52918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, ‘‘Approval 

and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; 

Adoption of Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Large Appliance and 

Metal Furniture Coatings,’’ that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: August 3, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21363 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 236 

[Docket No. FRA–2011–0028, Notice No. 1] 

RIN 2130–AC27 

Positive Train Control Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: FRA proposes amendments to 

the regulations implementing a 

provision of the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 that requires 

certain passenger and freight railroads 

to install positive train control (PTC) 

systems. This notice proposes the 

removal of various regulatory 

requirements that require railroads to 

either conduct further analyses or meet 

certain risk-based criteria in order to 

avoid PTC system implementation on 

track segments that do not transport 

poison- or toxic-by-inhalation (PIH) 

hazardous materials traffic and are not 

used for intercity or commuter rail 

passenger transportation as of December 

31, 2015. 

DATES: (1) Written comments must be 

received by October 24, 2011. 

Comments received after that date will 

be considered to the extent possible 

without incurring additional expenses 

or delays. 

(2) FRA anticipates being able to 

resolve this rulemaking without a 

public, oral hearing. However, if FRA 

receives a specific request for a public, 

oral hearing prior to September 23, 

2011, one will be scheduled, and FRA 

will publish a supplemental notice in 

the Federal Register to inform 

interested parties of the date, time, and 

location of any such hearing. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments: Comments related to 

Docket No. FRA–2011–0028, may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Web Site: Comments should be filed 

at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground level of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

Room W12–140 on the Ground level of 

the West Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through 

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas McFarlin, Office of Safety 

Assurance and Compliance, Staff 

Director, Signal & Train Control 

Division, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Mail Stop 25, West 

Building 3rd Floor West, Room W35– 

332, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202– 

493–6203); or Jason Schlosberg, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, RCC– 

10, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd 

Floor, Room W31–207, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6032). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA is 

issuing this proposed rule to amend the 

regulatory requirements contained in 49 

CFR part 236, subpart I, related to a 

railroad’s ability to remove track 

segments from the necessity of 

implementing PTC as mandated by 

Section 104 of the Railroad Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–432, 122 Stat. 4854 (Oct. 16, 2008) 

(codified at 49 U.S.C. 20157) 

(hereinafter ‘‘RSIA’’) based on the track 

segments not carrying PIH traffic as of 

December 31, 2015. 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Regulatory History 

B. Litigation, Executive Order 13563, and 

Congressional Hearings 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. Environmental Impact 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Energy Impact 

H. Privacy Act 

I. Executive Summary 

For years, FRA has supported the 

nationwide proliferation and 

implementation of positive train control 

(PTC) systems, forecasting substantial 

benefits of advanced train control 

technology in supporting a variety of 

business and safety purposes. However, 

FRA repetitively noted that an 

immediate regulatory mandate for PTC 

system implementation could not be 

justified based upon normal cost-benefit 

principals relying on direct safety 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52919 

benefits. In 2005, FRA promulgated 

regulations providing for the voluntary 

implementation of processor-based train 

control systems. See 70 FR 11,052 (Mar. 

7, 2005) (codified at 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart H). 

As a consequence of the number and 

severity of certain very public accidents, 

coupled with a series of other less 

publicized accidents, Congress passed 

RSIA mandating the implementation of 

PTC systems on lines meeting certain 

thresholds. RSIA requires PTC system 

implementation on all Class I railroad 

lines that carry PIH materials and 5 

million gross tons or more of annual 

traffic, and on any railroad’s main line 

tracks over which intercity or commuter 

rail passenger train service is regularly 

provided. In addition, RSIA provided 

FRA with the authority to require PTC 

system implementation on any other 

line. 

In accordance with its statutory 

authority, FRA’s subsequent final rule, 

issued January 15, 2010, and amended 

on September 27, 2010, potentially 

required PTC system implementation on 

certain track segments that carried PIH 

traffic and 5 million gross tons or more 

of annual traffic in 2008 but that will 

not carry PIH traffic, and will not be 

used for intercity or commuter rail 

passenger transportation, as of 

December 31, 2015. Per the regulation, 

the determination would be based upon 

whether the subject track segment 

would pass what has been called the 

alternative route analysis and the 

residual risk analysis (the ‘‘two 

qualifying tests’’). 

Upon issuance of the PTC final rule, 

the Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) filed suit in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit challenging the two qualifying 

tests provisions of the final rule. After 

the parties filed their briefs, they 

executed a settlement agreement 

(Settlement Agreement). In the 

Settlement Agreement, FRA agreed to 

issue a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) proposing to amend the PTC 

rule to eliminate the two qualifying 

tests; this NPRM fulfills this 

requirement. The Settlement Agreement 

further provided that FRA would 

consider public comments on the NPRM 

in determining whether to amend the 

PTC rule. 

For the first 20 years of the proposed 

rule, the estimated quantified benefits to 

the industry due to the proposed 

regulatory relief total approximately 

$620 million discounted at 7 percent 

and $818 million discounted at 3 

percent. Substantial cost savings would 

accrue largely from not installing PTC 

system wayside components along 

approximately 10,000 miles of track. 

Although these rail lines would forego 

some risk reduction, the reductions 

would likely be small since these lines 

pose a much lower risk of accidents 

because they generally do not carry 

passenger trains or PIH materials and 

generally have lower accident exposure. 

The analysis shows that if the 

assumptions are correct, the savings of 

the proposed action far outweigh the 

cost. The following table presents the 

quantified benefits: 

BENEFITS

[20-year, discounted] 

Costs avoided 7% Discount 3% Discount 

Reduced Mitigation Costs, Including Maintenance ..................................................................................... $91,793,822 $121,119,324 

Reduced Wayside Costs, Including Maintenance ....................................................................................... 515,695,631 680,445,643 

Reduced Locomotive Costs, Including Maintenance .................................................................................. 12,479,834 16,466,785 

Total Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 619,969,287 818,031,752 

For the same 20-year period, the 

estimated quantified cost totals $26.7 

million discounted at 7 percent and 

$39.3 million discounted at 3 percent. 

The costs associated with the proposed 

regulatory relief result from the 

reduction of safety benefits in the form 

of accident reduction due to the affected 

track segments not being equipped with 

a PTC system. A substantial part of the 

accident reduction that FRA expects 

from PTC systems currently required 

comes from reducing high-consequence 

accidents involving passenger trains or 

the release of PIH materials. FRA 

believes that the lines impacted by this 

proposal pose significantly less risk 

because they generally do not carry 

passenger trains or PIH materials and 

generally have lower accident exposure. 

The following tables present the total 

costs of the proposed rule as well as the 

breakdown of the costs by element: 

COSTS

[20-year, discounted] 

Foregone reductions in 7% Discount 3% Discount 

Fatality Prevention ....................................................................................................................................... $11,453,106 $16,860,327 

Injury Prevention .......................................................................................................................................... 4,254,484 6,263,104 

Train Delay .................................................................................................................................................. 117,793 173,406 

Property Damage ......................................................................................................................................... 10,163,835 14,962,367 

Equipment Cleanup ..................................................................................................................................... 143,273 210,915 

Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................... 430,995 634,475 

Evacuations ................................................................................................................................................. 138,780 204,301 

Total Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 26,702,267 39,308,896 

FRA has also performed a sensitivity 

analysis for a high case (14,000 miles), 

expected case (10,000 miles), and low 

case (7,000 miles). 

The net amounts for each case, 

subtracting the costs from the benefits, 

provide the following results: 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Net societal benefits 7% Discount 3% Discount 

Expected Case (10,000 miles) .................................................................................................................... $593,267,020 $778,722,856 

High Case (14,000 miles) ............................................................................................................................ 793,856,299 1,041,764,269 

Low Case (7,000 miles) ............................................................................................................................... 442,825,061 581,441,797 

Further, the benefit-cost ratios under 

the scenarios analyzed range between 

20:1 and 25:1. 

Benefit-cost ratio 7% 

Discount 

3% 

Discount 

Expected Case ......... 23.22 20.81 

High Case ................. 22.24 19.93 

Low Case .................. 24.69 22.13 

II. Background 

A. Regulatory History 

As a consequence of the number and 

severity of certain widely publicized 

accidents, coupled with a series of other 

accidents receiving less media attention, 

Congress passed RSIA, mandating 

implementation of PTC systems by 

December 31, 2015. 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 

2010). Under RSIA, such PTC 

implementation must be completed by 

each Class I railroad carrier and each 

entity providing regularly scheduled 

intercity or commuter rail passenger 

transportation on: 

(A) Its main line over which intercity 

rail passenger transportation or 

commuter rail passenger transportation, 

as defined in section 24102, is regularly 

provided; 

(B) its main line over which PIH or 

TIH hazardous materials, as defined in 

parts 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132 of title 

49, Code of Federal Regulations, are 

transported; and 

(C) such other tracks as the Secretary 

may prescribe by regulation or order. 

49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(1). The statute 

further defined ‘‘main line’’ to mean: 

A segment or route of railroad tracks 

over which 5,000,000 or more gross tons 

of railroad traffic is transported 

annually, except that— 

(A) The Secretary may, through 

regulations under subsection (g), 

designate additional tracks as main line 

as appropriate for this section; and 

(B) for intercity rail passenger 

transportation or commuter rail 

passenger transportation routes or 

segments over which limited or no 

freight railroad operations occur, the 

Secretary shall define the term ‘‘main 

line’’ by regulation. 

49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(2). To effectuate this 

goal, RSIA required the railroads to 

submit for FRA approval a PTC 

Implementation Plan (PTCIP) within 18 

months (i.e., by April 16, 2010). 

Consistent with this statutory 

mandate, FRA published a final rule 

with a request for further comments on 

January 15, 2010, which established 

new regulations codified primarily in 

subpart I to 49 CFR part 236 (the ‘‘PTC 

rule’’). Subsequently, FRA received a 

number of petitions for reconsideration 

to the final rule and a number of 

comments responding to the request for 

further comments. In a letter dated July 

8, 2010, FRA denied all of the petitions 

for reconsideration. On September 27, 

2010, FRA issued a new final rule with 

clarifying amendments to the PTC rule. 

Under the current regulations 

applicable to the existing railroads, each 

PTCIP must have included the sequence 

and schedule in which track segments 

required to be equipped with PTC will 

be so equipped and the basis for those 

decisions. See 49 CFR 236.1011. This 

list of track segments must have 

included all track segments that fit the 

statutory criteria in calendar year 2008. 

See 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(1) and (b)(2). 

While the statutory PTC 

implementation deadline is December 

31, 2015, FRA recognized a need for a 

starting point in time to determine 

where such implementation must occur. 

The final rule indicates that such a 

starting baseline should be based on the 

facts and data known in calendar year 

(CY) 2008 (the ‘‘2008 baseline’’). FRA 

determined that using CY 2009 data 

would have been difficult given the 

proximity to the PTCIP submission 

deadline and the notably atypical traffic 

levels caused by the down turn in the 

economy. Although each railroad’s 

initial PTCIP includes a future PTC 

implementation route map reflecting 

2008 data, FRA recognized that traffic 

levels and PIH routings could change in 

the period between the end of 2008 and 

the start of 2016. Accordingly, in the 

event of changed circumstances, the 

PTC rule provides railroads with the 

option to file a request for amendment 

(RFA) of its PTCIP to not equip a track 

segment that the railroad was initially, 

but may no longer be, required to 

implement a PTC system. If a particular 

track segment included in a PTCIP will 

no longer carry PIH traffic by the 

statutory implementation deadline, and 

its PTC system implementation is 

scheduled, but not yet effectuated, then 

the host railroad might avoid actual PTC 

system implementation by filing a 

supported RFA for FRA approval. Each 

such RFA must be supported with the 

data defined under § 236.1005(b)(2) and 

(b)(4)(i), and satisfy the two qualifying 

tests that were promulgated under 

FRA’s statutory authority to require PTC 

to be installed on lines in addition to 

those required to be equipped by RSIA. 

If a track segment fails either of these 

tests, FRA would deny the request, thus 

requiring PTC system implementation 

on the track segment. 

The first test, proverbially known as 

the ‘‘alternative route analysis test,’’ was 

initially codified at 

§ 236.1005(b)(4)(i)(A) and subsequently 

moved to a new § 236.1020. Under this 

test, the railroad must establish that 

current or prospective rerouting of PIH 

materials traffic to one or more 

alternative track segments is justified. If 

a railroad reroutes all PIH materials off 

of a track segment requiring PTC system 

implementation under the 2008 

baseline, and onto a new line, PTC 

system implementation on the initial 

line may not be required if the new line 

would have substantially the same 

overall safety and security risk as the 

initial line, assuming PTC 

implementation on both lines. If the 

initial track segment, despite the 

elimination of all PIH materials traffic, 

is determined to pose higher overall 

safety and security risks under this 

analysis, then a PTC system must still 

be installed on that initial track 

segment. PTC system implementation 

may also be required on the new line if 

it meets the 5 million gross ton of 

annual traffic threshold and does not 

qualify under the de minimis exception 

of the rule. 

The second test that the railroad must 

satisfy in order to avoid having to install 

a PTC system on a track segment 

requiring implementation under the 

2008 baseline is the so-called ‘‘residual 

risk test.’’ Under this test, the railroad 

must show that, without a PTC system, 

the remaining risk on the track 

segment—pertaining to events that can 

be prevented or mitigated in severity by 

a PTC system—is less than the national 

average equivalent risk per route mile 

on track segments required to be 

equipped with PTC systems due to 

statutory reasons other than passenger 

traffic presence. When FRA issued its 

PTC rule amendments on September 27, 

2010, FRA indicated that it was 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52921 

1Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Railroads, 

Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials of the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. 

House of Representatives, 112th Cong. (2011) (Joint 

statement of Edward R. Hamberger, President and 

Chief Executive Officer of the AAR, and Mark D. 

Manion, Executive Vice President and Chief 

Operating Officer of the Norfolk Southern Railway, 

on behalf of the AAR’s member railroads) 

[hereinafter AAR Congressional Testimony]. 

delaying the effective date of 49 CFR 

236.1005(b)(4)(i)(A)(2)(iii), as revised 

under § 236.1020, pending the 

completion of a separate rulemaking to 

establish how residual risk is to be 

determined. 

B. Litigation, Executive Order 13563, 

and Congressional Hearings 

After FRA issued its PTC final rule on 

January 15, 2010, and denied 

reconsideration on July 8, 2010, the 

AAR filed a petition for review of the 

rule with the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia. Once FRA 

issued its PTC final rule amendments, 

AAR filed another petition for review of 

those amendments on October 5, 2010. 

The court consolidated those two 

petitions on October 22, 2010 

(collectively, ‘‘Petition for Review’’). 

In its brief, AAR challenged FRA’s 

determination to use 2008 as the 

baseline year, arguing that it rests on a 

fundamental legal error and was 

arbitrary and capricious. After the 

parties fully briefed the issues, 

President Obama issued Executive 

Order 13563 on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 

3821 (Jan. 21, 2011)), which outlined a 

plan to improve regulations and 

regulatory review. According to the 

Order, it is intended to reaffirm and 

build upon governing principles of 

contemporary regulatory review, 

including Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 

30, 1993), by requiring federal agencies 

when issuing safety regulations to 

design the regulations so that they are 

cost-effective, evidence-based, and 

compatible with economic growth, job 

creation, and competitiveness. The 

President’s plan recognizes that these 

principles apply to both new and 

existing regulations. To that end, 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to review existing significant regulations 

to determine if they are outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome. FRA recognizes that the 

costs associated with PTC rule 

compliance outweigh the safety benefits 

by 20-to-1 and, therefore, it is 

appropriate to reexamine whether FRA 

should be requiring the installation of 

PTC on lines that will not be carrying 

PIH traffic or regularly scheduled 

passenger service as of December 31, 

2015. 

FRA and AAR entered into the 

Settlement Agreement on March 2, 

2011. The terms and conditions of the 

Settlement Agreement included the 

joint filing of a motion to hold the 

Petition for Review in abeyance pending 

the completion of this rulemaking. That 

motion was filed on March 2, 2011, and 

was granted by the court on March 3, 

2011. 

The Settlement Agreement provides 

that FRA will issue two NPRMs. The 

first NPRM is to address whether the 

PTC rule should be amended by 

eliminating the two aforementioned 

tests that would potentially require PTC 

to be installed on track segments not 

specifically required to be equipped by 

Congress. This NPRM meets that 

requirement. The Settlement Agreement 

provides that upon the completion of 

this rulemaking proceeding, the parties 

will determine whether to file a joint 

motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its 

entirety. The Settlement Agreement also 

states that FRA is to issue a separate 

NPRM that will address the issues of 

how to handle en-route failures of PTCequipped trains, circumstances under 

which a signal system may be removed 

after PTC installation, and whether yard 

movements and certain other train 

movements should qualify for a de 

minimis risk exception to the PTC rule. 

The second NPRM will also address any 

other issues that might be raised by 

interested parties in a properly filed 

petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR 

part 211. The Settlement Agreement 

notes that FRA will consider all 

comments submitted during the 

rulemaking comment periods on each of 

those NPRMs in determining whether to 

issue amendments to the PTC rule and, 

if so, the contents of those amendments. 

Although this NPRM and its associated 

regulatory impact analysis seek 

comments relating to the two qualifying 

tests, it does not seek comments on the 

issues that will be reserved for the other 

forthcoming NPRM. 

On March 17, 2011, FRA and AAR 

testified before the Subcommittee on 

Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous 

Materials, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, U.S. House of 

Representatives. In addition to reporting 

on the Settlement Agreement, FRA’s 

testimony discussed PTC system 

implementation planning and progress 

made thus far and highlighted the 

various ways that FRA has assisted the 

industry in meeting the statutory and 

regulatory goals. In particular, FRA has 

supported PTC implementation by 

developing and approving certain 

implementation exceptions, providing 

technical assistance, and granting 

financial assistance. 

During its testimony, made jointly 

with Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), 

AAR asserted that, ‘‘If unchanged, the 

2008 base-year provision means 

railroads would have to spend more 

than $500 million in the next few years 

to deploy PTC on more than 10,000 

miles of rail lines on which neither 

passenger nor TIH materials will be 

moving in 2015.’’ 1 FRA understands 

AAR to assume that these 10,000 miles 

would still require PTC implementation 

because they would not be able to pass 

the alternative route analysis and 

residual risk analysis tests. If this is not 

correct, FRA seeks AAR’s clarification. 

However, upon its own analysis, FRA 

assumes that 50 percent of the 10,000 

miles would be able to pass both tests 

with the implementation of mitigation 

measures. FRA seeks comment on this 

assumption. 

Under the regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA) that accompanied the PTC final 

rule, FRA estimated that the railroads 

would need to implement PTC systems 

on approximately 70,000 miles of track. 

However, PTC system implementation 

could be avoided on 3,204 miles of 

those 70,000 miles of track because PIH 

materials traffic will have ceased by 

2015 and the subject track segments 

would pass the residual risk analysis 

and alternative route analysis tests. 

During the earlier rulemakings, no 

entity, including AAR and NS, 

challenged or otherwise commented on 

these conclusions. 

FRA also estimated that PTC system 

implementation could be avoided on 

304 miles of track because gross tonnage 

will fall below 5 million gross tons per 

year, or passenger service would end so 

that neither of the two tests above 

would apply. Between the two 

categories, FRA estimated that railroads 

could exclude more than 3,500 miles. 

Assuming that the 3,500 miles 

represents about 50% of those tracks 

where PIH materials traffic will have 

ceased, FRA was implicitly estimating 

that there would be about 7,000 miles of 

track where PIH materials traffic will 

have ceased. The AAR and its members 

appear to have been more effective in 

the future reduction of PIH materials 

traffic than FRA had initially estimated 

based on AAR’s congressional testimony 

and subsequent submissions to FRA. In 

its analysis of this NPRM, FRA 

estimates that PIH traffic will cease on 

10,000 miles of track on which PTC 

systems would have been required had 

the traffic not ceased. FRA considers 

cases where 7,000 miles, 10,000 miles 

and, for sensitivity, 14,000 miles of 

track might be excluded from PTC 

requirements because of changes in PIH 

traffic. As FRA was completing its 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2See AAR Congressional Testimony, at 8–9. 

analysis of this proposal, AAR 

submitted data that indicates its 

member railroads believe that they can 

cease PIH traffic on 11,128 miles of 

track, of which 9,566 miles have no 

passenger traffic. Some of the passenger 

traffic miles may later qualify for 

exclusion from the system on which 

PTC is required. For more discussion of 

those miles from which PIH traffic is 

removed, but on which passenger traffic 

remains, see FRA’s Regulatory Impact 

Assessment, in this rulemaking docket. 

FRA seeks comments and information 

on the accuracy and likelihood of 

estimated changes in PIH traffic. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Unless otherwise noted, all section 

references below refer to sections in title 

49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). FRA seeks comments on all 

proposals made in this NPRM. 

Proposed Amendments to 49 CFR Part 

236 

Section 236.1003 Definitions 

FRA currently defines PIH materials 

within the rule text at 

§ 236.1005(b)(1)(i), which some may 

find difficult to locate. Accordingly, for 

the purposes of clarity, FRA proposes to 

add the definition for PIH materials to 

the definitions section of subpart I. The 

inclusion of this definition in 

§ 236.1003 would not change the 

meaning of the term as understood 

under § 236.1005(b)(1)(i) or its crossreferenced §§ 171.8, 173.115, and 

173.132. 

Section 236.1005 Requirements for 

Positive Train Control Systems 

In this NPRM, FRA is proposing the 

elimination of the alternative route 

analysis and the residual risk analysis 

tests. When initially published in the 

PTC rule on January 15, 2010, these 

provisions were included in 

§ 236.1005(b). On September 27, 2010, 

FRA issued amendments to the PTC 

rule, moving the text to a new 

§ 236.1020 and providing more 

clarifying language. To ensure 

continuity and understanding, however, 

§ 236.1005 contained various crossreferences to § 236.1020. As indicated 

below, FRA is proposing to eliminate 

§ 236.1020. Accordingly, FRA also 

proposes rule text changes to § 236.1005 

by removing those cross-references. 

Section 236.1020 Exclusion of Track 

Segments for Implementation Due to 

Cessation of PIH Materials Traffic 

As previously noted, the current PTC 

rule requires that, for each RFA seeking 

to exclude a track segment from PTC 

system implementation due to the 

cessation of PIH materials traffic, a 

railroad must satisfy both an alternative 

route analysis, and eventually a residual 

risk analysis test, in order to secure 

FRA’s approval. FRA’s cost benefit 

analysis of the PTC rule indicates that 

the railroads will incur approximately 

$20 in PTC costs for each $1 in PTC 

safety benefits. In its congressional 

testimony, AAR testified that 2010 was 

the safest year for America’s railroads, 

that railroads have lower employee 

injury rates than most other major 

industries, that only around 4 percent of 

all train accidents on Class I main lines 

are likely to be prevented by PTC 

systems, and that there are many far less 

costly ways to provide greater 

improvements in rail safety than 

through the implementation of PTC 

systems on lines not required by 

Congress to be equipped.2 According to 

the testimony, if the PTC rule remains 

unchanged, railroads may be required to 

spend more than $500 million in the 

next few years to deploy PTC systems 

on more than 10,000 miles of rail lines 

on which neither passengers nor PIH 

materials will be transported as of 

December 31, 2015. 

While FRA believes that the 

alternative route analysis and residual 

risk tests are legally sustainable, it 

recognizes that these tests could 

potentially require the installation of 

PTC systems at a great cost to the 

railroads. FRA also recognizes that the 

railroads have much work to do to have 

interoperable PTC systems installed in 

accordance with the congressional 

mandate. FRA is, therefore, proposing to 

eliminate the tests that would 

potentially require the installation of 

PTC systems on lines not specifically 

mandated by Congress. 

FRA seeks comments from interested 

parties on the proposed removal of the 

alternative route analysis from the PTC 

rule. FRA also seeks comments on the 

proposed removal of the residual risk 

analysis. If FRA were to remove these 

requirements, it proposes doing so by 

eliminating § 236.1020 as it currently 

exists. While FRA is proposing the 

removal of these analyses from the PTC 

rule, FRA reserves its statutory and 

regulatory authority to require PTC 

system implementation on additional 

track segments in the future based on 

risk levels or other rational bases. 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

This proposed rule has been 

evaluated in accordance with existing 

policies and procedures, and 

determined to be significant under 

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 

13563 and DOT policies and 

procedures. 44 FR 11,034 (Feb. 26, 

1979). We have prepared and placed in 

the docket a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA) addressing the economic impact 

of this NPRM. FRA is proposing the 

removal of various regulatory 

requirements that require railroads to 

meet two tests in order to avoid PTC 

system implementation on track 

segments that were used to transport 

PIH traffic and carried five million gross 

tons of annual traffic in 2008, but that 

will not transport PIH materials traffic 

and the applicable passenger traffic as of 

December 31, 2015. Substantial cost 

savings would accrue largely from not 

installing PTC system wayside 

components or other mitigations along 

approximately 10,000 miles of track. 

Although these rail lines would forego 

some risk reduction, the reductions 

would likely be small since these lines 

pose a much lower risk of accidents 

because they generally do not carry 

passenger trains or PIH materials and 

generally have lower accident frequency 

and severity, because the lines have 

relatively lower traffic volumes than the 

average segment on which PTC systems 

will be required, based on FRA’s review 

of the data submitted by AAR. The 

analysis shows that if the assumptions 

are correct, the savings to the industry 

in the form of regulatory relief as 

proposed far outweigh the cost 

associated with increased accident 

exposure. 

The largest part of the cost savings 

benefit comes from reducing the extent 

of wayside that must be equipped with 

PTC. Some of these lines would have 

qualified for exemption by passing the 

two tests contained in the 2010 PTC 

final rule, while others may not have. In 

addition, benefits would come from 

reducing the number of locomotives 

belonging to Class II and Class III (small) 

railroads that must be equipped with 

PTC systems, because they run on Class 

I railroads’ track that will no longer 

need to be equipped with PTC systems. 

Although these benefits would be small 

relative to the wayside equipment 

savings, they would be large relative to 

the size of the railroads being impacted. 

The tables below present the total 

estimated cost savings benefits of the 

proposed rule, assuming installation or 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52923 

additional mitigation measures would 

no longer be required along 10,000 

miles of track. The analysis assumes 

that 5,000 miles of track would have 

passed both tests with some mitigation 

measures being taken, and the 

remaining 5,000 miles would not have 

passed both tests and would have 

required PTC system implementation 

under the current rules. 

BENEFITS

[20-year, discounted] 

Costs avoided 7% Discount 3% Discount 

Reduced Mitigation Costs, Including Maintenance ..................................................................................... $91,793,822 $121,119,324 

Reduced Wayside Costs, Including Maintenance ....................................................................................... 515,695,631 680,445,643 

Reduced Locomotive Costs, Including Maintenance .................................................................................. 12,479,834 16,466,785 

Total Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 619,969,287 818,031,752 

Total costs may also be broken down 

into initial investment and maintenance 

costs. Although railroads may already 

have spent money to install and 

maintain PTC systems, FRA assumes 

here that those funds have not been 

spent on the lines considered here, as 

they tend to be lower volume, lower 

priority lines, and FRA assumes that the 

railroads would not install PTC systems 

on those lines until 2014, at the earliest, 

in the absence of this rulemaking. FRA 

seeks comment on this assumption. FRA 

estimates that avoiding installation on 

10,000 miles would let railroads avoid 

$300.5 million in initial installation 

costs (not discounted). Maintenance 

cost savings would total $366.0 million 

(discounted at 7%) or $538.9 million 

(discounted at 3%). Maintenance 

includes all of the activities and 

subsequent purchases needed to operate 

the PTC system over its life-cycle, and 

to maintain its proper functioning, 

reliability, and availability. 

Maintenance includes training, system 

inspection, testing, adjustments, repair, 

and replacement of components. 

Replacement components can be very 

expensive in processor-based systems 

with relatively small installed bases, 

such as PTC. PTC systems are not 

installed in great enough numbers to 

justify a processor manufacturer making 

a processor just for PTC. PTC systems 

developers must use standard 

processors, and over time those 

processors usually become obsolete and 

are no longer supported or 

manufactured. Then the PTC system 

developer must redesign and re-test the 

PTC system to ensure it will continue to 

operate safely and reliably with the new 

processor. 

Costs associated with the proposed 

regulatory relief will come from 

reducing the potential for accident 

reduction. A substantial part of the 

accident reduction that FRA expects 

from PTC systems currently required 

comes from reducing high-consequence 

accidents involving passenger trains or 

the release of PIH materials. FRA 

believes that the track segments 

impacted by this proposal pose 

significantly less risk because they 

generally do not carry passenger trains 

or PIH materials and generally have 

lower accident frequency and severity, 

as discussed above, because the lines 

have relatively lower traffic volumes 

and track speeds than the average 

segment on which PTC systems will be 

required, based on FRA’s review of the 

data submitted by AAR. The following 

tables present the total costs of the 

proposed rule as well as the breakdown 

of the costs by element. 

COSTS

[20-year, discounted] 

Foregone reductions in 7% Discount 3% Discount 

Fatality Prevention ....................................................................................................................................... $11,453,106 $16,860,327 

Injury Prevention .......................................................................................................................................... 4,254,484 6,263,104 

Train Delay .................................................................................................................................................. 117,793 173,406 

Property Damage ......................................................................................................................................... 10,163,835 14,962,367 

Equipment Cleanup ..................................................................................................................................... 143,273 210,915 

Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................... 430,995 634,475 

Evacuations ................................................................................................................................................. 138,780 204,301 

Total Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 26,702,267 39,308,896 

The 20-year discounted net benefits 

(subtracting the costs from the benefits) 

are expected to be $590 million over 20 

years, discounted at 7 percent per year; 

and $780 million over 20 years, 

discounted at 3 percent per year. The 

timing of benefits and costs are such 

that a large benefit in terms of capital 

investment is avoided in early years, 

while the benefit of avoided 

maintenance and the disbenefit (costs) 

of accidents not avoided would be 

realized annually in later years. FRA 

also assessed the sensitivity of the 

analysis with respect to scenarios in 

which railroads may only be able to get 

relief for 7,000 miles of track and in 

which railroads may get relief on as 

many as 14,000 miles of track. Each of 

these assumes that 50% of the track 

miles would have passed both tests with 

some mitigation measures being taken, 

and that the remaining 50% of the track 

miles would not have passed both tests 

and would have required PTC system 

implementation under the current rules. 

Such scenarios also show net benefits. 

Net societal benefits 7% Discount 3% Discount 

Expected Case (10,000 miles) .................................................................................................................... $593,267,020 $778,722,856 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003); 49 CFR part 209, 

app. C. 

4For further information on the calculation of the 

specific dollar limit, please see 49 CFR part 1201. 

Net societal benefits 7% Discount 3% Discount 

High Case (14,000 miles) ............................................................................................................................ 793,856,299 1,041,764,269 

Low Case (7,000 miles) ............................................................................................................................... 442,825,061 581,441,797 

Further, the benefit-cost ratios under 

the scenarios analyzed range between 

20:1 and 25:1. 

Benefit-cost ratio 7% 

Discount 

3% 

Discount 

Expected Case ......... 23.22 20.81 

High Case ................. 22.24 19.93 

Low Case .................. 24.69 22.13 

The FRA invites comments on all 

aspects of this analysis, including any 

costs and benefits regarding this NPRM 

that may not have been considered in 

this analysis, and particularly seeks 

comments on the time frame for 

installation, maintenance, and 

realization of costs and benefits. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

To ensure that the potential impact of 

this rulemaking on small entities is 

properly considered, FRA developed 

this proposed rule in accordance with 

Executive Order 13272 (‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking’’) and DOT’s 

policies and procedures to promote 

compliance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires an agency to review regulations 

to assess their impact on small entities. 

An agency must conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis unless it determines 

and certifies that a rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

As discussed in earlier sections of this 

preamble, FRA is proposing to amend 

the regulations implementing a 

provision of RSIA that requires certain 

passenger and freight railroads to install 

PTC systems. Specifically, FRA is 

proposing the removal of various 

regulatory requirements that require 

railroads to either conduct further 

analyses or meet certain risk-based 

criteria in order to avoid PTC system 

implementation on track segments that 

carried PIH traffic and 5 million or more 

gross tons of traffic in 2008 but that will 

not carry PIH hazardous materials traffic 

as of December 31, 2015. 

FRA is certifying that this proposed 

rule will result in ‘‘no significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ The 

following section explains the reasons 

for this certification. 

1. Description of Regulated Entities and 

Impacts 

The ‘‘universe’’ of the entities under 

consideration includes only those small 

entities that can reasonably be expected 

to be directly affected by the provisions 

of this rule. In this case, the ‘‘universe’’ 

would be Class III freight railroads that 

operate on rail lines that are currently 

required to have PTC systems installed. 

Such lines are owned by railroads not 

considered to be small. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) stipulates in its 

‘‘Size Standards’’ that the largest a 

railroad business firm that is ‘‘forprofit’’ may be, and still be classified as 

a ‘‘small entity,’’ is 1,500 employees for 

‘‘Line Haul Operating Railroads’’ and 

500 employees for ‘‘Switching and 

Terminal Establishments.’’ ‘‘Small 

entity’’ is defined in the Act as a small 

business that is independently owned 

and operated, and is not dominant in its 

field of operation. Additionally, section 

601(5) defines ‘‘small entities’’ as 

governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts with populations less 

than 50,000. 

Federal agencies may adopt their own 

size standards for small entities in 

consultation with SBA and in 

conjunction with public comment. 

Pursuant to that authority, FRA has 

published a final policy that formally 

establishes ‘‘small entities’’ as railroads 

which meet the line haulage revenue 

requirements of a Class III railroad.3 The 

revenue requirements are currently $20 

million or less in annual operating 

revenue. The $20 million limit (which 

is adjusted by applying the railroad 

revenue deflator adjustment) 4 is based 

on the Surface Transportation Board’s 

(STB) threshold for a Class III railroad 

carrier. FRA is using the STB’s 

threshold in its definition of ‘‘small 

entities’’ for this rule. 

The proposed regulation would 

impact Class III railroads that operate on 

lines of other railroads currently 

required to have PTC systems installed. 

To the extent that such host railroads 

receive relief from such a requirement 

along certain lines as proposed in this 

NPRM, Class III railroads that operate 

over those lines would not have to 

equip their locomotives with PTC 

system components. FRA believes that 

elimination of the two tests for relief 

from the requirement to install PTC 

systems as proposed would in effect 

result in PTC systems not being 

installed on track segments totaling over 

10,000 miles in length. Approximately 

five small railroads operate locomotives 

on lines currently required to be 

equipped with PTC systems, but that 

would receive relief under the proposed 

rule. In addition, two Class III railroads 

operate over railroad crossings 

(diamonds) that intersect tracks required 

to be equipped with PTC systems in the 

absence of changes proposed in this 

notice. The total of seven affected Class 

III railroads is not a substantial number 

of small entities, given that there are 674 

small railroads. If this FRA proposal 

becomes effective, Class III railroads 

would avoid equipping 28 locomotives 

with PTC onboard apparatuses at a cost 

savings of $55,000 per locomotive 

initially plus maintenance of the PTC 

equipment. In addition, a Class III 

railroad would avoid paying for PTC 

system installation at one railroad-torailroad crossing, at an initial cost of 

$80,000 plus annual maintenance. 

Finally, Class III railroads would avoid 

operational costs associated with having 

to reduce operating speeds to cross over 

two railroad-to-railroad crossings at an 

annual cost of $43,800. The unit costs 

presented above for installing PTC 

systems on locomotives, and at railroadto-railroad crossings, and the 

operational costs of operating over a 

crossing at reduced speed are the values 

used in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis of the PTC final rule issued 

January 15, 2010, and can be found in 

the docket for that rulemaking. The 

changes FRA is proposing would benefit 

the small entities impacted. FRA 

requests comment on whether the 

impacts on them would be significant 

and whether the number of small 

railroads affected is substantial. The 

seven railroads affected do not represent 

a substantial number of railroads out of 

more than approximately 600 Class III 

railroads. 

2. Certification 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FRA 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52925 

substantial number of small entities. 

FRA requests comment on both this 

analysis and this certification, and its 

estimates of the impacts on small 

railroads. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule are 

being submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

sections that contain the current 

information collection requirements and 

the estimated time to fulfill each 

proposed requirement are summarized 

as follows: 

CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

234.275—Processor-Based Systems—Deviations from Product Safety Plan (PSP)—Letters.20 Railroads ................. 25 letters ...................... 4 hours ......................... 100 

236.18—Software Mgmt Control Plan ................. 184 Railroads ............... 184 plans ..................... 2,150 hours .................. 395,600 

—Updates to Software Mgmt. Control Plan ........ 90 Railroads ................. 20 updates ................... 1.50 hours .................... 30 

236.905—Updates to RSPP ................................ 78 Railroads ................. 6 plans ......................... 135 hours ..................... 810 

—Response to Request For Additional Info ........ 78 Railroads ................. 1 updated doc .............. 400 hours ..................... 400 

—Request for FRA Approval of RSPP Modification.78 Railroads ................. 1 request/modified 

RSPP.

400 hours ..................... 400 

236.907—Product Safety Plan (PSP)—Dev ....... 5 Railroads ................... 5 plans ......................... 6,400 hours .................. 32,000 

236.909—Minimum Performance Standard. 

—Petitions For Review and Approval ................. 5 Railroads ................... 2 petitions/PSP ............ 19,200 hours ................ 38,400 

—Supporting Sensitivity Analysis ........................ 5 Railroads ................... 5 analyses .................... 160 hours ..................... 800 

236.913—Notification/Submission to FRA of 

Joint Product Safety Plan (PSP).

6 Railroads ................... 1 joint plan ................... 25,600 hours ................ 25,600 

—Petitions For Approval/Informational Filings .... 6 Railroads ................... 6 petitions ..................... 1,928 hours .................. 11,568 

—Responses to FRA Request For Further Info. 

After Informational Filing.

6 Railroads ................... 2 documents ................ 800 hours ..................... 1,600 

—Responses to FRA Request For Further Info. 

After Agency Receipt of Notice of Product Development.

6 Railroads ................... 6 documents ................ 16 hours ....................... 96 

—Consultations .................................................... 6 Railroads ................... 6 consults ..................... 120 hours ..................... 720 

—Petitions for Final Approval .............................. 6 Railroads ................... 6 petitions ..................... 16 hours ....................... 96 

—Comments to FRA by Interested Parties ......... Public/RRs ................... 7 comments ................. 240 hours ..................... 1,680 

—Third Party Assessments of PSP .................... 6 Railroads ................... 1 assessment ............... 104,000 hours .............. 104,000 

—Amendments to PSP ........................................ 6 Railroads ................... 15 amendments ........... 160 hours ..................... 2,400 

—Field Testing of Product—Info. Filings ............. 6 Railroads ................... 6 documents ................ 3,200 hours .................. 19,200 

236.917—Retention of Records .......................... ...................................... ...................................... 160,000 hrs ..................

—Results of tests/inspections specified in PSP .. 6 Railroads ................... 3 documents/records ... 160,000 hrs.; 40,000 

hrs.

360,000 

—Report to FRA of Inconsistencies with frequency of safety-relevant hazards in PSP.6 Railroads ................... 1 report ......................... 104 hours ..................... 104 

236.919—Operations & Maintenance Man. 

—Updates to O & M Manual ............................... 6 Railroads ................... 6 updated docs ............ 40 hours ....................... 240 

—Plans For Proper Maintenance, Repair, Inspection of Safety-Critical Products.6 Railroads ................... 6 plans ......................... 53,335 hours ................ 320,010 

—Hardware/Software/Firmware Revisions .......... 6 Railroads ................... 6 revisions .................... 6,440 hours .................. 38,640 

236.921—Training Programs: Development ....... 6 Railroads ................... 6 Tr. Programs ............. 400 hours ..................... 2,400 

—Training of Signalmen & Dispatchers .............. 6 Railroads ................... 300 signalmen; 20 dispatchers.40 hours .......................

20 hours .......................

12,400 

236.923—Task Analysis/Basic Requirements: 

Necessary Documents.

6 railroads .................... 6 documents ................ 720 hours ..................... 4,320 

—Records ............................................................ 6 railroads .................... 350 records .................. 10 minutes ................... 58 

SUBPART I—NEW REQUIREMENTS 

—236.1001—RR Development of More Stringent Rules Re: PTC Performance Stds.46 railroads .................. 3 rules .......................... 80 hours ....................... 240 

—236.1005—Requirements for PTC Systems. 

—Temporary Rerouting: Emergency Requests .. 46 railroads .................. 50 requests .................. 8 hours ......................... 400 

—Written/Telephonic Notification to FRA Regional Administrator.46 railroads .................. 50 notifications ............. 2 hours ......................... 100 

—Temporary Rerouting Requests Due to Track 

Maintenance.

46 railroads .................. 760 requests ................ 8 hours ......................... 6,080 

—Temporary Rerouting Requests That Exceed 

30 Days.

46 railroads .................. 380 requests ................ 8 hours ......................... 3,040 

—236.1006—Requirements for Equipping Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory. 

—Reports of Movements in Excess of 20 Miles/ 

RR Progress on PTC Locomotives.

46 railroads .................. 45 reports + 45 reports 8 hours + 170 .............. 8,010 

—PTC Progress Reports ..................................... 46 railroads .................. 35 reports ..................... 16 hours ....................... 560 

—236.1007—Additional Requirements for High 

Speed Service. 

—Required HSR–125 Documents with approved 

PTCSP.

46 railroads .................. 3 documents ................ 3,200 hours .................. 9,600 

—Requests to Use Foreign Service Data ........... 46 railroads .................. 2 requests .................... 8,000 hours .................. 6,000 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

—PTC Railroads Conducting Operations at 

More than 150 MPH with HSR–125 Documents.

46 railroads .................. 3 documents ................ 3,200 hours .................. 9,600 

—Requests for PTC Waiver ................................ 46 railroads .................. 1 request ...................... 1,000 hours .................. 1,000 

236.1009–Procedural Requirements. 

—Host Railroads Filing PTCIP or Request for 

Amendment (RFAs).

46 Railroads ................. 1 PCTIP; 20 RFAs ....... 535 hours; 320 hours ... 6,935 

—Jointly Submitted PTCIPs ................................ 46 Railroads ................. 5 PTCIPs ...................... 267 hours ..................... 1,335 

—Notification of Failure to File Joint PTCIP ....... 46 Railroads ................. 1 notification ................. 32 hours ....................... 32 

—Comprehensive List of Issues Causing NonAgreement.46 Railroads ................. 1 list .............................. 80 hours ....................... 80 

—Conferences to Develop Mutually Acceptable 

PCTIP.

46 Railroads ................. 1 conf. calls .................. 60 minutes ................... 1 hour 

—Type Approval .................................................. 46 Railroads ................. 2 Type Appr. ................ 8 hours ......................... 16 

—PTC Development Plans Requesting Type Approval.46 Railroads ................. 20 Ltr. + 20 App; 2 

Plans.

8 hrs/1600 hrs.; 6,400 

hours.

44,960 

—Notice of Product Intent w/PTCIPs (IPs) ......... 46 Railroads ................. 3 NPI; 1 IP ................... 1,070 + 535 hrs ........... 3,745 

—PTCDPs with PTCIPs (DPs + IPs) .................. 46 Railroads ................. 1 DP ............................. 2,135 hours .................. 2,135 

—Updated PTCIPs w/PTCDPs (IPs + DPs) ....... 46 Railroads ................. 1 IP; 1 DP .................... 535 + 2,135 hrs ........... 2,670 

—Disapproved/Resubmitted PTCIPs/NPIs .......... 46 Railroads ................. 1 IP + 1 NPI ................. 135 + 270 hrs .............. 405 

—Revoked Approvals—Provisional IPs/DP ........ 46 Railroads ................. IP + 1 DP ..................... 135 + 535 hrs .............. 670 

—PTC IPs/PTCDPs Still Needing Rework .......... 46 Railroads ................. 1 IP + 1 DP .................. 135 + 535 hrs .............. 670 

—PTCIP/PTCDP/PTCSP Plan Contents—Documents Translated into English.46 Railroads ................. 1 document .................. 8,000 hours .................. 8,000 

—Requests for Confidentiality ............................. 46 Railroads ................. 46 ltrs; 46 docs ............ 8 hrs.; 800 hrs .............. 37,168 

—Field Test Plans/Independent Assessments— 

Req. by FRA.

46 Railroads ................. 230 field tests; 2 assessments.800 hours ..................... 185,600 

—FRA Access: Interviews with PTC Wrkrs ........ 46 Railroads ................. 92 interviews ................ 30 minutes ................... 46 

—FRA Requests for Further Information ............ 46 Railroads ................. 8 documents ................ 400 hours ..................... 3,200 

236.1011—PTCIP Requirements—Comment ..... 7 Interested Groups ..... 1 rev.; 40 com .............. 143 + 8 hrs .................. 463 

236.1015—PTCSP Content Requirements & 

PTC System Certification. 

—Non-Vital Overlay ............................................. 46 Railroads ................. 3 PTCSPs .................... 16,000 hours ................ 48,000 

—Vital Overlay ..................................................... 46 Railroads ................. 28 PTCSPs .................. 22,400 hours ................ 627,200 

—Stand Alone ...................................................... 46 Railroads ................. 14 PTCSPs .................. 32,000 hours ................ 448,000 

—Mixed Systems—Conference with FRA regarding Case/Analysis.46 Railroads ................. 3 conferences .............. 32 hours ....................... 96 

—Mixed Sys. PTCSPs (incl. safety case) ........... 46 Railroads ................. 1 PTCSP ...................... 28,800 hours ................ 28,800 

—FRA Request for Additional PTCSP Data ....... 46 Railroads ................. 23 documents .............. 3,200 hours .................. 73,600 

—PTCSPs Applying to Replace Existing Certified PTC Systems.46 Railroads ................. 23 PTCSPs .................. 3,200 hours .................. 73,600 

—Non-Quantitative Risk Assessments Supplied 

to FRA.

46 Railroads ................. 23 assessments ........... 3,200 hours .................. 73,600 

236.1017—PTCSP Supported by Independent 

Third Party Assessment.

46 Railroads ................. 1 assessment ............... 8,000 hours .................. 8,000 

—Written Requests to FRA to Confirm Entity 

Independence.

46 Railroads ................. 1 request ...................... 8 hours ......................... 8 

—Provision of Additional Information After FRA 

Request.

46 Railroads ................. 1 document .................. 160 hours ..................... 160 

—Independent Third Party Assessment: Waiver 

Requests.

46 Railroads ................. 1 request ...................... 160 hours ..................... 160 

—RR Request for FRA to Accept Foreign Railroad Regulator Certified Info.46 Railroads ................. 1 request ...................... 32 hours ....................... 32 

236.1019—Main Line Track Exceptions. 

—Submission of Main Line Track Exclusion 

Addendums (MTEAs).

46 Railroads ................. 46 MTEAs .................... 160 hours ..................... 7,360 

—Passenger Terminal Exception—MTEAs ......... 46 Railroads ................. 23 MTEAs .................... 160 hours ..................... 3,680 

—Limited Operation Exception—Risk Mit ........... 46 Railroads ................. 23 plans ....................... 160 hours ..................... 3,680 

—Ltd. Exception—Collision Hazard Anal ............ 46 Railroads ................. 12 analyses .................. 1,600 hours .................. 19,200 

—Temporal Separation Procedures .................... 46 Railroads ................. 11 procedures .............. 160 hours ..................... 1,760 

236.1021—Discontinuances, Material Modifications, Amendments—Requests to Amend 

(RFA) PTCIP, PTCDP or PTCSP.

46 Railroads ................. 23 RFAs ....................... 160 hours ..................... 3,680 

—Review and Public Comment on RFA ............. 7 Interested Groups ..... 7 reviews + 20 comments.3 hours; 16 hours ......... 341 

236.1023—PTC Product Vendor Lists ................ 46 Railroads ................. 46 lists .......................... 8 hours ......................... 368 

—RR Procedures Upon Notification of PTC System Safety-Critical Upgrades, Rev., Etc.46 Railroads ................. 46 procedures .............. 16 hours ....................... 736 

—RR Notifications of PTC Safety Hazards ......... 46 Railroads ................. 150 notification ............. 16 hours ....................... 2,400 

—RR Notification Updates ................................... 46 Railroads ................. 150 updates ................. 16 hours ....................... 2,400 

—Manufacturer’s Report of Investigation of PTC 

Defect.

5 System Suppliers ...... 5 reports ....................... 400 hours ..................... 2,000 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52927 

CFR Section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

—PTC Supplier Reports of Safety Relevant Failures or Defective Conditions.5 System Suppliers ...... 150 reports + 150 rpt. 

copies.

16 hours + 8 hours ...... 3,600 

236.1029—Report of On-Board Lead Locomotive PTC Device Failure.46 Railroads ................. 1,012 reports ................ 96 hours ....................... 97,152 

236.1031—Previously Approved PTC Systems. 

—Request for Expedited Certification (REC) for 

PTC System.

46 Railroads ................. 3 REC Letters .............. 160 hours ..................... 480 

—Requests for Grandfathering on PTCSPs ....... 46 Railroads ................. 3 requests .................... 1,600 hours .................. 4,800 

236.1035—Field Testing Requirements .............. 46 railroads .................. 230 field test plans ....... 800 hours ..................... 184,000 

—Relief Requests from Regulations Necessary 

to Support Field Testing.

46 Railroads ................. 46 requests .................. 320 hours ..................... 14,720 

236.1037—Records Retention. 

—Results of Tests in PTCSP and PTCDP ......... 46 railroads .................. 1,012 records ............... 4 hours ......................... 4,048 

—PTC Service Contractors Training Records .... 46 Railroads ................. 22,080 records ............. 30 minutes ................... 11,040 

—Reports of Safety Relevant Hazards Exceeding Those in PTCSP and PTCDP.46 Railroads ................. 4 reports ....................... 8 hours ......................... 32 

—Final Report of Resolution of Inconsistency .... 46 Railroads ................. 4 final reports ............... 160 hours ..................... 640 

—236.1039—Operations & Maintenance Manual 

(OMM): Development.

46 railroads .................. 46 manuals .................. 250 hours ..................... 11,500 

—Positive Identification of Safety-critical components.46 railroads .................. 120,000 i.d. components.1 hour ........................... 120,000 

—Designated RR Officers in OMM. regarding 

PTC issues.

46 railroads .................. 92 designations ............ 2 hours ......................... 184 

—236.1041—PTC Training Programs ................. 46 Railroads ................. 46 programs ................. 400 hours ..................... 18,400 

—236.1043—Task Analysis/Basic Requirements: Training Evaluations.46 railroads .................. 46 evaluations .............. 720 hours ..................... 33,120 

—Training Records .............................................. 46 railroads .................. 560 records .................. 10 minutes ................... 93 

—236.1045—Training Specific to Office Control 

Personnel.

46 railroads .................. 32 trained employees .. 20 hours ....................... 640 

—236.1047—Training Specific to Loc. Engineers 

& Other Operating Personnel. 

—PTC Conductor Training .................................. 30 railroads .................. 8,000 trained conductors.3 hours ......................... 24,000 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

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

comments concerning: whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. 

Robert Brogan, Information Clearance 

Officer, at 202–493–6292, or Ms. Nakia 

Jackson at 202–493–6073. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them to Mr. Robert Brogan 

or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., 3rd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20590. Comments may 

also be submitted via e-mail to Mr. 

Brogan or Ms. Toone at the following 

address: Robert.Brogan@dot.gov; 

Kimberly.Toone@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule between 30 and 60 days after its 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Therefore, a comment to OMB is best 

assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it within 30 days of 

publication. The final rule will respond 

to any OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

FRA is not authorized to impose a 

penalty on persons for violating 

information collection requirements 

which do not display a current OMB 

control number, if required. FRA 

intends to obtain current OMB control 

numbers for any new information 

collection requirements resulting from 

this rulemaking action prior to the 

effective date of the final rule. The OMB 

control number, when assigned, will be 

announced by separate notice in the 

Federal Register. 

D. Federalism Implications 

This proposed rule has been analyzed 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ See 64 FR 43,255 

(Aug. 4, 1999). As discussed earlier in 

the preamble, this proposed rule would 

provide regulatory relief from the 

mandated implementation of PTC 

systems. 

Executive Order 13132 requires FRA 

to develop a process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ Policies that have 

‘‘federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts state law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, nor on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In addition, FRA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

would not impose any direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

However, this proposed rule will have 

preemptive effect. Section 20106 of Title 

49 of the United States Code provides 

that States may not adopt or continue in 

effect any law, regulation, or order 

related to railroad safety or security that 

covers the subject matter of a regulation 

prescribed or order issued by the 

Secretary of Transportation (with 

respect to railroad safety matters) or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (with 

respect to railroad security matters), 

except when the State law, regulation, 

or order qualifies under the local safety 

or security exception to § 20106. 

Furthermore, the Locomotive Boiler 

Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. 20701–20703) 

has been held by the U.S. Supreme 

Court to preempt the entire field of 

locomotive safety. 

In sum, FRA has analyzed this 

proposed rule in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132. As explained 

above, FRA has determined that this 

proposed rule has no federalism 

implications, other than the possible 

preemption of State laws. Accordingly, 

FRA has determined that preparation of 

a federalism summary impact statement 

for this proposed rule is not required. 

E. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

in accordance with its ‘‘Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts’’ 

(‘‘FRA’s Procedures’’) (64 FR 28545, 

May 26, 1999) as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other 

environmental statutes, Executive 

Orders, and related regulatory 

requirements. FRA has determined that 

this proposed rule is not a major FRA 

action (requiring the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment) because it is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 

section 4(c)(20) of FRA’s Procedures. In 

accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of 

FRA’s Procedures, the agency has 

further concluded that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

regulation that might trigger the need for 

a more detailed environmental review. 

As a result, FRA finds that this 

proposed rule is not a major Federal 

action significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531) 

(UMRA) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditures by 

state, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million (adjusted annually for 

inflation with base year of 1995) or more 

in any one year. The value equivalent of 

$100 million in CY 1995, adjusted 

annual for inflation to CY 2008 levels by 

the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers (CPI–U) is $141.3 million. 

The assessment may be included in 

conjunction with other assessments, as 

it is in this rulemaking. 

FRA is publishing this NPRM to 

provide additional flexibility in 

standards for the development, testing, 

implementation, and use of PTC 

systems for railroads mandated by RSIA 

to implement PTC systems. The RIA 

provides a detailed analysis of the costs 

and benefits of the NPRM. This analysis 

is the basis for determining that this rule 

will not result in total expenditures by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$141.3 million or more in any one year. 

The costs associated with this NPRM are 

reduced accident reduction from an 

existing rule. The aforementioned costs 

borne by all parties will not exceed $3.3 

million in any one year. 

G. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

federal agencies to prepare a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

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

2001). Under the Executive Order, a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. FRA has 

evaluated this proposed rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 13211. 

FRA has determined that this proposed 

rule is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Consequently, FRA has determined that 

this regulatory action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

H. Privacy Act 

FRA wishes to inform all interested 

parties that anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of any written 

communications and comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

document (or signing the document, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). Interested 

parties may also review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477) or visit http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 236 

Penalties, Positive train control, 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

V. The Proposed Rule 

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA 

proposes to amend chapter II, subtitle B 

of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations 

as follows: 

PART 236—[AMENDED] 

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, 

21301–21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 

and 49 CFR 1.49. 

2. Amend § 236.1003 by adding the 

definition ‘‘PIH Materials’’ to paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 236.1003 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

PIH Materials means materials 

poisonous by inhalation, as defined in 

§§ 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132 of this 

title. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 236.1005 by redesignating 

paragraph (b)(4)(ii) as paragraph 

(b)(4)(iii); revise paragraph (b)(4)(i) and 

add a new paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to read as 

follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52929 

§ 236.1005 Requirements for Positive Train 

Control systems. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Routing changes. In a PTCIP or an 

RFA, a railroad may request review of 

the requirement to install PTC on a track 

segment where a PTC system is 

otherwise required by this section, but 

has not yet been installed, based upon 

changes in rail traffic such as reductions 

in total traffic volume to a level below 

5 million gross tons annually or 

cessation of passenger service or PIH 

materials traffic. Any such request shall 

be accompanied by estimated traffic 

projections for the next 5 years (e.g., as 

a result of planned rerouting, 

coordinations, or location of new 

business on the line). 

(ii) FRA will approve the exclusion 

requested pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(i) 

of this section if the railroad establishes 

the following: 

(A) The cessation of passenger service 

on the involved track segment prior to 

January 1, 2016; 

(B) A decline in gross tonnage below 

5 million gross tons annually as 

computed over a 2-year period on the 

involved track segment; or 

(C) The cessation or expected 

cessation of PIH traffic over the 

involved track segment prior to January 

1, 2016. 

* * * * * 

§ 236.1020 [Removed and reserved] 

4. Remove and reserve § 236.1020. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 

2011. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21454 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS