceptable 

level of safety.’’ 49 CFR 236.1001(a). 

FRA subsequently amended its PTC 

regulations via final rules issued in 

2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.9

Most recently, on February 29, 2016, 

as required, FRA amended its PTC 

regulations to revise the regulations’ 

date-specific deadlines for conformity 

with the Positive Train Control 

Enforcement and Implementation Act of 

2015 (PTCEI Act).10 Specifically, the 

PTCEI Act extended the original 

statutory deadline for full 

implementation of PTC systems from 

December 31, 2015, to at least December 

31, 2018.11 In addition, the PTCEI Act 

permits railroads to utilize an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82403 

12 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(C) (using the term 

‘‘shall’’). As background, four PTC-mandated host 

railroads reported that they fully implemented an 

FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all 

their required main lines by December 31, 2018. 

Every other host railroad subject to the statutory 

mandate in 2018 formally requested an alternative 

schedule and sequence under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3). 

By March 5, 2019, FRA approved all applicable 

requests for an alternative schedule and sequence, 

as each railroad sufficiently demonstrated it, at a 

minimum, met the six statutory criteria necessary 

to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence, 

under the statutory mandate. 

13See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1009(d) (requiring a PTC 

system to be implemented in accordance with the 

host railroad’s PTCSP). 14Currently, railroads are primarily 

implementing the following PTC systems in the 

United States: (1) The Interoperable Electronic 

Train Management System (I–ETMS), which Class 

I railroads and many commuter railroads are 

implementing; (2) the Advanced Civil Speed 

Enforcement System II (ACSES II) or the Advanced 

Speed Enforcement System II (ASES II), which most 

railroads operating on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) 

are implementing; (3) Enhanced Automatic Train 

Control (E–ATC), which five host railroads are 

implementing; (4) the Incremental Train Control 

System, which the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) is implementing in parts of 

Michigan; and (5) the Communication Based Train 

Control (CBTC) system, which one commuter 

railroad has fully implemented on its PTCmandated main lines. 

15 In addition to the 35 host railroads subject to 

the statutory mandate, representatives from 

multiple other railroads attended these PTC 

Collaboration Sessions, including eight tenant-only 

passenger railroads that operate on PTC-mandated 

main lines. 

‘‘alternative schedule and sequence’’ 

with a full implementation deadline 

beyond December 31, 2018, but not later 

than December 31, 2020. Further, the 

legislation required FRA to approve a 

railroad’s alternative schedule and 

sequence if the railroad demonstrated it 

met the six statutory criteria necessary 

to qualify for an alternative schedule 

and sequence.12

In this proposed rule, FRA proposes 

to revise three sections, 49 CFR 

236.1003, 236.1021, and 236.1029, of 

FRA’s existing PTC regulations pursuant 

to its specific authority under 49 CFR 

1.89 and 49 U.S.C. 20157(g), and its 

general authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 

to prescribe regulations and issue orders 

for every area of railroad safety. 

B. Public Participation Prior to the 

Issuance of the NPRM 

As referenced above, FRA regularly 

engages with host railroads, tenant 

railroads, and PTC system vendors and 

suppliers, as part of FRA’s oversight of 

railroads’ implementation of PTC 

systems on the mandated main lines 

under 49 U.S.C. 20157 and the other 

lines where railroads are voluntarily 

implementing PTC technology. The 

purpose of this section is to summarize 

FRA’s pertinent meetings prior to the 

issuance of this NPRM, pursuant to 49 

CFR 5.19. 

During two of FRA’s PTC 

Collaboration Sessions in 2019 and 

2020, FRA generally discussed its 

intention to propose to modify the RFA 

process under § 236.1021, specifically as 

it relates to FRA-approved PTCSPs and 

FRA-certified PTC systems. One of these 

two Collaboration Sessions was held on 

February 6, 2019 at DOT’s Headquarters 

in Washington, DC, and the other was 

hosted via teleconference on June 10, 

2020. 

Specifically, during the Collaboration 

Session on February 6, 2019, FRA noted 

it was considering simplifying the 

formal process for railroads to modify 

their PTCSPs and PTC systems under 

§ 236.1021, after FRA certifies a 

railroad’s PTC system as required under 

the statutory mandate. FRA raised 

questions for the industry to consider, 

including how host railroads plan to 

maintain their PTCSPs, as required, 

acknowledging that PTC technology will 

continue evolving given, for example, 

ongoing software modifications 

necessary for safe operations and 

voluntary enhancements to improve 

further the reliability or operability of 

PTC systems.13 FRA understands that, 

over time, new software releases may 

become necessary to: Fix certain bugs or 

defects; eliminate newly discovered 

hazards; or add new functionality to 

continue to improve rail safety, or the 

reliability and operability of the 

technology. In addition, FRA 

acknowledged that certain changes to 

PTC systems will likely impact multiple 

PTCSPs, as the industry is currently 

implementing five main types of PTC 

systems.14 During the Collaboration 

Session on June 10, 2020, FRA 

discussed its intention to issue this 

NPRM and described the high-level 

objectives of this proposed rule. 

In addition, on October 2, 2019, 

during FRA’s PTC Collaboration Session 

hosted at the National Housing Center 

in Washington, DC, one Class I railroad 

suggested that FRA should consider 

amending the permanent reporting 

requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) 

to make it consistent with the temporary 

statutory reporting requirement under 

49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), because existing 

paragraph (h) of § 236.1029 uses 

different terminology to describe PTCrelated failures. In addition, during this 

meeting, one commuter railroad 

requested that FRA create a 

standardized form for railroads to utilize 

under § 236.1029(h). FRA made no 

commitments at any of its PTC 

Collaboration Sessions, but FRA 

internally considered this industry 

input as it developed this proposed rule. 

Please note that all presentations from 

FRA’s PTC Symposia and Collaboration 

Sessions are available in FRA’s eLibrary, 

including direct links on FRA’s PTC 

website at https://railroads.dot.gov/ 

train-control/ptc/positive-train-controlptc. 

As information, representatives from 

all 35 host railroads currently subject to 

the statutory mandate attended at least 

two of the three above PTC 

Collaboration Sessions, and 89 percent 

of the PTC-mandated host railroads 

attended all three of the PTC 

Collaboration Sessions where FRA 

discussed either 49 CFR 236.1021 or 

236.1029(h).15 Specifically, 97 percent 

of the 35 applicable host railroads 

attended the PTC Collaboration Sessions 

on February 6, 2019 and October 2, 

2019, and 94 percent attended the 

session on June 10, 2020. Furthermore, 

representatives from the American 

Public Transportation Association 

(APTA), the American Short Line and 

Regional Railroad Association 

(ASLRRA), and the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR) participated 

in all three of these pertinent PTC 

Collaboration Sessions. In addition, a 

representative from the Commuter Rail 

Coalition attended the PTC 

Collaboration Sessions on October 2, 

2019 and June 10, 2020. 

Furthermore, on the following dates, 

FRA met with AAR and several of its 

member railroads to discuss various 

PTC-related issues and topics, including 

FRA’s previously stated intention to 

propose modifications to the RFA 

process under § 236.1021, specifically as 

it applies to FRA-certified PTC systems: 

September 6, 2019; March 3, 2020; April 

2, 2020; June 11, 2020; June 25, 2020; 

July 9, 2020; and August 27, 2020. 

During the meetings on September 6, 

2019 and July 9, 2020, representatives 

from AAR and its member railroads 

indicated that FRA should consider 

amending other provisions under FRA’s 

PTC regulations, in addition to 

§ 236.1021, but those provisions are not 

the focus of this proposed rule. As noted 

above, at this time, FRA considers it 

necessary to amend §§ 236.1021 and 

236.1029(h) because those provisions, if 

not revised, could impede the industry’s 

ability to enhance PTC technology and 

FRA’s ability to oversee the performance 

and reliability of PTC systems 

effectively. If FRA finds that any other 

amendments to 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart I, are necessary or justified in 

the future, FRA will address them in a 

separate NPRM. 

Representatives from the following 

Class I railroads and passenger 

railroads, listed alphabetically, attended 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82404 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

16See 75 FR 2598, 2660 (Jan. 15, 2010). 

17 49 CFR 236.1039(a). 

18 49 CFR 236.1039(c). See also Federal Railroad 

Administration, Revised PTC Guidance Regarding 

Interoperability Testing, Operations and 

Maintenance Manuals, and Certification 

Responsibilities (July 24, 2018), available at https:// 

www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L19583#p1_z5_gD_

lPO. 19See 49 CFR 236.1009(j)(2). 

the AAR meetings referenced 

immediately above: Amtrak, BNSF 

Railway, Canadian National Railway, 

Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX 

Transportation, Inc., Kansas City 

Southern Railway, Norfolk Southern 

Railway, the Northeast Illinois Regional 

Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra), 

the Southern California Regional Rail 

Authority (Metrolink), and Union 

Pacific Railroad. The railroads’ main 

comments during these meetings 

involved their concerns that the existing 

process under § 236.1021 would stifle 

innovation and create significant delays 

in deploying improvements to PTC 

technology. In general, they supported 

revising the existing RFA process under 

§ 236.1021 to help enable technological 

advancements and ensure FRA is not an 

impediment to the industry’s ability to 

enhance PTC technology. FRA’s 

statements during these meetings were 

consistent with FRA’s statements to all 

PTC-mandated host railroads at 

multiple PTC Collaboration Sessions. 

The proposals in this NPRM are based 

on FRA’s own review and analysis and, 

in part, on industry’s feedback during 

the meetings in 2019 and 2020, 

specified above. FRA seeks comments 

on all proposals made in this NPRM. 

C. Proposal To Establish a New Process 

for Modifying FRA-Certified PTC 

Systems and the Associated PTCSPs 

FRA’s PTC regulations have always 

acknowledged that after 

‘‘implementation of a train control 

system, the subject railroad may have 

legitimate reasons for making changes in 

the system design,’’ among other 

changes, including to a PTC system’s 

functionality.16 Accordingly, under 49 

CFR 236.1015(d)(7), FRA requires host 

railroads’ PTCSPs to include, among 

other relevant information, a ‘‘complete 

description of the specific procedures 

and test equipment necessary to ensure 

the safe and proper . . . operation, 

maintenance, repair, inspection, testing, 

and modification of the PTC system on 

the railroad.’’ 

Recognizing that PTC technology 

must be actively maintained throughout 

its lifecycle and beyond, FRA’s 

regulations also require each railroad to 

‘‘catalog and maintain all documents as 

specified in the PTCDP and PTCSP for 

. . . maintenance, repair, modification, 

inspection, and testing of the PTC 

system.’’ 17 Specifically, 49 CFR 

236.1039(a) requires railroads to retain 

these documents in a PTC Operations 

and Maintenance Manual, which must 

be ‘‘readily available to persons required 

to perform such tasks and for inspection 

by FRA and FRA-certified state 

inspectors.’’ For example, a railroad’s 

Operations and Maintenance Manual 

must document all ‘‘[h]ardware, 

software, and firmware revisions . . . 

according to the railroad’s configuration 

management control plan and any 

additional configuration/revision 

control measures specified in the [host 

railroad’s] PTCSP.’’ 18

FRA is aware that host railroads will 

need to deploy new PTC software 

releases, among other changes, to ensure 

their PTC systems are performing 

properly—for example, to fix certain 

bugs or defects or eliminate newly 

discovered hazards. In addition to 

incremental changes to PTC systems 

that are necessary for the continued safe 

and proper functioning of the 

technology, FRA understands that 

several railroads and PTC system 

vendors and suppliers have chosen to 

design and develop their PTC systems to 

perform safety-related functions in 

addition to the minimum, performancebased functions specified under the 

statutory mandate and FRA’s 

regulations. 

Currently, FRA’s PTC regulations, in 

relevant part, prohibit a railroad from 

making certain changes to its FRAapproved PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC 

system unless the railroad files an RFA 

to its PTCSP and obtains approval from 

FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Safety. 49 CFR 236.1021. This 

proposed rule does not envision 

revising the types of changes that 

currently require a host railroad to file 

an RFA under § 236.1021(h)(1)–(4) 

(often referred to as ‘‘material 

modifications’’) or the exceptions 

currently set forth under § 236.1021(i)– 

(k). 

For example, FRA’s regulations 

require a railroad to submit, for FRA 

review and approval, an RFA to the 

railroad’s PTCSP for any proposed 

modification of a safety-critical element 

of a PTC system or any proposed 

modification of a PTC system that 

affects the safety-critical functionality of 

any other PTC system with which it 

interoperates. See 49 CFR 

236.1021(h)(3)–(4). Though FRA’s 

existing regulations specify that FRA 

will, to the extent practicable, review 

and issue a decision regarding a host 

railroad’s initially filed PTCSP within 

180 days of the date it was filed, FRA’s 

regulations do not currently specify an 

estimated timeline for reviewing and 

approving or denying railroads’ 

subsequent RFAs to their PTCSPs.19 In 

practice, as of September 2020, it has 

taken FRA 127 days, on average, to 

review and approve recent RFAs to 

PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems, 

which is, in part, due to the complex 

content requirements currently under 

paragraphs (d)(1) to (7) of § 236.1021. 

Instead of the existing RFA approval 

process with an indefinite decision 

timeline, FRA proposes to: (1) Require 

railroads to comply with a streamlined 

RFA process, including providing 

certain documentation, analysis, and 

safety assurances; and (2) establish a 45- 

day deadline for FRA’s review and 

issuance of a decision. In new proposed 

paragraph (m) of § 236.1021, FRA 

outlines the proposed content 

requirements for RFAs to PTCSPs for 

FRA-certified PTC systems—focusing on 

the core information and analysis FRA 

would need to review to ensure the PTC 

system, including any proposed 

changes, will provide an equivalent or 

greater level of safety than the existing 

PTC system. The improved process 

would enable the industry to implement 

technological enhancements more 

efficiently, and the clear timeline would 

help ensure a more predictable and 

transparent FRA review process going 

forward. 

In addition, this proposed rule 

envisions permitting host railroads 

utilizing the same type of PTC system to 

submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and 

PTCDPs—an option which, if exercised, 

will efficiently leverage industry’s 

resources, help ensure coordination 

among railroads operating the same 

types of PTC systems, and reduce the 

number of similar or identical RFA 

filings host railroads submit to FRA for 

review. As noted above, currently, the 

35 PTC-mandated host railroads are 

implementing five types of PTC 

systems, though FRA acknowledges 

that, in several cases, railroads are 

implementing PTC systems of the same 

type in different manners (e.g., 

variances in design, functionality, and 

operation), requiring railroads to 

conduct additional testing and gap 

analyses to achieve and sustain 

interoperability, including configuration 

management. 

Appreciating that changes to safetycritical elements, including software or 

system architecture, of a certain PTC 

system will likely impact multiple, if 

not most, railroads implementing that 

same type of PTC system, FRA’s 

proposed rule outlines a path for such 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82405 

20For example, confirmation that: (1) Each host 

railroad notified any applicable tenant railroads of 

the proposed changes, any associated effect on the 

tenant railroads’ operations, and any actions the 

tenant railroads must take in accordance with the 

configuration control measures set forth in the host 

railroad’s PTCSP; and (2) the PTC system, if 

modified, would meet all technical requirements 

under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an 

equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing 

PTC system, and not adversely impact 

interoperability with any tenant railroads. 

21By law, the temporary reporting requirement 

under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) sunsets on 

approximately December 31, 2021—or more 

specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad 

obtains PTC System Certification from FRA and 

finishes fully implementing an FRA-certified and 

interoperable PTC system on all its required main 

lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j). 

22For example, acknowledging the incremental 

nature of implementation, the PTCEI Act required 

Class I railroads and Amtrak to demonstrate they 

‘‘implemented a [PTC] system or initiated revenue 

service demonstration on the majority of [PTCmandated] territories . . . or route miles that are 

owned or controlled by such carrier[s],’’ to qualify 

for an alternative schedule and sequence by law. 49 

U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) (emphasis added). 

23See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4); 49 CFR 1.89. 

24See 84 FR 72121, 72123–26 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 

FR 15022, 15025–27 (Mar. 16, 2020). 

host railroads to submit joint RFAs to 

their PTCSPs, with specific instructions 

under new proposed paragraphs (l) and 

(m) of § 236.1021. The proposed rule 

would specify that while most types of 

information required under proposed 

paragraph (m) of § 236.1021 may be 

submitted jointly in the RFA, the joint 

RFA would need to include certain 

written confirmations or statements 20

from each host railroad that is a 

signatory to the joint RFA. In addition, 

FRA’s proposed rule specifies that only 

host railroads with the same PTC 

System Certification classification under 

paragraph (e) of § 236.1015 may jointly 

file an RFA to their PTCSPs. 

Though this proposed rule would 

generally authorize host railroads 

utilizing the same type of PTC system to 

file RFAs to their PTCSPs jointly, FRA 

expects this aspect of the proposal, in 

the short term, primarily to impact host 

railroads implementing I–ETMS and E– 

ATC because each respective I–ETMS 

and E–ATC system is similar to others 

of the same type, with a baseline 

functionality. Conversely, there is not a 

uniform standard or specification 

currently underlying the ACSES II or 

ASES II PTC systems that host railroads 

are implementing on the NEC. In 

addition, there is an array of ACSES II 

suppliers, including for the onboard, 

wayside, and communications 

subsystems. In the future, however, as 

the ACSES II railroads finish 

establishing the Interoperable Change 

Management Plan they are currently 

developing, it is possible that at least 

some of the host railroads utilizing 

ACSES II or ASES II will elect to submit 

joint RFAs to their respective PTCSPs 

for certain system-wide changes, 

consistent with the option under 

proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of 

§ 236.1021. 

FRA recognizes that modifying and 

simplifying the process for host 

railroads to submit RFAs to PTCSPs for 

FRA-certified PTC systems is necessary 

to facilitate required maintenance and 

upgrades to PTC technology and 

encourage railroads to enhance their 

PTC systems to continue to improve rail 

safety. 

D. Proposal To Expand the 

Performance-Related Reporting 

Requirements 

Following the applicable deadline for 

full PTC system implementation under 

49 U.S.C. 20157, FRA’s regulations 

currently require a railroad to submit an 

annual report by April 16th each year 

regarding the number of PTC system 

failures, ‘‘including but not limited to 

locomotive, wayside, communications, 

and back office system failures,’’ that 

occurred during the previous calendar 

year. See 49 CFR 236.1029(h). The first 

failure-related annual reports pursuant 

to § 236.1029(h) were due on April 16, 

2019 from the four host railroads whose 

statutory deadline was December 31, 

2018 for the full implementation of a 

PTC system on their required main 

lines. FRA has found that all annual 

reports railroads submitted to date have 

been brief (e.g., as short as half of a 

page) and included minimal 

information, but still technically 

satisfied the existing content 

requirements under § 236.1029(h). 

Because the minimal information 

currently required under § 236.1029(h) 

does not permit FRA to monitor 

adequately the rate at which PTC system 

failures occur or evaluate improvements 

over time, FRA is proposing to revise 

§ 236.1029(h) to enable FRA to perform 

its oversight functions effectively. 

Specifically, FRA proposes to increase 

the frequency of this reporting 

requirement from annual to biannual, 

with proposed filing deadlines on July 

31 (covering the period from January 1 

to June 30) and January 31 (covering the 

period from July 1 to December 31 of the 

prior calendar year), instead of an 

annual filing deadline on April 16, as 

§ 236.1029(h) currently provides. Under 

the existing framework, pursuant to 

§ 236.1029(h), FRA must wait until 

April 16th each year to receive 

railroads’ failure-related data from the 

prior calendar year—data which is quite 

outdated by the time it is filed. FRA’s 

proposed biannual frequency would 

enable FRA to monitor closely trends in 

PTC system reliability with more up-todate data, covering two intervals per 

year. In addition, FRA notes that the 

proposed biannual frequency is 

reasonable, given that railroads must 

currently submit certain failure-related 

data quarterly or monthly, pursuant to 

a temporary reporting requirement 

under the statutory mandate, as 

discussed below. 

In addition, to ensure the data 

railroads submit under § 236.1029(h) are 

uniform, comparable, and objective, 

FRA proposes to revise this existing 

reporting requirement by specifying the 

exact types of statistics and information 

the reports must include; broadening 

the reporting requirement to encompass 

positive performance-related 

information, not just failure-related 

information; and requiring host 

railroads to utilize a new, standardized 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to 

enable more effective FRA oversight. 

Furthermore, FRA proposes to amend 

§ 236.1029(h) to make it consistent with 

the temporary reporting requirement 

under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) because the 

existing statutory and regulatory 

provisions use different terminology to 

describe PTC-related failures. As 

background, the PTCEI Act established 

a reporting requirement that applies 

only temporarily—from October 29, 

2015, to approximately December 31, 

2021 21—and only to PTC systems that 

FRA has certified and have been 

implemented, including on a subset of 

a railroad’s main lines.22 49 U.S.C. 

20157(j)(4). As a default, the reporting 

requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) 

specifies that when an FRA-certified 

PTC system ‘‘fails to initialize, cuts out, 

or malfunctions,’’ the railroad must 

submit a notification to the appropriate 

FRA regional office within 7 days of the 

failure, and the notification must 

include a description of the safety 

measures the railroad has in place. 

However, as the PTCEI Act 

authorized, FRA established an 

alternative reporting deadline (instead 

of within 7 days of each occurrence) and 

an alternative reporting location 

(instead of submitting the notifications 

to the appropriate FRA region).23

Specifically, on December 30, 2019 and 

March 16, 2020, FRA published a 

proposed framework for host railroads 

operating FRA-certified PTC systems to 

submit a Statutory Notification of PTC 

System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) 

to fulfill this temporary reporting 

requirement under the PTCEI Act.24 On 

June 5, 2020, following the required 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82406 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

25Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ 

PTCSystemFailuresFRAForm177/. 

26A host railroad must submit monthly failurerelated notifications if it has fully implemented a 

PTC system on all required main lines. However, 

if a host railroad is operating an FRA-certified PTC 

system but is still in the process of fully 

implementing the PTC system, the railroad must 

submit failure-related notifications on a quarterly 

basis. Host railroads must transition from 

submitting Form FRA F 6180.177 quarterly to 

monthly, when they finish fully implementing their 

FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems on 

their required main lines. For simplicity, in general, 

this two-tiered framework means that most host 

railroads that have obtained PTC System 

Certification must submit quarterly Statutory 

Notifications of PTC System Failures throughout 

2020, and monthly notifications throughout 2021 

until the reporting requirement expires. For 

additional detail, please see 85 FR 15022, 15025– 

27 (Mar. 16, 2020). 

27See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and (e)(1) (authorizing 

DOT to assess civil penalties for any violation of the 

statutory mandate). 

28Several railroads previously commented that, 

without such a percentage or context, the frequency 

of PTC system failures might otherwise seem high, 

and additional data would help convey the actual 

rate of such failures. In addition, in AAR’s 

comments, dated February 28, 2020, associated 

with Form FRA F 6180.177 (under Docket Nos. FRA 

2019–0004–N–20 and FRA 2020–0004–N–3), AAR 

specifically suggested that to ‘‘keep the report of 

PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and 

malfunctions in perspective, particularly if 

comparing individual railroads, it would be useful 

to normalize results between railroads.’’ Similarly, 

in APTA’s letter dated February 28, 2020, APTA 

requested that FRA identify the applicable 

denominator(s) to utilize when calculating the rate 

of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and 

malfunctions. See also 85 FR 15022, 15026 (Mar. 

16, 2020). 

29See 84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 

15022, 15025–26 (Mar. 16, 2020). 

notice-and-comment periods, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

approved the Statutory Notification of 

PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 

6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130– 

0553),25 as revised based on feedback 

from AAR and APTA. Host railroads 

must utilize that mandatory form and 

adhere to its instructions, including the 

two-tiered reporting frequency 26 and 

the centralized reporting location, to 

comply with 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) until 

that temporary reporting requirement 

expires on approximately December 31, 

2021.27

In this NPRM, FRA proposes to revise 

the permanent reporting requirement 

under § 236.1029(h) to utilize the 

statutory failure-related terms under 49 

U.S.C. 20157(j)—initialization failures, 

cut outs, and malfunctions—instead of 

the broad, imprecise term currently 

used in § 236.1029(h) (‘‘failures’’). Also, 

to ensure uniform interpretation of these 

terms, FRA proposes to add definitions 

of these three terms to the definitions 

section of FRA’s PTC regulations, 49 

CFR 236.1003, retaining the definitions 

that FRA adopted during its 

development of the Statutory 

Notification of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177), based on 

industry’s feedback. 

FRA’s proposed Biannual Report of 

PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152) under proposed § 236.1029(h) 

will incorporate both: (1) The 

information currently required under 

§ 236.1029(h); and (2) the corresponding 

types of data railroads must submit until 

approximately December 31, 2021 in 

their Statutory Notifications of PTC 

System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). 

For example, the proposed Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

would require certain geographical 

information and contextual data to help 

demonstrate how the occurrences of 

PTC system initialization failures, cut 

outs, and malfunctions compare to all 

operations on that host railroad’s PTCgoverned main lines.28

Furthermore, railroads have 

previously observed that, under existing 

§ 236.1029(h), it is unclear whether a 

host railroad, a tenant railroad, or both 

must submit the required reports to 

FRA. In this proposed rule, FRA 

proposes to resolve this ambiguity by 

specifying that only host railroads must 

directly submit these reports to FRA. 

This approach is consistent with the 

existing regulatory requirement 

directing a tenant railroad to report any 

PTC system failures or cut outs to ‘‘a 

designated railroad officer of the host 

railroad as soon as safe and 

practicable.’’ See 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4) 

(emphasis added). To ensure that host 

railroads receive the necessary 

information from their tenant railroads 

to compile the proposed Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152) under 

§ 236.1029(h), FRA proposes to require 

explicitly tenant railroads to provide the 

necessary data to their applicable host 

railroads by a specific date before the 

biannual filing deadlines, as set forth 

under new proposed paragraph (h)(4) of 

§ 236.1029. 

FRA considers its proposed changes 

to § 236.1029(h), as described below, 

necessary to enable FRA to monitor the 

performance and reliability of railroads’ 

PTC systems effectively throughout the 

country. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 236.1003 Definitions 

FRA proposes to add three definitions 

to paragraph (b) of this section to help 

ensure that FRA and the railroad 

industry consistently interpret the 

statutory failure-related terms under 49 

U.S.C. 20157(j)—initialization failures, 

cut outs, and malfunctions—as FRA 

now proposes to use these 

corresponding terms in § 236.1029(h) 

and the associated Biannual Report of 

PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152). Specifically, FRA proposes to 

adopt the definitions of these three 

terms that FRA currently utilizes in the 

Statutory Notification of PTC System 

Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), which 

were, in part, revised and refined based 

on industry’s feedback during the 

development of that corresponding form 

and the definitions therein.29

Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, 

Material Modifications, and 

Amendments 

The purpose of existing paragraphs (a) 

through (d) is to prohibit a railroad from 

making ‘‘changes, as defined by this 

section, to a PTC system, PTCIP, 

PTCDP, or PTCSP,’’ unless the railroad 

submits an RFA, with the content 

requirements under existing paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (7), and obtains approval 

from FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Safety. 

To be clear, this proposed rule will 

not revise the types of changes that 

currently require a host railroad to file 

an RFA under § 236.1021(h)(1)–(4) 

(often referred to as ‘‘material 

modifications’’) or the exceptions 

currently set forth under § 236.1021(i)– 

(k). For example, FRA’s regulations 

currently require a railroad to submit an 

RFA, subject to FRA’s review and 

approval, before making the following 

types of changes listed under existing 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (4): (1) A 

discontinuance of a PTC system; (2) a 

decrease of the PTC system’s limits; (3) 

a modification of a safety-critical 

element of a PTC system; or (4) a 

modification of a PTC system that 

affects the safety-critical functionality of 

any other PTC system with which it 

interoperates. For context, existing 

§ 236.1009(a)(2)(ii) additionally requires 

a railroad to submit an RFA— 

specifically to its FRA-approved 

PTCIP—if the railroad intends to initiate 

a new category of service (i.e., passenger 

or freight) or ‘‘[a]dd, subtract, or 

otherwise materially modify one or 

more lines of railroad for which 

installation of a PTC system is 

required.’’ 

In general, FRA’s proposed revisions 

to § 236.1021 are primarily intended to 

streamline the process by which host 

railroads must submit RFAs to their 

FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRAcertified systems, based on FRA’s 

recognition that the railroad industry 

intends to update and enhance FRAcertified PTC systems to advance rail 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82407 

30For additional detail and background, please 

see Section I (Executive Summary) and Subsection 

II–C (Proposal to Establish a New Process for 

Modifying FRA-certified PTC Systems and the 

Associated PTCSPs) of this NPRM. 

31Railroads’ applicable PTC docket numbers are 

available on FRA’s website at https://

railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-andquarterly-reports. 

32See, e.g., 75 FR 2598, 2661 (Jan. 15, 2010) 

(stating that planned changes ‘‘are those that the 

system developer and the railroad have included in 

the safety analysis associated with the PTC system, 

but have not yet implemented. These changes 

provide enhanced functionality to the system, and 

FRA strongly encourages railroads to include PTC 

system improvements that further increase safety.’’). 

safety.30 Accordingly, FRA’s proposed 

revisions to the process under existing 

paragraphs (a) through (d) are limited to 

removing any references to PTCSPs 

from those paragraphs, as FRA is 

proposing in this proposed rule to 

establish a new, streamlined process for 

RFAs associated with PTCSPs under 

proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). In 

addition to FRA’s proposal to remove 

references to PTCSPs from existing 

paragraphs (a) through (d), FRA 

proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) in 

its entirety, and to incorporate the 

general principle of paragraph (d)(7) 

into a new proposed paragraph, 

(m)(2)(i), as discussed below. 

Consistent with the existing 

requirements under § 236.1021, 

railroads would still need to submit, 

and obtain FRA’s approval of, RFAs for 

certain changes to their PTCIPs and 

PTCDPs, including the types of changes 

enumerated above under 49 CFR 

236.1021(h)(1) through (2) and 

236.1009(a)(2)(ii)—e.g., a proposed 

discontinuance of a PTC system or a 

proposed addition or removal of track 

segments from a railroad’s PTCIP. 

New proposed paragraph (l) would 

permit host railroads utilizing the same 

type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs 

to their PTCSPs and PTCDPs, as those 

are system-based documents, albeit with 

some railroad-specific variances. FRA 

expects that host railroads would utilize 

this joint RFA option to the extent 

practicable, and it would efficiently 

leverage industry’s resources, help 

ensure coordination among railroads 

operating the same types of PTC 

systems, and reduce the number of 

similar or identical RFA filings host 

railroads submit to FRA for review and 

approval. Because changes to safetycritical elements, including software or 

system architecture, of a certain PTC 

system would likely impact multiple, if 

not most, railroads implementing that 

same type of PTC system, FRA proposes 

to outline a path for such host railroads 

to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, 

with specific instructions under 

proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). FRA 

notes that it would consider it 

acceptable for an association to submit 

a joint RFA under proposed paragraph 

(l), but it would need to be explicitly on 

behalf of two or more host railroads, and 

each host railroad would need to sign 

the filing. 

Proposed paragraph (l) would also 

specify that only host railroads with the 

same PTC System Certification 

classification under 49 CFR 236.1015(e) 

would be able to file a joint RFA to their 

PTCSPs. For example, when an RFA is 

necessary under § 236.1021 to account 

for certain proposed changes to 

railroads’ I–ETMS PTCSPs, or I–ETMS 

itself, FRA would expect a joint RFA 

from the set of host railroads whose I– 

ETMS is certified as a non-vital, overlay 

PTC system under § 236.1015(e)(1), and 

a joint RFA from the set of host railroads 

whose I–ETMS is certified as a mixed 

PTC system under § 236.1015(e)(4). Two 

distinct RFAs would be necessary under 

these circumstances, as the impact of 

the proposed change(s) would need to 

be analyzed in the context of the 

underlying safety analysis in the FRAapproved PTCSPs—a safety analysis 

that is structured differently based on 

whether FRA has certified the PTC 

system as a non-vital, overlay system; a 

vital, overlay system; a standalone 

system; or a mixed system. 

Furthermore, with respect to joint 

RFAs, paragraph (l) would specify that, 

though most types of information 

required under proposed paragraph 

(m)(2) may be submitted jointly in the 

RFA, a joint RFA would need to include 

the written confirmation and statement 

specified under proposed paragraphs 

(m)(2)(iii) and (iv), as described below, 

from each host railroad that is a 

signatory to the joint RFA. 

New proposed paragraph (m) would 

outline the mandatory, three-step 

process a host railroad would need to 

follow to make changes to its FRAcertified PTC system and the associated 

FRA-approved PTCSP. FRA intends the 

process under proposed paragraph (m) 

to apply to all changes necessitating an 

RFA under existing paragraphs (h)(3) 

and (4) of this section—i.e., proposed 

changes to safety-critical elements of 

PTC systems and proposed changes to a 

PTC system that affect the safety-critical 

functionality of any other PTC system 

with which it interoperates. For brevity, 

FRA will refer to these changes as 

changes to safety-critical elements of 

PTC systems, as that is sufficiently 

broad for purposes of paragraph (m). 

Proposed paragraph (m)(1) would 

require a host railroad to revise its 

PTCSP to account for each proposed 

change to its PTC system, and 

summarize such changes in a 

chronological table of revisions at the 

beginning of its PTCSP. FRA retains its 

authority to request a copy of a host 

railroad’s governing PTCSP in 

accordance with 49 CFR 236.1009(h), 

FRA access, and 49 CFR 236.1037, 

Records retention. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(2) would 

specifically require a host railroad to file 

an RFA pursuant to paragraph (m) 

electronically, which could include 

electronic filing on FRA’s Secure 

Information Repository (https://

sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads 

currently file other PTC-related 

documents, or another designated 

location. If a host railroad wishes to 

seek confidential treatment of any part 

of its RFA, the railroad would need to 

comply with the existing process and 

requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, 

Request for confidential treatment, 

which include marking the document 

properly with the necessary labels and 

redactions, and providing a statement 

justifying nondisclosure and referring to 

the specific legal authority claimed. 

FRA would post a host railroad’s RFA 

(the public, redacted version, if 

applicable) and FRA’s final decision 

letter in the respective railroad’s PTC 

docket on http://www.regulations.gov.31

In proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(i) 

through (v), FRA outlines the proposed 

content requirements for an RFA to an 

FRA-certified PTC system and the 

associated PTCSP—focusing on the core 

information and analysis FRA would 

need to review to ensure the PTC 

system, including any proposed 

changes, would provide an equivalent 

or greater level of safety than the 

existing PTC system. Importantly, 

proposed paragraph (m)(2)(i) would 

require the RFA to include a summary 

of the proposed changes to any safetycritical elements of a PTC system, 

including a summary of how the 

changes to the PTC system would affect 

its safety-critical functionality, how any 

new hazards have been addressed and 

mitigated, whether each change is a 

planned change 32 that was previously 

included in all required analysis under 

§ 236.1015, or an unplanned change, 

and the reason for the proposed 

changes, including whether the changes 

are necessary to address or resolve an 

emergency or urgent issue. 

FRA’s existing paragraphs (d)(7)(i) 

through (v) of § 236.1021 explain the 

distinction between an unplanned 

change and a planned change and 

impose certain additional requirements, 

including conducting suitable 

regression testing to FRA’s satisfaction 

and filing a new PTCDP and PTCSP, 

under certain circumstances. As noted 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82408 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

33See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1001(a), 236.1015(d)(11), 

236.1015(e)(1)(iii), and 236.1015(g). 

34That is, proposed changes to safety-critical 

elements of PTC systems or proposed changes to a 

PTC system that affect the safety-critical 

functionality of any other PTC system with which 

it interoperates. 

35Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft 

Corporation. All third-party trademarks belong to 

their respective owners. 

36See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1011(d) (stating that a 

‘‘railroad that elects to install a PTC system when 

not required to do so may elect to proceed under 

this subpart [subpart I] or under subpart H of this 

part,’’ including the associated filing and reporting 

requirements). 

above, FRA proposes to remove 

paragraph (d)(7) and instead require a 

host railroad to identify in its RFA 

under paragraph (m)(2)(i) only whether 

the change is a planned change or an 

unplanned change. That basic 

information would be valuable to 

include in the abbreviated RFA under 

paragraph (m) because several railroads 

have already accounted for long-term, 

planned changes to their PTC systems 

and proactively integrated those 

assumptions into the corresponding 

analyses in their PTCSPs. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(ii) would 

require the RFA to include a copy of any 

associated software release notes, which 

would be critical for FRA to review and 

evaluate before one or more railroads 

deploy the upgraded software. A copy of 

the release notes would be integral in 

conveying the actual changes to the PTC 

system, including any corrections, 

enhancements, or new features or 

functionality. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iii) would 

require the RFA to contain a 

confirmation that the host railroad has 

notified any applicable tenant railroads 

of the proposed changes, any associated 

effect on the tenant railroads’ 

operations, and any actions the tenant 

railroads must take in accordance with 

the configuration control measures set 

forth in the host railroad’s PTCSP. In 

addition, proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iv) 

would require the RFA to include a 

statement from the host railroad’s Chief 

Engineer and Chief Operating Officer, or 

executive officers of similar 

qualifications, verifying that the 

modified PTC system would meet all 

technical requirements under 49 CFR 

part 236, subpart I, provide an 

equivalent or greater level of safety than 

the existing PTC system, and not 

adversely impact interoperability with 

any tenant railroads. This would be 

consistent with existing regulatory 

provisions that require PTC systems to 

achieve and maintain a level of safety, 

for each system modification, that is 

equal to or greater than the level of 

safety provided by the previous PTC 

system.33

Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(v) would 

require a host railroad to submit any 

other information that FRA requests on 

a case-by-case basis, during FRA’s 

review of the RFA. If FRA were to 

require a host railroad, or a set of host 

railroads, to provide additional 

information in support of the RFA, 

FRA’s request would identify a deadline 

by which to submit the information. 

Also, this would be generally consistent 

with the existing provision under 49 

CFR 236.1015(f), which provides that in 

any case where a PTCSP, or an RFA in 

this scenario, ‘‘lacks adequate data 

regarding [the] safety impacts of the 

proposed changes, the Associate 

Administrator may request the 

necessary data from the applicant.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (m)(3) would 

outline a definite, predictable timeline 

associated with FRA’s review of an RFA 

to a host railroad’s PTCSP or FRAcertified PTC system under proposed 

paragraph (m). Specifically, proposed 

paragraph (m)(3) would prohibit a host 

railroad from making any changes, as 

defined under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3) or 

(4),34 to its PTC system until the 

Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad 

Systems, Technology, and Automation 

approves the RFA. Under proposed 

paragraph (m)(3)(i), FRA would review 

the RFA and issue a decision—i.e., an 

approval, conditional approval, or 

denial of the RFA—within 45 days of 

the date on which the RFA was filed 

under paragraph (m)(2). FRA’s decision 

would be in the form of a letter from the 

Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad 

Systems, Technology, and Automation. 

As noted above, FRA would post each 

final decision letter in the respective 

railroad’s PTC docket on http://

www.regulations.gov. FRA, however, 

may send interim correspondence— 

including any notices requiring a 

railroad to provide additional 

information under proposed paragraph 

(m)(2)(v)—via email. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(ii) would 

explicitly acknowledge that FRA 

reserves the right to notify a railroad 

that it may proceed with making its 

proposed changes prior to the 45-day 

mark, including in an emergency or 

under other circumstances necessitating 

a railroad’s immediate implementation 

of the proposed changes to its PTC 

system. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(iii) would 

specify that FRA may require a railroad 

to modify its RFA and/or its PTC 

system, but only to the extent necessary 

to ensure safety or compliance with the 

requirements under FRA’s PTC 

regulations. 

If FRA denies an RFA under proposed 

paragraph (m), proposed paragraph 

(m)(3)(iv) would specify that each 

applicable railroad would be prohibited 

from making the proposed changes to its 

PTC system until the railroad both 

sufficiently addresses FRA’s questions, 

comments, and concerns and obtains 

FRA’s approval. Consistent with 

proposed paragraph (l) of this section, 

any host railroads utilizing the same 

type of PTC system, including the same 

certification classification under 

paragraph (e) of § 236.1015, would be 

permitted to submit information jointly 

to address FRA’s questions, comments, 

and concerns following any denial of an 

RFA under this section. 

FRA expects that its proposed 

paragraphs (l) and (m) would help 

establish an improved process that 

would entail a reasonable level of 

predictability and transparency in 

FRA’s review process and enable the 

industry to make technological 

advancements more efficiently. 

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and 

Failures 

Currently, paragraph (h) of this 

section requires railroads to report 

annually to FRA the number of PTC 

system failures that occurred during the 

previous calendar year. FRA is 

proposing to revise this existing 

paragraph to clarify and expand the 

reporting requirement and require host 

railroads to submit the information in a 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). 

FRA’s proposed Excel-based 35 Form 

FRA F 6180.152 has been placed in the 

docket for this NPRM (Docket No. FRA– 

2019–0075) for reference and review. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1) would 

specify this reporting requirement 

applies to each host railroad subject to 

49 U.S.C. 20157 or 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart I, which would include any new 

host railroads that become subject to the 

statutory mandate in the future and any 

host railroads that voluntarily 

implement a PTC system under subpart 

I.36

For clarification and simplicity, FRA 

is proposing to remove the phrase 

‘‘following the date of required PTC 

system implementation established by 

section 20157 of title 49 of the United 

States Code’’ from paragraph (h) because 

that phrase would be unnecessary after 

the final statutory deadline of December 

31, 2020 and retaining that phrase may 

cause confusion about the applicability 

of this reporting requirement to new 

railroads that become subject to the 

statutory mandate after 2020 or railroads 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82409 

37See 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 

236.1005. 

38FRA’s proposed Biannual Report of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) would 

include fields for host railroads to provide the raw 

denominators set forth under proposed paragraphs 

(h)(1)(v) through (vii), and FRA would calculate the 

rate of failures, utilizing those raw denominators. 

FRA has found that providing fields for railroads to 

enter such raw denominators, instead of 

percentages or rates, helps FRA accurately interpret 

railroads’ data, especially when comparing multiple 

railroads’ data or a single railroad’s data to its own 

prior reports. 

voluntarily implementing PTC systems 

on non-mandated lines. 

In addition, proposed paragraph (h)(1) 

would require a host railroad to file its 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) 

electronically, which could include 

electronic filing on FRA’s Secure 

Information Repository (https://

sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads file 

other PTC-related documents, or 

another designated location. To the 

extent a railroad would seek 

confidential treatment of any part of its 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152), 

the railroad would need to comply with 

the existing process and requirements 

under 49 CFR 209.11, including proper 

labeling and redacting and providing a 

statement justifying nondisclosure and 

referring to the specific legal authority 

claimed. FRA’s proposed Form FRA F 

6180.152 would contain fields for a host 

railroad to identify its request for partial 

or full confidentiality and provide the 

required statement under § 209.11(c), if 

applicable. 

Also, proposed paragraph (h)(1) 

would require a host railroad to include 

in its Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) the 

figures itemized under proposed 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (vii) for the 

host railroad, each of its applicable 

tenant railroads (as explained in 

proposed paragraph (h)(4)), and each of 

its PTC-governed track segments. In this 

proposed paragraph, FRA acknowledges 

that a host railroad’s PTCIP may identify 

or designate its specific track segments 

as territories, subdivisions, districts, 

main lines, branches, or corridors, based 

on a railroad’s own naming 

conventions. FRA expects that requiring 

this relatively high-level geographical 

information (e.g., by subdivision, not by 

milepost location) would still enable 

FRA to monitor closely trends in PTC 

system reliability throughout the 

country and focus its resources, for 

example, on any areas where PTC 

system failures are occurring at a high 

rate. 

Consistent with existing paragraph 

(h), proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iii) would require a railroad’s 

biannual report to include the number 

of PTC-related failures that occurred 

during the applicable reporting period, 

in addition to a numerical breakdown of 

the ‘‘failures by category, including but 

not limited to locomotive, wayside, 

communications, and back office system 

failures,’’ quoting existing 49 CFR 

236.1029(h). In proposed paragraphs 

(h)(1)(i) through (iii), however, FRA 

acknowledges that the source or cause 

of a PTC system failure might not 

necessarily involve, in every instance, 

the PTC system itself, so FRA proposes 

to include an additional category for 

railroads to select in the applicable 

drop-down menu in Form FRA F 

6180.152—i.e., ‘‘a non-PTC 

component.’’ 

Another difference between the 

existing paragraph (h) and FRA’s 

proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through 

(iii) is that FRA’s proposed language 

utilizes the statutory terminology under 

49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) as referenced 

above—initialization failures, cut outs, 

and malfunctions—which would be 

defined under paragraph (b) of 

§ 236.1003. FRA is aware that railroads 

track their PTC system failures in this 

manner (by type of failure), given the 

existing temporary reporting 

requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) 

and FRA’s associated mandatory form, 

the Statutory Notification of PTC 

System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). 

In proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv), FRA 

is proposing to expand the existing 

reporting requirement under paragraph 

(h) to encompass certain positive, 

performance-related information, as 

otherwise the information FRA receives 

would be about PTC system failures 

only. FRA proposes to require railroads’ 

Biannual Reports of PTC System 

Performance to include data about PTC 

technology’s positive impact on rail 

safety and the extent to which PTC 

systems are functioning as designed—to 

prevent train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into 

established work zones, and movements 

of trains through switches left in the 

wrong position.37 Specifically, proposed 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would require a 

host railroad to identify the number of 

intended enforcements by the PTC 

system and any other instances in 

which the PTC system prevented an 

accident or incident on the host 

railroad’s PTC-governed main lines, 

during the applicable reporting period. 

This type of statistic would be valuable 

and help demonstrate the extent to 

which PTC systems are meeting their 

desired objectives. FRA would interpret 

the term ‘‘intended enforcement’’ in this 

proposed paragraph consistently with 

how the term ‘‘enforce’’ is applied in 

FRA’s existing PTC regulations, which 

include references to how a PTC system 

shall enforce speeds, movement 

authorities, signal indications, and so 

forth. See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1005, 

236.1013, 236.1015, and 236.1047(a)(3). 

In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) 

through (vii), FRA would require a 

railroad’s Biannual Report of PTC 

System Performance to include certain 

contextual data to help FRA understand 

how the occurrences of PTC system 

initialization failures, cut outs, and 

malfunctions compare to all operations 

on that host railroad’s PTC-governed 

main lines.38 Specifically, proposed 

paragraph (h)(1)(v) would require a 

railroad’s biannual report to include the 

number of scheduled attempts at 

initialization of the PTC system during 

the applicable reporting period, which 

would help FRA calculate the actual 

rate of that railroad’s PTC system 

initialization failures. Respectively, 

proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) 

would require the railroad to provide 

the number of trains and the number of 

train miles governed by the PTC system 

during the applicable reporting period. 

FRA’s proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) 

through (vii) would generally 

encompass the same types of 

denominators currently set forth in the 

Statutory Notification of PTC System 

Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) with 

one notable difference. 

In FRA’s proposed paragraphs 

(h)(1)(v) through (vii), unlike Form FRA 

F 6180.177, FRA would be uniformly 

requiring those three data points from a 

host railroad and its applicable tenant 

railroads. In practice, FRA has found 

that host railroads providing certain 

denominators for tenant railroads (i.e., 

PTC-governed trains) and other 

denominators for the host railroad itself 

(i.e., scheduled attempts at initialization 

and PTC-governed train miles) makes it 

difficult for FRA to evaluate the rate at 

which failures are occurring systemwide. FRA expects that requiring 

uniform figures would help the agency 

derive more accurate, objective, and 

comparable statistics. Furthermore, FRA 

understands that host railroads collect 

the type of data under proposed 

paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) for 

their own operations and their tenant 

railroads’ operations because several 

host railroads have provided those 

additional data points in their Statutory 

Notifications of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177) to date. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would 

require a host railroad’s Biannual Report 

of PTC System Performance (Form FRA 

F 6180.152) to include a summary of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82410 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

39See Docket Nos. FRA 2019–0004–N–20 and 

FRA 2020–0004–N–3; 85 FR 15022, 15027 (Mar. 16, 

2020). 

40See id. 

41See 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993). 

42See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). 

any actions the host railroad and its 

tenant railroads are taking to improve 

the performance and reliability of the 

PTC system continually. This narrative 

section would provide railroads an 

opportunity to explain briefly the steps 

they are taking to improve their PTC 

system’s performance, which could also 

help put the biannual statistics into 

perspective. FRA did not propose 

including this content requirement 

under proposed paragraph (h)(1) 

because that paragraph would be track 

segment-specific, and FRA 

acknowledges that railroads generally 

take a system-wide approach to 

improving their PTC systems. 

Accordingly, FRA proposes to 

categorize this content requirement in 

the separate, proposed paragraph (h)(2), 

and FRA’s proposed, Excel-based Form 

FRA F 6180.152 would contain a field 

for railroads to enter this summary. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(3) outlines the 

dates by which host railroads would 

submit their Biannual Reports of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152) to FRA—i.e., by July 31 

(covering the period from January 1 to 

June 30), and by January 31 (covering 

the period from July 1 to December 31 

of the prior calendar year). FRA expects 

that providing railroads one full month 

(from the end of the half-year period) to 

complete Form FRA 6180.152 would be 

sufficient and reasonable, given 

railroads’ experience, since 2016, in 

submitting their Quarterly PTC Progress 

Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) one 

month after the end of the quarter. 

Furthermore, under the temporary 

Statutory Notification of PTC System 

Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), the 

due date for any monthly notification is 

currently the 15th of the following 

month—so, for example, the notification 

regarding initialization failures, cut 

outs, and malfunctions during 

November 2020 is due by December 15, 

2020 for the subset of host railroads that 

have fully implemented an FRAcertified PTC system. Accordingly, FRA 

expects that allowing one full month for 

railroads to prepare and submit their 

Biannual Reports of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) 

under proposed paragraph (h)(3) would 

be a reasonable timeframe for this 

permanent reporting requirement. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would 

explicitly require any applicable tenant 

railroads that operate on a host 

railroad’s PTC-governed main line(s) to 

provide the necessary data to their 

applicable host railroads by a specific 

date before the biannual filing 

deadlines—i.e., by July 15 (for the 

biannual report covering the period 

from January 1 to June 30) and by 

January 15 (for the biannual report 

covering the period from July 1 to 

December 31 of the prior calendar year). 

The text in proposed paragraph (h)(4) 

clarifies, however, that a host railroad 

would not need to include data in Form 

FRA F 6180.152 regarding a tenant 

railroad that is subject to an exception 

under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(4) or (5) 

during the applicable reporting period 

because such a tenant railroad’s 

movements would not be governed by 

PTC technology in that case and there 

would not be any pertinent, 

performance-related data to submit. 

In general, FRA’s proposed paragraph 

(h)(4) regarding tenant railroad 

responsibilities is based, in part, on 

comments AAR and APTA previously 

submitted during the comment period 

associated with the Statutory 

Notification of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177). Specifically, on 

February 28, 2020, AAR commented, 

‘‘[i]f FRA is going to require hosts to 

report tenant data, the agency must 

impose a clear and direct requirement 

on tenants to report the desired 

information to their host railroad.’’ 39 In 

APTA’s comments, also dated February 

28, 2020, APTA observed that a host 

railroad would need to obtain ‘‘all 

necessary logs to complete the analyses’’ 

from its tenant railroads to complete 

Form FRA F 6180.177 accurately.40 FRA 

acknowledges that an existing 

regulatory provision, 49 CFR 

236.1029(b)(4), already requires a tenant 

railroad to report a PTC system failure 

or cut out to ‘‘a designated railroad 

officer of the host railroad as soon as 

safe and practicable.’’ In addition, FRA 

is aware that several host railroads, 

including Class I railroads and 

passenger railroads, already regularly 

monitor and track tenant railroads’ PTC 

system initialization failures, cut outs, 

and malfunctions via automatically 

generated reports and/or via connected 

PTC system back offices. 

FRA expects that the language in 

proposed paragraph (h)(4) would help 

clarify the existing obligation on tenant 

railroads to provide certain data to their 

host railroads. Also, proposed paragraph 

(h)(4) would help ensure that host 

railroads receive tenant railroads’ 

necessary data for purposes of the 

reporting requirement under paragraph 

(h) in a timely manner. Specifically, in 

proposed paragraph (h)(4), FRA 

proposes to require each applicable 

tenant railroad to submit the 

information required under proposed 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) to each 

applicable host railroad by July 15 (for 

the report covering the period from 

January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 

(for the report covering the period from 

July 1 to December 31 of the prior 

calendar year). FRA expects that adding 

proposed paragraph (h)(4) to its 

regulations would offer more clarity and 

certainty about the timeframe under 

which tenant railroads would provide 

host railroads the information necessary 

to prepare and submit their Biannual 

Reports of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152). In addition, 

this proposed paragraph would help 

ensure that host railroads receive such 

data at least 15 days before the biannual 

filing deadlines under proposed 

paragraph (h)(3), i.e., July 31 and 

January 31. 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 

and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

This proposed rule is a nonsignificant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 41 and DOT’s Administrative 

Rulemaking, Guidance, and 

Enforcement Procedures in 49 CFR part 

5. FRA made this determination by 

finding that the economic effects of this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

exceed the $100 million annual 

threshold defined by Executive Order 

12866. This proposed rule is considered 

a deregulatory action under Executive 

Order 13771.42 FRA estimates this 

proposed rule would result in cost 

savings for the industry over a ten-year 

period. 

This proposed rule would reduce the 

burden on railroads while not adversely 

affecting railroad safety. To enable FRA 

to oversee the performance and 

reliability of railroads’ PTC systems 

effectively, FRA is proposing to change 

the reporting requirement under 49 CFR 

236.1029(h). FRA’s proposed changes 

include, but are not limited to, 

increasing the reporting frequency from 

annual to biannual, clarifying the types 

of statistics and information the reports 

must include, and expanding the 

reporting requirement to encompass 

positive performance-related 

information, not just failure-related 

information. The amended provision 

would require host railroads to submit 

additional information. Accordingly, 

FRA estimates that the number of hours 

it would take a host railroad to report 

the required information under 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82411 

43Several host railroads are implementing 

multiple types of PTC systems. 

44Previously, FRA estimated it would receive, on 

average, approximately 10 RFAs to railroads’ 

PTCIPs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs each year. However, 

from discussions with PTC-mandated railroads, 

FRA found the estimate did not account adequately 

for the number of RFAs host railroads intend to 

submit to their PTCSPs annually under 

§ 236.1021(h)(3)–(4) without the proposed rule. 

Tables A, B, and F in this proposed rule estimate 

more accurately the approximate average number of 

RFAs host railroads would submit to their PTCSPs 

each year under the existing regulations and under 

the proposed rule. See 84 FR 72121, 72127 (Dec. 30, 

2019). 

§ 236.1029(h) would increase under the 

proposed rule. To provide clarity and 

precision regarding the reporting 

requirement under § 236.1029(h), FRA 

has developed a proposed, Excel-based 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) 

that railroads would utilize to satisfy 

this reporting requirement. 

While FRA is proposing to expand 

this existing reporting requirement, the 

regulatory and administrative burden on 

host railroads would be reduced under 

§ 236.1021. Specifically, FRA is 

proposing to establish a streamlined 

process to enable the railroad industry 

to make technological advancements to 

FRA-certified PTC systems more 

efficiently and with FRA’s continued 

oversight. Instead of the existing RFA 

approval process under § 236.1021, FRA 

proposes to: (1) Require host railroads to 

comply with a streamlined process, 

which would include providing certain 

safety assurances and analysis in a 

concise RFA; and (2) establish a 45-day 

FRA decision deadline. This more 

efficient process is expected to result in 

cost savings for both the host railroads 

and the government. FRA’s proposed 

simplification of the content 

requirements associated with an RFA to 

a PTCSP under § 236.1021 would 

reduce the number of burden hours per 

RFA. In addition, FRA is proposing to 

permit host railroads utilizing the same 

type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs 

to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus 

reducing the number of RFAs railroads 

would need to submit in the future. 

Currently, 35 host railroads are 

required to submit RFAs before making 

certain changes to their PTCSPs under 

§ 236.1021, with many host railroads 

projected to submit one RFA to a PTCSP 

per year. Over the next ten years, FRA 

expects there will be an average increase 

of 1.5 new PTC-governed host railroads 

per year, beginning in the second year, 

for a total of approximately 14 

additional host railroads. Table A 

summarizes the types of PTC systems 

the 35 host railroads currently subject to 

the statutory mandate are implementing 

as of 2020 and the approximate number 

of RFAs host railroads would file to 

their PTCSPs under existing regulations. 

TABLE A—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REQUIRED RFAS TO PTCSPS BY TYPE OF PTC SYSTEM

Type of PTC system 

PTC systems being 

implemented by 

host railroads 

(as of 2020) 43

Annual 

Number 

of RFAs per 

PTC system 

Total number 

of RFAs 

ACSES II ............................................................................................................................ 8 1 8 

CBTC ................................................................................................................................. 1 1 1 

E–ATC ............................................................................................................................... 5 1 5 

ITCS ................................................................................................................................... 1 1 1 

I–ETMS .............................................................................................................................. 26 2 52 

Total ............................................................................................................................ 41 ........................ 67 

Currently, without the proposed rule, 

FRA estimates the 35 host railroads 

would need to submit approximately 67 

RFAs annually given the types of 

changes the industry intends to make to 

their PTC systems each year under 49 

CFR 236.1021(h)(3)–(4) in the future.44

FRA has estimated that the current 

hourly burden is 160 hours per RFA, 

based on previously approved PTC 

Information Collection Requests (ICRs). 

Table B below provides the current 

hourly burden and costs that host 

railroads face when submitting RFAs to 

their PTCSPs under the existing 

§ 236.1021. 

TABLE B—CURRENT HOST RAILROAD HOURLY BURDEN AND COST FOR RFAS TO PTCSPS

Year Submissions Hour burden per 

submission 

Total annual 

cost 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ................................................................................... 67 160 $830,505 $830,505 $830,505 

2 ................................................................................... 69 160 855,296 799,342 830,385 

3 ................................................................................... 70 160 867,692 757,876 817,883 

4 ................................................................................... 72 160 892,483 728,532 816,749 

5 ................................................................................... 73 160 904,879 690,328 803,973 

6 ................................................................................... 75 160 929,670 662,842 801,942 

7 ................................................................................... 76 160 942,066 627,738 788,965 

8 ................................................................................... 78 160 966,857 602,110 786,143 

9 ................................................................................... 79 160 979,252 569,934 773,031 

10 ................................................................................. 81 160 1,004,044 546,133 769,516 

Total ...................................................................... 740 .............................. 9,172,744 6,815,340 8,019,091 

Costs 

As described above, FRA is also 

proposing to amend a reporting 

requirement by increasing the frequency 

from annual to biannual, clarifying the 

types of statistics and information the 

reports must include, and expanding the 

reporting requirement to encompass 

positive performance-related 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82412 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

45The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) will be placed 

in the docket (Docket No. FRA–2019–0075) for 

review when this NPRM is published. 

information. Though FRA’s proposed 

rule will increase the number of 

required submissions, as well as the 

hourly burden per submission, FRA 

estimates any new costs will be minimal 

and offset by the cost savings derived 

from the proposed changes as presented 

in the Cost Savings section below. 

To clarify the information FRA is 

requesting from host railroads, FRA 

created an Excel-based form for the 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). 

This form will incorporate the 

information currently required under 49 

CFR 236.1029(h) and the additional 

types of information specified in this 

NPRM.45 Host railroads with FRAcertified PTC systems are experienced 

in compiling this type of information, 

given the corresponding reporting 

requirements under the temporary 

Statutory Notification of PTC System 

Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB 

Control No. 2130–0553). 

The hourly burden associated with 

submitting the required information will 

increase initially from 8 hours to 12 

hours per report on average. FRA 

estimates that, over time, railroads will 

develop procedures that decrease the 

reporting burden from 12 hours per 

submission to 10 hours per submission. 

FRA assumes this decrease will begin in 

the fourth year of the analysis as host 

railroads become familiar with the 

Excel-based form and as they develop 

processes to improve their data 

collection and reporting. 

In addition to the increase in hourly 

burden, FRA estimates an increased 

burden will result from the additional 

annual report this proposed rule will 

require. Consistent with the previously 

stated estimates, FRA assumes that 35 

host railroads will submit these 

biannual reports, and the number of 

applicable host railroads will increase 

by 1.5 on average each year. 

This analysis accounts for the 

marginal increase of four hours for the 

first three years of a host railroad 

reporting and two hours for each 

subsequent year. Table C below shows 

the marginal hourly burden increase 

associated with railroads’ reporting 

under the proposed rule. 

TABLE C—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD MARGINAL BURDEN INCREASE

Year 

Number of host 

railroad 

submissions 

with marginal 

4-hour burden 

Number of host 

railroad 

submissions 

with marginal 

2-hour burden 

Total marginal 

hourly burden 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 35 0 140 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 37 0 146 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 38 0 152 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 38 84 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 38 88 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 38 96 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 40 96 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 42 100 

9 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 43 102 

10 ..................................................................................................................................... 4 45 106 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 136 284 1,110 

In addition to the marginal increase, 

host railroads will face an additional 

reporting burden due to the proposed 

change from annual to biannual 

reporting. This analysis accounts for the 

new burden of 12 hours for the first 

three years of a host railroad’s reporting 

and 10 hours for each subsequent year 

to account for the proposed change from 

annual to biannual reporting. Table D 

below shows the new hourly burden 

under this proposed rule for the ten-year 

period of this analysis. 

TABLE D—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD NEW SUBMISSIONS

Year 

Number of host 

railroad 

submissions 

with new 

12-hour burden 

Number of host 

railroad 

submissions 

with new 

10-hour burden 

Total new 

hourly burden 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 35 0 420 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 37 0 438 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 38 0 456 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 38 404 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 38 416 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 38 440 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 40 448 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 42 468 

9 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 43 478 

10 ..................................................................................................................................... 4 45 498 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 136 284 4,466 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82413 

46 2019 Composite Surface Transportation Board 

(STB) Professional and Administrative hourly wage 

rate of $44.27 burdened by 75-percent ($44.27 × 

1.75 = $77.47). 

47Total Annual Host Railroad Submissions Cost 

= Total New Complete Hour Burden × $77.47. 48FRA expects its proposal to allow host railroads 

to submit joint RFAs to impact primarily host 

railroads implementing I–ETMS and E–ATC 

because each I–ETMS system is relatively similar 

and manufactured by the same set of suppliers, and 

each E–ATC system is relatively similar and 

manufactured by the same set of suppliers. 

FRA calculated the total additional 

burden hours for submissions by 

multiplying the respective number of 

submissions with their associated 

annual burden for each individual year. 

The summation of the hourly burden is 

multiplied by the fully burdened wage 

rate of a Professional and 

Administrative employee. For purposes 

of this analysis, FRA uses the fully 

burdened rate of $77.47 to calculate 

both the costs and cost savings 

throughout this analysis.46 Table E 

provides the ten-year cost to the railroad 

industry associated with the expanded 

reporting requirement, as proposed. 

TABLE E—TEN-YEAR TOTAL COSTS

Year 

Total 

marginal 

hour burden 

Total new 

submission 

hour burden 

Total new 

complete 

hour burden 

Total annual 

host railroad 

submissions 

cost 47

7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ........................................................... 140 420 560 $43,385 $43,385 $43,385 

2 ........................................................... 146 438 584 45,244 42,284 43,926 

3 ........................................................... 152 456 608 47,103 41,142 44,399 

4 ........................................................... 84 404 488 37,807 30,861 34,598 

5 ........................................................... 88 416 504 39,046 29,788 34,692 

6 ........................................................... 96 440 536 41,525 29,607 35,820 

7 ........................................................... 96 448 544 42,145 28,083 35,296 

8 ........................................................... 100 468 568 44,004 27,404 35,780 

9 ........................................................... 102 478 580 44,934 26,152 35,471 

10 ......................................................... 106 498 604 46,793 25,453 35,863 

Total .............................................. 1,110 4,466 5,576 431,987 324,158 379,231 

* Note: Table may not sum due to rounding. 

FRA estimates that the total cost to 

the railroad industry will be $324,158, 

discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, 

discounted at 3 percent. In terms of 

governmental costs associated with the 

expanded reporting requirement, 

including the proposed increase from 

annual to biannual reporting, FRA 

expects it will cost approximately 

$10,000, over the ten-year period, to 

review the additional data railroads will 

submit in the proposed Biannual 

Reports of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152). As FRA 

considers these additional governmental 

costs to be de minimis, they are not 

included in the economic analysis. 

Cost Savings 

There are currently 35 host railroads 

that are required to submit an RFA 

before changing safety-critical elements 

of their PTC systems and their PTCSPs. 

FRA estimates that over the next ten 

years, the number of PTC-governed host 

railroads will increase by approximately 

14, for a total of 49 host railroads. For 

purposes of this analysis, FRA estimates 

that approximately 1.5 new host 

railroads are added each year, beginning 

in year two. 

Currently, under FRA’s existing 

regulations, FRA estimates that host 

railroads will submit 67 annual RFAs to 

their PTCSPs that FRA must review and 

approve before those host railroads 

change and improve their PTC systems. 

Under this proposed rule, FRA is 

proposing to permit host railroads 

utilizing the same type of PTC system to 

submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and 

PTCSPs.48

Table F below shows the number of 

RFAs to PTCSPs that would be 

submitted under the existing regulation 

and the proposed rule. Over a ten-year 

period, FRA estimates that the changes 

described in this proposed rule will 

result in railroads submitting 

approximately 590 fewer RFAs. 

TABLE F—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RFAS TO PTCSPS

Current types of PTC systems 

Approximate 

number of 

RFAs to 

PTCSPs per 

year under 

existing 

regulations 

Approximate 

number of 

RFAs to 

PTCSPs per 

year under 

proposal 

Total number 

of reduction 

of RFAs 

to PTCSPs 

ACSES II ................................................................................................................................ 8 8 0 

CBTC ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1 0 

E–ATC ................................................................................................................................... 5 1 4 

ITCS ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1 0 

I–ETMS .................................................................................................................................. 52 49 4 48 

Subtotal in Year 1 ........................................................................................................... 67 15 52 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82414 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

49For I–ETMS systems, FRA estimates the total 

number of annual RFAs to PTCSPs would be 

reduced from 52 (under the existing regulation) to 

4 (under the proposed rule)—i.e., 2 RFAs per year 

from the set of railroads whose I–ETMS is certified 

as a mixed PTC system and 2 RFAs per year from 

the set of railroads whose I–ETMS is certified as a 

non-vital, overlay PTC system. 

FRA estimates the current burden is 

160 hours per RFA to a PTCSP based on 

the existing RFA content requirements. 

FRA’s proposed simplification of the 

content requirements would reduce the 

burden hours by 50 percent, resulting in 

80 burden hours per RFA. Table G 

provides the estimated ten-year cost to 

host railroads based on FRA’s proposal 

to simplify the RFA process. 

TABLE G—TEN-YEAR COST OF JOINT RFAS AND SIMPLIFIED RFAS

Year Submissions Hour burden 

per submission 

Total annual 

cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................................. 15 80 $92,967 $92,967 $92,967 

2 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 86,885 90,259 

3 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 81,201 87,630 

4 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 75,889 85,078 

5 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 70,924 82,600 

6 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 66,284 80,194 

7 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 61,948 77,858 

8 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 57,895 75,591 

9 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 54,108 73,389 

10 ........................................................................... 15 80 92,967 50,568 71,251 

Total ................................................................ 150 ................................ 929,670 698,669 816,818 

Overall, FRA expects that simplifying 

the content requirements for RFAs to 

PTCSPs, as well as permitting host 

railroads utilizing the same type of PTC 

system to submit joint RFAs, will result 

in a ten-year cost savings of $6.1 

million, discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 

million, discounted at 3 percent. 

TABLE H—TOTAL TEN-YEAR COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED § 236.1021 

Year 

Current host 

railroad costs 

(without 

proposed 

regulation) 

Cost of 

joint RFAs 

and simplified 

RFA process 

(with proposed 

rule) 

Total annual 

cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................................. $830,505 $92,967 $737,538 $737,538 $737,538 

2 ............................................................................. 855,296 92,967 762,329 712,457 740,126 

3 ............................................................................. 867,692 92,967 774,725 676,675 730,253 

4 ............................................................................. 892,483 92,967 799,516 652,643 731,671 

5 ............................................................................. 904,879 92,967 811,912 619,404 721,373 

6 ............................................................................. 929,670 92,967 836,703 596,558 721,747 

7 ............................................................................. 942,066 92,967 849,099 565,790 711,107 

8 ............................................................................. 966,857 92,967 873,890 544,215 710,552 

9 ............................................................................. 979,252 92,967 886,285 515,826 699,642 

10 ........................................................................... 1,004,044 92,967 911,077 495,565 698,264 

Total ................................................................ 9,172,744 929,670 8,243,074 6,116,671 7,202,273 

In addition, FRA’s proposed changes 

to the RFA process will result in cost 

savings for the government, through a 

reduction in time needed to review an 

RFA with the existing contents under 49 

CFR 236.1021(d)(1)–(7). Under the 

proposed rule, FRA will review a 

streamlined RFA with the more focused 

information that new proposed 

paragraph (m)(2) would require. 

Table I below outlines the 

assumptions that FRA used to calculate 

the governmental cost savings. FRA’s 

estimates assume there will be PTC 

system changes that are complex and 

will require additional time to review, 

as well as system changes that are less 

complex. 

TABLE I—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COST ASSUMPTIONS

Staff level 

Average 

employee 

count needed 

Average 

hourly burden 

Average 

hourly salary 

Fully 

burdened 

rate 

Cost savings 

per staff 

level 

GS–15 .................................................................... 1 10 $77.75 $136.07 $1,315 

GS–14 .................................................................... 2 105 62.34 109.10 19,171 

GS–13 .................................................................... 2 119 49.71 86.99 20,646 

Total ................................................................ 5 234 189.81 332.17 41,132 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82415 

Without the proposed rule, FRA 

would be required to review and 

approve or deny all 67 of the RFAs to 

PTCSPs that would be submitted 

annually. FRA estimated that over the 

next ten years, the total cost to the 

government would be $30.4 million. 

Table J provides an overview of the tenyear government burden without the 

proposed rule. 

TABLE J—TEN-YEAR GOVERNMENT BURDEN

[Without proposed rule] 

Year Submissions 

Government cost 

to review each 

submission 

Total 

annual cost 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................................. 67 $41,132 $2,755,871 $2,755,871 $2,755,871 

2 ............................................................................. 69 41,132 2,838,136 2,652,463 2,755,471 

3 ............................................................................. 70 41,132 2,879,268 2,514,864 2,713,986 

4 ............................................................................. 72 41,132 2,961,533 2,417,493 2,710,222 

5 ............................................................................. 73 41,132 3,002,665 2,290,719 2,667,829 

6 ............................................................................. 75 41,132 3,084,930 2,199,512 2,661,088 

7 ............................................................................. 76 41,132 3,126,062 2,083,027 2,618,028 

8 ............................................................................. 78 41,132 3,208,327 1,997,985 2,608,664 

9 ............................................................................. 79 41,132 3,249,460 1,891,215 2,565,153 

10 ........................................................................... 81 41,132 3,331,724 1,812,237 2,553,489 

Total ................................................................ 740 411,324 30,437,976 22,615,387 26,609,802 

Based on the proposed changes to 

§ 236.1021, the number of RFAs that 

FRA would be required to review will 

decrease from 67 to 15 per year, 

beginning in the first year. This 

reduction is the same as seen in the cost 

savings above. The resulting reduction 

would mean that the new government 

cost to review the RFAs would be 

reduced to $6.2 million over the tenyear period. Table K below outlines the 

government costs under the proposed 

rule. 

TABLE K—TEN-YEAR NEW GOVERNMENT BURDEN

Year Submissions 

Government cost 

to review each 

submission 

Total annual 

cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................................. 15 $41,132 $616,986 $616,986 $616,986 

2 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 576,622 599,016 

3 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 538,899 581,568 

4 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 503,644 564,630 

5 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 470,696 548,184 

6 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 439,902 532,218 

7 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 411,124 516,716 

8 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 384,228 501,666 

9 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 359,091 487,054 

10 ........................................................................... 15 41,132 616,986 335,600 472,868 

Total ................................................................ 150 411,324 6,169,860 4,636,793 5,420,906 

FRA estimates that its proposed 

changes will result in a ten-year 

government cost savings of $18.0 

million, discounted at 7 percent, or 

$21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. 

TABLE L—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS

Year 

Current 

government 

cost to review 

submissions 

(without 

proposed 

rule) 

Government 

cost to review 

submissions 

(with proposed 

rule) 

Total annual 

cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ........................................................................... $2,755,871 $616,986 $2,138,885 $2,138,885 $2,138,885 

2 ........................................................................... 2,838,136 616,986 2,221,150 2,075,841 2,156,456 

3 ........................................................................... 2,879,268 616,986 2,262,282 1,975,965 2,132,418 

4 ........................................................................... 2,961,533 616,986 2,344,547 1,913,849 2,145,592 

5 ........................................................................... 3,002,665 616,986 2,385,679 1,820,023 2,119,645 

6 ........................................................................... 3,084,930 616,986 2,467,944 1,759,610 2,128,870 

7 ........................................................................... 3,126,062 616,986 2,509,076 1,671,904 2,101,312 

8 ........................................................................... 3,208,327 616,986 2,591,341 1,613,757 2,106,998 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82416 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE L—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS—Continued 

Year 

Current 

government 

cost to review 

submissions 

(without 

proposed 

rule) 

Government 

cost to review 

submissions 

(with proposed 

rule) 

Total annual 

cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 

9 ........................................................................... 3,249,460 616,986 2,632,474 1,532,124 2,078,099 

10 ......................................................................... 3,331,724 616,986 2,714,738 1,476,638 2,080,621 

Total .............................................................. 30,437,976 6,169,860 24,268,116 17,978,594 21,188,896 

Results 

This proposed rule would reduce the 

burden on railroads while not adversely 

affecting railroad safety. To oversee the 

performance and reliability of railroads’ 

PTC systems, FRA is proposing to 

expand the reporting requirement under 

49 CFR 236.1029(h), as described above. 

FRA estimates that the total ten-year 

industry cost associated with the 

expanded reporting requirement under 

§ 236.1029(h) will be $324,158, 

discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, 

discounted at 3 percent. 

Though FRA is proposing to expand 

certain reporting requirements, the 

regulatory and administrative burden on 

host railroads will be reduced overall. 

The proposed simplification of RFAs to 

PTCSPs will reduce the number of 

burden hours per RFA. Also, FRA is 

proposing to permit host railroads 

utilizing the same type of PTC system to 

submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and 

PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of 

submissions railroads will need to 

submit in the future. 

FRA expects that its proposed 

changes will result in a ten-year cost 

savings for the railroad industry of $6.1 

million, discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 

million, discounted at 3 percent. In 

addition, during the same period, FRA 

expects that the proposed changes will 

produce government cost savings 

amounting to $18.0 million, discounted 

at 7 percent, or $21.2 million, 

discounted at 3 percent. 

FRA estimates that the total net cost 

savings for this proposed rule will be 

$23.8 million, discounted at 7 percent, 

or $28.0 million, discounted at 3 

percent. The annualized cost savings 

will be $3.4 million, discounted at 7 

percent, or $3.3 million, discounted at 

3 percent. 

TABLE M—TOTAL TEN-YEAR NET COST SAVINGS

Year 

Total 

industry 

cost savings 

Total 

government 

cost savings 

Total 

industry 

costs 

Total net 

cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................... $737,538 $2,138,885 $43,385 $2,833,038 $2,833,038 $2,833,038 

2 ............................................................... 762,329 2,221,150 45,244 2,938,235 2,746,014 2,852,655 

3 ............................................................... 774,725 2,262,282 47,103 2,989,904 2,611,498 2,818,271 

4 ............................................................... 799,516 2,344,547 37,807 3,106,256 2,535,631 2,842,665 

5 ............................................................... 811,912 2,385,679 39,046 3,158,545 2,409,639 2,806,326 

6 ............................................................... 836,703 2,467,944 41,525 3,263,122 2,326,561 2,814,797 

7 ............................................................... 849,099 2,509,076 42,145 3,316,030 2,209,611 2,777,123 

8 ............................................................... 873,890 2,591,341 44,004 3,421,227 2,130,568 2,781,770 

9 ............................................................... 886,285 2,632,474 44,934 3,473,825 2,021,798 2,742,269 

10 ............................................................. 911,077 2,714,738 46,793 3,579,022 1,946,751 2,743,022 

Total .................................................. 8,243,074 24,268,116 431,987 32,079,203 23,771,107 28,011,938 

Annualized ................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,384,471 3,283,854 

FRA requests comments on the 

assumptions and burden estimates that 

are used within this analysis. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and Executive 

Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of 

Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 

(67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) require 

agency review of proposed and final 

rules to assess their impacts on small 

entities. An agency must prepare an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) unless it determines and certifies 

that a rule, if promulgated, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

FRA has not determined whether this 

proposed rule would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Therefore, 

FRA seeks comment on the potential 

small business impacts of the proposed 

requirements in this NPRM. FRA 

prepared an IRFA, which is included 

below, to aid the public in commenting 

on the potential small business impacts 

of the proposed requirements in this 

NPRM. 

1. Reasons for Considering Agency 

Action 

FRA is initiating the proposed 

rulemaking to enable railroads to make 

technological advancements to their 

PTC systems more efficiently, with 

FRA’s continued oversight, by 

improving and streamlining the RFA 

process under 49 CFR 236.1021. 

Without the proposed rule, each host 

railroad would be required to submit 

independently an RFA, with the 

information required under 49 CFR 

236.1021(d)(1)–(7), several times per 

year and wait for FRA to approve each 

RFA prior to implementing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82417 

50 In addition, with respect to tenant railroads, 

FRA’s proposed changes to § 236.1029(h) are 

generally consistent with the existing regulatory 

requirement specifying that a tenant railroad must 

report a PTC system failure or cut out to ‘‘a 

designated railroad officer of the host railroad as 

soon as safe and practicable.’’ See § 236.1029(b)(4) 

(emphasis added). 

enhancements or necessary changes to 

existing FRA-certified technology. 

In addition, FRA is proposing to 

improve the reporting requirement 

under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) by, for 

example, increasing the reporting 

frequency from annual to biannual, 

updating the provision to use certain 

statutory terminology for consistency, 

and expanding the reporting 

requirement to encompass positive 

performance-related information, so 

FRA can oversee PTC systems’ 

performance and reliability more 

effectively. To reduce the burden on 

host railroads, FRA has developed an 

Excel-based form (Form FRA F 

6180.152) in which all the information 

could be succinctly input and sent to 

FRA electronically. 

2. A Succinct Statement of the 

Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for, 

the Proposed Rule 

The objective of this proposed rule is 

to establish an improved process to 

enable the industry to make 

technological advancements to FRAcertified PTC systems more efficiently, 

and with FRA’s continued oversight. 

Instead of the existing approval process 

under § 236.1021, FRA proposes to 

require host railroads to comply with a 

streamlined process, which includes 

providing certain safety assurances and 

analysis. This improved process is 

expected to result in cost savings for 

both the host railroads and the 

government. Furthermore, FRA 

proposes to permit host railroads 

utilizing the same type of PTC system to 

submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and 

PTCSPs, which would benefit both the 

industry and FRA. 

FRA is also proposing to expand the 

reporting requirement under 

§ 236.1029(h) to enable FRA to oversee 

PTC systems’ performance and 

reliability effectively. The expanded 

reporting requirement would increase 

the costs to host railroads, but that 

minimal cost would be offset by the cost 

savings associated with FRA’s proposed 

changes to § 236.1021. 

The Secretary has broad statutory 

authority to ‘‘prescribe regulations and 

issue orders for every area of railroad 

safety’’ under 49 U.S.C. 20103 and 

regarding PTC technology under 49 

U.S.C. 20157(g). This proposed rule will 

reduce the burden on railroads while 

not adversely affecting railroad safety. 

In this proposed rule, FRA proposes to 

reduce the regulatory and 

administrative burden on regulated 

entities by reducing the complexity and 

number of RFAs host railroads must 

submit regarding certain enhancements 

and necessary changes to their FRAcertified PTC systems under § 236.1021 

and providing more clarity and 

precision regarding the reporting 

requirement under § 236.1029(h), using 

a form. 

3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, 

an Estimate of the Number of Small 

Entities to Which the Proposed Rule 

Would Apply 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires a review of proposed and final 

rules to assess their impact on small 

entities, unless the Secretary certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C. 

601 as a small business concern that is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field of operation. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has authority to regulate issues 

related to small businesses, and 

stipulates in its size standards that a 

‘‘small entity’’ in the railroad industry is 

a for-profit ‘‘line-haul railroad’’ that has 

fewer than 1,500 employees, a ‘‘short 

line railroad’’ with fewer than 500 

employees, or a ‘‘commuter rail system’’ 

with annual receipts of less than seven 

million dollars. See ‘‘Size Eligibility 

Provisions and Standards,’’ 13 CFR part 

121, subpart A. 

The proposed rule would directly 

apply to all host railroads subject to 49 

U.S.C. 20157, including, in relevant 

part, 5 Class II or III, short line, or 

terminal railroads, and 23 intercity 

passenger railroads or commuter 

railroads, some of which may be small 

entities. 

4. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Class of 

Small Entities That Will be Subject to 

the Requirements and the Type of 

Professional Skill Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

The proposed RFA process would 

allow railroads to make enhancements 

and necessary changes to their PTC 

systems more efficiently. FRA 

understands that only 5 of the current 

PTC-mandated host railroads are small 

entities; however, because this proposed 

rule would reduce the regulatory costs 

and hourly burdens on these railroads, 

the proposed changes would result in a 

positive impact on those railroads. 

FRA is also proposing to amend the 

reporting requirement under 

§ 236.1029(h) by increasing the 

frequency from annual to biannual, 

clarifying the types of statistics and 

information the reports must include, 

and expanding the reporting 

requirement to encompass positive 

performance-related information.50

Though this expanded reporting 

requirement would double the number 

of submissions and increase the hourly 

burden, the proposed changes are 

necessary to enable FRA to oversee the 

performance and reliability of railroads’ 

PTC systems effectively. FRA estimates 

that the additional costs associated with 

the increased reporting requirement will 

be more than offset by the proposed 

changes to § 236.1021. Furthermore, 

FRA assumes that as host railroads 

become more familiar with the reporting 

requirements proposed under 

§ 236.1029(h), the hourly burden per 

submission will be reduced from 12 

hours to 10 hours. 

FRA expects that the proposed 

reporting requirement tasks will be 

completed by one Professional and 

Administrative employee per host 

railroad and require a basic 

understanding of Microsoft Excel. 

To calculate the individual costs for 

small entities, FRA divided the total 

cost for each year by the number of 

estimated host railroads. FRA assumes 

that the hourly burden to submit an 

RFA is independent of an entity’s size 

because the RFA depends upon the PTC 

system and not the individual railroad 

making the submission. The total cost 

for all host railroads in year one would 

be $43,385. FRA estimates that the 

individual cost to each host railroad 

would be approximately $1,240. The 

estimated ten-year cost per host railroad 

that FRA considers a small entity would 

be approximately $7,997, discounted at 

7 percent, or $9,247, discounted at 3 

percent. Though the proposed rule 

would impose costs on those host 

railroads that are small entities, it would 

also result in cost savings. 

To calculate the individual cost 

savings for small entities, FRA divided 

the total cost savings for each year by 

the number of estimated host railroads. 

The total annual cost savings in the first 

year would be $737,538. FRA estimates 

that the individual cost savings for each 

host railroad would be $21,073. The 

estimated ten-year cost savings per host 

railroad that FRA considers a small 

entity would be $149,476, discounted at 

7 percent, or $173,984, discounted at 3 

percent. FRA requests comments on the 

burden that small entities would face 

under this proposed rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82418 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

51Biannual Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152). 52See also 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 2019) (60-day 

ICR notice); 85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020) (30-day 

ICR notice). On June 5, 2020, OMB approved the 

revised ICR, entitled ‘‘PTC and Other Signal 

Systems’’ under OMB Control No. 2130–0553, for 

a period of three years, expiring on June 30, 2023. 

53The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 

2019 STB Full Year Wage A&B data series using the 

appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that 

includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For 

Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost 

amounts to $120 per hour. For Professional/ 

Administrative staff, this cost amounts to $77 per 

hour. 

54A railroad’s final Quarterly PTC Progress 

Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) will be due on 

January 31, 2021, assuming the railroad fully 

implements an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC 

system by the statutory deadline of December 31, 

2020. 

55A railroad’s final Annual PTC Progress Report 

(Form FRA F 6180.166) will be due on March 31, 

2021, assuming it fully implements an FRAcertified and interoperable PTC system by the 

statutory deadline of December 31, 2020. 

56The temporary Statutory Notification of PTC 

System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) expires on 

approximately December 31, 2021 per 49 U.S.C. 

20157(j). 

5. Identification, to the Extent 

Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 

Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With the Proposed Rule 

FRA is not aware of any relevant 

Federal rule that duplicates, overlaps 

with, or conflicts with the proposed 

rule. As described in this NPRM, the 

existing and proposed 49 CFR 

236.1029(h) (proposed Biannual Report 

of PTC System Performance, Form FRA 

F 6180.152) constitutes a permanent 

reporting requirement, whereas the 

Statutory Notification of PTC System 

Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB 

Control No. 2130–0553) under 49 U.S.C. 

20157(j)(4) is a temporary reporting 

requirement and expires on 

approximately December 31, 2021. FRA 

invites all interested parties to submit 

comments, data, and information 

demonstrating the potential economic 

impact on small entities that will result 

from the adoption of this proposed rule. 

FRA particularly encourages small 

entities potentially impacted by the 

proposed amendments to participate in 

the public comment process. FRA will 

consider all comments received during 

the public comment period for this 

NPRM when making a final 

determination of the rule’s economic 

impact on small entities. 

6. A Description of Significant 

Alternatives to the Rule 

FRA is proposing this rulemaking to 

alleviate burdens on industry and 

improve the process associated with 

changes and upgrades to FRA-certified 

PTC systems and the associated 

PTCSPs. FRA’s proposed changes to 

§ 236.1021 are expected to result in cost 

savings for both the host railroads and 

the government. Furthermore, FRA 

proposes to permit host railroads 

utilizing the same type of PTC system to 

submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and 

PTCSPs, which will benefit both the 

industry and FRA. The main alternative 

to this rulemaking would be to maintain 

the status quo. 

In the absence of this proposed rule, 

railroads would continue to submit 

information under § 236.1029(h) that 

may not be sufficient for FRA to oversee 

PTC systems’ performance and 

reliability effectively. FRA notes the 

NPRM proposes to establish a new 

form 51 to report the required 

information under § 236.1029(h), which 

will help clarify and facilitate this 

reporting requirement for the industry. 

The alternative of not issuing the 

proposed rule would also forgo the more 

efficient process of allowing host 

railroads to submit joint RFAs to their 

PTCDPs and PTCSPs, and to implement 

certain changes to their PTC systems 

under the proposed streamlined process 

under § 236.1021(l) and (m), which 

would reduce the overall burden of 

FRA’s PTC regulations. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule are 

being submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Please note 

that any new or revised requirements, as 

proposed in this NPRM, are marked by 

asterisks (*) in the table below. The 

sections that contain the proposed and 

current information collection 

requirements under OMB Control No. 

2130–0553 52 and the estimated time to 

fulfill each requirement are as follows: 

CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 53

235.6(c)—Expedited application for approval of certain 

changes described in this section.

42 railroads ................. 10 expedited applications.5 hours ................. 50 $3,850 

—Copy of expedited application to labor union ................. 42 railroads ................. 10 copies .................... 30 minutes ............ 5 385 

—Railroad letter rescinding its request for expedited application of certain signal system changes.42 railroads ................. 1 letter ........................ 6 hours ................. 6 462 

—Revised application for certain signal system changes 42 railroads ................. 1 application ............... 5 hours ................. 5 385 

—Copy of railroad revised application to labor union ........ 42 railroads ................. 1 copy ......................... 30 minutes ............ .5 39 

236.1—Railroad maintained signal plans at all 

interlockings, automatic signal locations, and controlled 

points, and updates to ensure accuracy.

700 railroads ............... 25 plan changes ......... 15 minutes ............ 6.3 485 

236.15—Designation of automatic block, traffic control, 

train stop, train control, cab signal, and PTC territory in 

timetable instructions.

700 railroads ............... 10 timetable instructions.30 minutes ............ 5 385 

236.18—Software management control plan—New railroads.2 railroads ................... 2 plans ........................ 160 hours ............. 320 24,640 

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.

700 railroads ............... 2 modifications ........... 1 hour ................... 2 154 

236.587(d)—Certification and departure test results ......... 742 railroads ............... 4,562,500 train departures.5 seconds ............. 6,337 487,949 

236.905(a)—Railroad Safety Program Plan (RSPP)— 

New railroads.

2 railroads ................... 2 RSPPs ..................... 40 hours ............... 80 6,160 

236.913(a)—Filing and approval of a joint Product Safety 

Plan (PSP).

742 railroads ............... 1 joint plan .................. 2,000 hours .......... 2,000 240,000 

(c)(1)—Informational filing/petition for special approval ..... 742 railroads ............... 0.5 filings/approval petitions.50 hours ............... 25 1,925 

(c)(2)—Response to FRA’s request for further data after 

informational filing.

742 railroads ............... 0.25 data calls/documents.5 hours ................. 1 77 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82419 

CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 53

(d)(1)(ii)—Response to FRA’s request for further information within 15 days after receipt of the Notice of Product Development (NOPD).742 railroads ............... 0.25 data calls/documents.1 hour ................... 0.25 19 

(d)(1)(iii)—Technical consultation by FRA with the railroad on the design and planned development of the 

product.

742 railroads ............... 0.25 technical consultations.5 hours ................. 1.3 100 

(d)(1)(v)—Railroad petition to FRA for final approval of 

NOPD.

742 railroads ............... 0.25 petitions .............. 1 hour ................... 0.25 19 

(d)(2)(ii)—Response to FRA’s request for additional information associated with a petition for approval of PSP 

or PSP amendment.

742 railroads ............... 1 request .................... 50 hours ............... 50 3,850 

(e)—Comments to FRA on railroad informational filing or 

special approval petition.

742 railroads ............... 0.5 comments/letters .. 10 hours ............... 5 385 

(h)(3)(i)—Railroad amendment to PSP .............................. 742 railroads ............... 2 amendments ............ 20 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(j)—Railroad field testing/information filing document ....... 742 railroads ............... 1 field test document .. 100 hours ............. 100 7,700 

236.917(a)—Railroad retention of records: results of tests 

and inspections specified in the PSP.

13 railroads with PSP 13 PSP safety results 160 hours ............. 2,080 160,160 

(b)—Railroad report that frequency of safety-relevant 

hazards exceeds threshold set forth in PSP.

13 railroads ................. 1 report ....................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(b)(3)—Railroad final report to FRA on the results of the 

analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-relevant hazards.

13 railroads ................. 1 report ....................... 10 hours ............... 10 770 

236.919(a)—Railroad Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM).13 railroads ................. 1 OMM update ........... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(b)—Plans for proper maintenance, repair, inspection, 

and testing of safety-critical products.

13 railroads ................. 1 plan update ............. 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(c)—Documented hardware, software, and firmware revisions in OMM.13 railroads ................. 1 revision .................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

236.921 and 923(a)—Railroad Training and Qualification 

Program.

13 railroads ................. 1 program ................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

236.923(b)—Training records retained in a designated location and available to FRA upon request.13 railroads ................. 350 records ................ 10 minutes ............ 58 4,466 

Form FRA F 6180.165—Quarterly PTC Progress Report 

(49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2)) 54.

35 railroads ................. 11.7 reports/forms ...... 23.22 hours .......... 271 20,867 

Form FRA F 6180.166—Annual PTC Progress Report 

(49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1) and 49 CFR 236.1009(a)(5)) 55.

35 railroads ................. 11.7 reports/forms ...... 40.12 hours .......... 468 36,036 

Form FRA F 6180.177—Statutory Notification of PTC 

System Failures (Under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)) 56.

38 railroads ................. 144 reports/forms ....... 1 hour ................... 144 11,088 

236.1001(b)—A railroad’s additional or more stringent 

rules than prescribed under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I.

38 railroads ................. 1 rule or instruction .... 40 hours ............... 40 4,800 

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.

The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021. 

(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.7 Class I railroads ...... 1 exception request .... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(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.

The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021. 

(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.

38 railroads ................. 45 rerouting extension 

requests.

8 hours ................. 360 27,720 

(g)(1)(ii)—A railroad’s written or telephonic notice of the 

conditions necessitating emergency rerouting and other 

required information under 236.1005(i).

38 railroads ................. 45 written or telephonic notices.2 hours ................. 90 6,930 

(g)(2)—A railroad’s temporary rerouting request due to 

planned maintenance not exceeding 30 days.

38 railroads ................. 720 requests ............... 8 hours ................. 5,760 443,520 

(h)(1)—A response to any request for additional information from FRA, prior to commencing rerouting due to 

planned maintenance.

38 railroads ................. 10 requests ................. 2 hours ................. 20 1,540 

(h)(2)—A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute trains 

due to planned maintenance exceeding 30 days.

38 railroads ................. 160 requests ............... 8 hours ................. 1,280 98,560 

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.

262 railroads ............... 5 reports ..................... 16 hours ............... 80 6,160 

(b)(5)(vii)—A railroad’s request to utilize different yard 

movement procedures, as part of a freight yard movements exception.

The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82420 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 53

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 

fail-safe operation criteria in Appendix C.

The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. 

(c)—An HSR–125 document accompanying a host railroad’s PTCSP, for operations over 125 mph.38 railroads ................. 1 HSR–125 document 3,200 hours .......... 3,200 384,000 

(c)(1)—A railroad’s request for approval to use foreign 

service data, prior to submission of a PTCSP.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 requests ................ 8,000 hours .......... 2,667 205,359 

(d)—A railroad’s request in a PTCSP that FRA excuse 

compliance with one or more of this section’s requirements.

38 railroads ................. 1 request .................... 1,000 hours .......... 1,000 120,000 

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.

264 railroads ............... 1 PTCIP ...................... 535 hours ............. 535 64,200 

(a)(3)—Any new PTCIPs jointly filed by a host railroad 

and a tenant railroad.

264 railroads ............... 1 joint PTCIP .............. 267 hours ............. 267 32,040 

(b)(1)—A host railroad’s submission, individually or jointly 

with a tenant railroad or PTC system supplier, of an 

unmodified Type Approval.

264 railroads ............... 1 document ................. 8 hours ................. 8 616 

(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 ............... 1 PTCDP .................... 2,000 hours .......... 2,000 154,000 

(d)—A host railroad’s submission of a PTCSP .................. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015. 

(e)(3)—Any request for full or partial confidentiality of a 

PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent (NPI), PTCDP, or 

PTCSP.

38 railroads ................. 10 confidentiality requests.8 hours ................. 80 6,160 

(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.

38 railroads ................. 36 interviews and documents.4 hours ................. 144 11,088 

(j)(2)(iii)—Any additional information provided in response 

to FRA’s consultations or inquiries about a PTCDP or 

PTCSP.

38 railroads ................. 1 set of additional information.400 hours ............. 400 30,800 

236.1011(a)–(b)—PTCIP content requirements ................ The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021. 

(e)—Any public comment on PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, 

and PTCSPs.

38 railroads ................. 2 public comments ..... 8 hours ................. 16 1,232 

236.1013, PTCDP and NPI content requirements ............. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021. 

236.1015—Any new host railroad’s PTCSP meeting all 

content requirements under 49 CFR 236.1015.

264 railroads ............... 1 PTCSP .................... 8,000 hours .......... 8,000 616,000 

(g)—A PTCSP for a PTC system replacing an existing 

certified PTC system.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 PTCSPs ................ 3,200 hours .......... 1,067 82,159 

(h)—A quantitative risk assessment, if FRA requires one 

to be submitted.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 assessments ........ 800 hours ............. 267 20,559 

236.1017(a)—An independent third-party assessment, if 

FRA requires one to be conducted and submitted.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 assessments ........ 1,600 hours .......... 533 63,960 

(b)—A railroad’s written request to confirm whether a 

specific entity qualifies as an independent third party.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 written requests .... 8 hours ................. 3 231 

—Further information provided to FRA upon request ....... 38 railroads ................. 0.3 sets of additional 

information.

20 hours ............... 7 539 

(d)—A request not to provide certain documents otherwise required under Appendix F for an independent, 

third-party assessment.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 requests ................ 20 hours ............... 7 539 

(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).

38 railroads ................. 0.3 requests ................ 32 hours ............... 11 847 

236.1019(b)—A request for a passenger terminal main 

line track exception (MTEA).

38 railroads ................. 1 MTEA ...................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 

(c)(1)—A request for a limited operations exception 

(based on restricted speed, temporal separation, or a 

risk mitigation plan).

38 railroads ................. 1 request and/or plan 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 

(c)(2)—A request for a limited operations exception for a 

non-Class I, freight railroad’s track.

10 railroads ................. 1 request .................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 

(c)(3)—A request for a limited operations exception for a 

Class I railroad’s track.

7 railroads ................... 1 request .................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82421 

CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 53

(d)—A railroad’s collision hazard analysis in support of an 

MTEA, if FRA requires one to be conducted and submitted.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 collision hazard 

analysis.

50 hours ............... 17 1,309 

(e)—Any temporal separation procedures utilized under 

the 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1). 

236.1021(a)–(d)—Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCIP or 

PTCDP.

38 railroads ................. 10 RFAs ..................... 160 hours ............. 1,600 123,200 

(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.

5 interested parties ..... 10 RFA public comments.16 hours ............... 160 12,320 

(l)—Any jointly filed RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP (* Note: 

This is a new proposed paragraph to authorize host 

railroads to file joint RFAs in certain cases, but such 

RFAs are already required under FRA’s existing regulations *).

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)–(d) and (m). 

(m)—Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCSP (* Note: Revised requirement. This is a new proposed paragraph with a 

simplified process governing RFAs to PTCSPs *).

38 railroads ................. 15 RFAs ..................... 80 hours ............... 1,200 92,400 

236.1023(a)—A railroad’s PTC Product Vendor List, 

which must be continually updated.

38 railroads ................. 2 updated lists ............ 8 hours ................. 16 1,232 

(b)(1)—All contractual arrangements between a railroad 

and its hardware and software suppliers or vendors for 

certain immediate notifications.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. 

(b)(2)–(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.10 vendors or suppliers.10 notifications ........... 8 hours ................. 80 6,160 

(c)(1)–(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.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. 

(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.

38 railroads ................. 2.5 notifications .......... 16 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(e)—A railroad’s database of all safety-relevant hazards, 

which must be maintained after the PTC system is 

placed in service.

38 railroads ................. 38 database updates .. 16 hours ............... 608 46,816 

(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.

38 railroads ................. 8 notifications ............. 8 hours ................. 64 4,928 

(e)(2)—Continual updates about any and all subsequent 

failures.

38 railroads ................. 1 update ..................... 8 hours ................. 8 616 

(f)—Any notifications that must be submitted to FRA 

under 49 CFR 236.1023.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h). 

(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.

38 railroads ................. 0.5 reports .................. 40 hours ............... 20 1,540 

(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.

10 vendors or suppliers.20 reports ................... 8 hours ................. 160 12,320 

(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.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233. 

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.

1,000 reports .............. 30 minutes ............ 500 38,500 

(h)—Form FRA F 6180.152—Biannual Report of PTC 

System Performance (*Revised requirement and new 

form*).

38 railroads ................. 76 reports ................... 12 hours ............... 912 70,224 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82422 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section/subject Respondent universe Total annual responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 53

236.1033—Communications and security requirements ... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015. 

236.1035(a)–(b)—A railroad’s request for authorization to 

field test an uncertified PTC system and any responses 

to FRA’s testing conditions.

38 railroads ................. 10 requests ................. 40 hours ............... 400 30,800 

236.1037(a)(1)–(2)—Records retention ............................. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015. 

(a)(3)–(4)—Records retention ............................................ The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b). 

(b)—Results of inspections and tests specified in a railroad’s PTCSP and PTCDP.38 railroads ................. 800 records ................ 1 hour ................... 800 61,600 

(c)—A contractor’s records related to the testing, maintenance, or operation of a PTC system maintained at a 

designated office.

20 contractors ............. 1,600 records ............. 10 minutes ............ 267 20,559 

(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.

38 railroads ................. 8 final reports ............. 160 hours ............. 1,280 98,560 

236.1039(a)–(c), (e)—A railroad’s PTC Operations and 

Maintenance Manual (OMM), which must be maintained and available to FRA upon request.

38 railroads ................. 2 OMM updates .......... 10 hours ............... 20 1,540 

(d)—A railroad’s identification of a PTC system’s safetycritical components, including spare equipment.38 railroads ................. 1 identified new component.1 hour ................... 1 77 

236.1041(a)–(b) and 236.1043(a)—A railroad’s PTC 

Training and Qualification Program (i.e., a written plan).

38 railroads ................. 2 programs ................. 10 hours ............... 20 1,540 

236.1043(b)—Training records retained in a designated 

location and available to FRA upon request.

150 host and tenant 

railroads.

150 PTC training 

record databases.

1 hour ................... 150 11,550 

Total ............................................................................ N/A .............................. 4,567,923 responses .. N/A ....................... 49,116 4,107,626 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits 

comments concerning: Whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to Ms. Hodan Wells, 

Information Clearance Officer, at 202– 

493–0440 or via email at Hodan.Wells@

dot.gov. 

D. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

requires FRA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 

10, 1999). ‘‘Policies that have federalism 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

having ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Id. Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

under the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13132. 

FRA has determined this proposed rule 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States or their political 

subdivisions; on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the States or their political subdivisions; 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In addition, FRA 

has determined this proposed rule does 

not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

This proposed rule could have 

preemptive effect by the operation of 

law under a provision of the former 

Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, 

repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 

20106. Section 20106 provides that 

States may not adopt or continue in 

effect any law, regulation, or order 

related to railroad safety or security that 

covers the subject matter of a regulation 

prescribed or order issued by the 

Secretary of Transportation (with 

respect to railroad safety matters) or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (with 

respect to railroad security matters), 

except when the State law, regulation, 

or order qualifies under the ‘‘essentially 

local safety or security hazard’’ 

exception to section 20106. 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. As explained above, FRA has 

determined that this proposed rule has 

no federalism implications, other than 

the possible preemption of State laws 

under Federal railroad safety statutes, 

specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106. 

Accordingly, FRA has determined that 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement for this proposed rule 

is not required. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82423 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This proposed rule is 

purely domestic in nature and is not 

expected to affect trade opportunities 

for U.S. firms doing business overseas or 

for foreign firms doing business in the 

United States. 

F. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council of 

Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 

771, and determined that it is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review and therefore 

does not require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions 

identified in an agency’s NEPA 

implementing regulations that do not 

normally have a significant impact on 

the environment and therefore do not 

require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 

1508.4. Specifically, FRA has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 23 

CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘Promulgation of 

rules, the issuance of policy statements, 

the waiver or modification of existing 

regulatory requirements, or 

discretionary approvals that do not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise.’’ 

This proposed rule does not directly 

or indirectly impact any environmental 

resources and would not result in 

significantly increased emissions of air 

or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the 

proposed rule is likely to result in safety 

benefits. In analyzing the applicability 

of a CE, FRA must also consider 

whether unusual circumstances are 

present that would warrant a more 

detailed environmental review. See 23 

CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that 

no such unusual circumstances exist 

with respect to this proposed rule and 

the proposal meets the requirements for 

categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 

771.116(c)(15). 

Pursuant to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

its implementing regulations, FRA has 

determined this undertaking has no 

potential to affect historic properties. 

See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also 

determined that this rulemaking does 

not approve a project resulting in a use 

of a resource protected by Section 4(f). 

See Department of Transportation Act of 

1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 

Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303. 

G. Executive Order 12898 

(Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,’’ and DOT 

Order 5610.2B, dated November 18, 

2020, require DOT agencies to consider 

environmental justice principles by 

identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations. The DOT Order instructs 

DOT agencies to address compliance 

with Executive Order 12898, Executive 

Order 13771, and requirements within 

the DOT Order in rulemaking activities, 

as appropriate. FRA has evaluated this 

proposed rule and has determined it 

would not cause disproportionately 

high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority 

populations or low-income populations. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Under section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal 

agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in promulgation of any rule that 

includes any Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 

or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any 1 year, and before promulgating 

any final rule for which a general notice 

of proposed rulemaking was published, 

the agency shall prepare a written 

statement’’ detailing the effect on State, 

local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. This proposed rule 

would not result in the expenditure, in 

the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more 

(as adjusted annually for inflation) in 

any one year, and thus preparation of 

such a statement is not required. 

I. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001). FRA has evaluated this proposed 

rule under Executive Order 13211 and 

determined that this proposed rule is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

Executive Order 13783, ‘‘Promoting 

Energy Independence and Economic 

Growth,’’ requires Federal agencies to 

review regulations to determine whether 

they potentially burden the 

development or use of domestically 

produced energy resources, with 

particular attention to oil, natural gas, 

coal, and nuclear energy resources. 82 

FR 16093 (Mar. 31, 2017). FRA has 

evaluated this proposed rule under 

Executive Order 13783 and determined 

that this rule would not burden the 

development or use of domestically 

produced energy resources. 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible 

through https://www.transportation.gov/ 

privacy. To facilitate comment tracking 

and response, DOT encourages 

commenters to provide their name, or 

the name of their organization; however, 

submission of names is completely 

optional. Whether or not commenters 

identify themselves, all timely 

comments will be fully considered. If 

you wish to provide comments 

containing proprietary or confidential 

information, please contact the agency 

for alternate submission instructions. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236 

Penalties, Positive train control, 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA 

proposes to amend 49 CFR part 236, as 

follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
82424 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

PART 236—RULES, STANDARDS, AND 

INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE 

INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, 

MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF 

SIGNAL AND TRAIN CONTROL 

SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND 

APPLIANCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 236 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, 

20133, 20141, 20157, 20301–20303, 20306, 

20501–20505, 20701–20703, 21301–21302, 

21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 

1.89. 

■ 2. Amend § 236.1003 in paragraph (b) 

by adding the definitions of ‘‘Cut out’’, 

‘‘Initialization failure’’, and 

‘‘Malfunction’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 236.1003 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Cut out means any disabling of a PTC 

system, subsystem, or component en 

route, including when the PTC system 

cuts out on its own or a person cuts out 

the system, unless the cut out was 

necessary to exit PTC-governed territory 

and enter non-PTC territory. 

* * * * * 

Initialization failure means any 

instance when a PTC system fails to 

activate on a locomotive or train, unless 

the PTC system successfully activates 

during a subsequent attempt in the same 

location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. For the types of PTC 

systems that do not initialize by design, 

a failed departure test is considered an 

initialization failure for purposes of the 

reporting requirement under 

§ 236.1029(h), unless the PTC system 

successfully passes the departure test 

during a subsequent attempt in the same 

location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. 

* * * * * 

Malfunction means any instance 

when a PTC system, subsystem, or 

component fails to perform the 

functions mandated under 49 U.S.C. 

20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the 

applicable host railroad’s PTCSP. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 236.1021 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) 

introductory text, and (d)(4); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (d)(7); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (l) and (m). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 236.1021 Discontinuances, material 

modifications, and amendments. 

(a) No changes, as defined by this 

section, to a PTCIP or PTCDP may be 

made unless: 

(1) The railroad files a request for 

amendment (RFA) to the applicable 

PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate 

Administrator; and 

(2) The Associate Administrator 

approves the RFA. 

* * * * * 

(c) In lieu of a separate filing under 

part 235 of this chapter, a railroad may 

request approval of a discontinuance or 

material modification of a signal or train 

control system by filing an RFA to its 

PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate 

Administrator. 

(d) FRA will not approve an RFA to 

a PTCIP or PTCDP unless the request 

includes: 

* * * * * 

(4) The changes to the PTCIP or 

PTCDP, as applicable; 

* * * * * 

(l) Any RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP 

pursuant to this section may be 

submitted jointly with other host 

railroads utilizing the same type of PTC 

system. However, only host railroads 

with the same PTC System Certification 

classification under § 236.1015(e) may 

jointly file an RFA to their PTCSPs. Any 

joint RFA to multiple host railroads’ 

PTCSPs must include the information 

required under paragraph (m) of this 

section. The joint RFA must also 

include the written confirmation and 

statement specified under paragraphs 

(m)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section from 

each host railroad jointly filing the RFA. 

(m) No changes, as specified under 

paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, 

may be made to an FRA-certified PTC 

system or an FRA-approved PTCSP 

unless the host railroad first complies 

with the following process: 

(1) The host railroad revises its PTCSP 

to account for each proposed change to 

its PTC system and summarizes such 

changes in a chronological table of 

revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP; 

(2) The host railroad electronically 

submits the following information in an 

RFA to the Director of FRA’s Office of 

Railroad Systems, Technology, and 

Automation: 

(i) A summary of the proposed 

changes to any safety-critical elements 

of a PTC system, including a summary 

of how the changes to the PTC system 

would affect its safety-critical 

functionality, how any new hazards 

have been addressed and mitigated, 

whether each change is a planned 

change that was previously included in 

all required analysis under § 236.1015 

or an unplanned change, and the reason 

for the proposed changes, including 

whether the changes are necessary to 

address or resolve an emergency or 

urgent issue; 

(ii) Any associated software release 

notes; 

(iii) A confirmation that the host 

railroad has notified any applicable 

tenant railroads of the proposed 

changes, any associated effect on the 

tenant railroads’ operations, and any 

actions the tenant railroads must take in 

accordance with the configuration 

control measures set forth in the host 

railroad’s PTCSP; 

(iv) A statement from the host 

railroad’s Chief Engineer and Chief 

Operating Officer, or executive officers 

of similar qualifications, verifying that 

the modified PTC system would meet 

all technical requirements under this 

subpart, provide an equivalent or greater 

level of safety than the existing PTC 

system, and not adversely impact 

interoperability with any tenant 

railroads; and 

(v) Any other information that FRA 

requests; and 

(3) A host railroad shall not make any 

changes, as specified under paragraph 

(h)(3) or (4) of this section, to its PTC 

system until the Director of FRA’s Office 

of Railroad Systems, Technology, and 

Automation approves the RFA. 

(i) FRA will approve, approve with 

conditions, or deny the RFA within 45 

days of the date on which the RFA was 

filed under paragraph (m)(2) of this 

section. 

(ii) FRA reserves the right to notify a 

railroad that changes may proceed prior 

to the 45-day mark, including in an 

emergency or under other circumstances 

necessitating a railroad’s immediate 

implementation of the proposed 

changes to its PTC system. 

(iii) FRA may require a railroad to 

modify its RFA or its PTC system to the 

extent necessary to ensure safety or 

compliance with the requirements of 

this part. 

(iv) Following any FRA denial of an 

RFA, each applicable railroad is 

prohibited from making the proposed 

changes to its PTC system until the 

railroad both sufficiently addresses 

FRA’s questions, comments, and 

concerns and obtains FRA’s approval. 

Consistent with paragraph (l) of this 

section, any host railroads utilizing the 

same type of PTC system, including the 

same certification classification under 

§ 236.1015(e), may jointly submit 

information to address FRA’s questions, 

comments, and concerns following any 

denial of an RFA under this section. 

■ 4. Amend § 236.1029 by revising 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 236.1029 PTC system use and failures. 

* * * * * 

(h) Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance. (1) Each host railroad 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82425 

subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or this 

subpart shall electronically submit a 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance on Form FRA F 6180.152, 

containing the following information for 

the applicable reporting period, 

separated by the host railroad, each 

applicable tenant railroad, and each 

PTC-governed track segment (e.g., 

territory, subdivision, district, main 

line, branch, or corridor), consistent 

with the railroad’s PTC Implementation 

Plan: 

(i) The total number of PTC system 

initialization failures, and subtotals 

identifying the number of initialization 

failures where the source or cause was 

the onboard subsystem, wayside 

subsystem, communications subsystem, 

back office subsystem, or a non-PTC 

component; 

(ii) The total number of PTC system 

cut outs, and subtotals identifying the 

number of cut outs where the source or 

cause was the onboard subsystem, 

wayside subsystem, communications 

subsystem, back office subsystem, or a 

non-PTC component; 

(iii) The total number of PTC system 

malfunctions, and subtotals identifying 

the number of malfunctions where the 

source or cause was the onboard 

subsystem, wayside subsystem, 

communications subsystem, back office 

subsystem, or a non-PTC component; 

(iv) The number of intended 

enforcements by the PTC system and 

any other instances in which the PTC 

system prevented an accident or 

incident; 

(v) The number of scheduled attempts 

at initialization of the PTC system; 

(vi) The number of trains governed by 

the PTC system; and 

(vii) The number of train miles 

governed by the PTC system. 

(2) A host railroad’s Biannual Report 

of PTC System Performance (Form FRA 

F 6180.152) shall also include a 

summary of any actions the host 

railroad and its tenant railroads are 

continually taking to improve the 

performance and reliability of the PTC 

system. 

(3) Each host railroad shall 

electronically submit a Biannual Report 

of PTC System Performance (Form FRA 

F 6180.152) to FRA by the following due 

dates: July 31 (covering the period from 

January 1 to June 30), and January 31 

(covering the period from July 1 to 

December 31 of the prior calendar year). 

(4) Each tenant railroad that operates 

on a host railroad’s PTC-governed main 

line(s), unless the tenant railroad is 

currently subject to an exception under 

§ 236.1006(b)(4) or (5), shall submit the 

information required under paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (2) of this section to each 

applicable host railroad by July 15 (for 

the report covering the period from 

January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 

(for the report covering the period from 

July 1 to December 31 of the prior 

calendar year). 

Issued in Washington, DC 

Quintin C. Kendall, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27097 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS