85462 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

proposed regulations to make phenethyl 

bromide a list I chemical under the CSA 

would have on industry. 

Handling of Confidential or Proprietary 

Information 

Confidential or proprietary 

information may be submitted as part of 

a comment regarding this advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking. Please 

see the ‘‘POSTING OF PUBLIC 

COMMENTS’’ section above for a 

discussion of the identification and 

redaction of confidential business 

information and personally identifying 

information. 

Regulatory Analyses 

This ANPRM was developed in 

accordance with the principles of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ and E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review.’’ 

Because this action is an ANPRM, the 

requirement of E.O. 12866 to assess the 

costs and benefits of this action does not 

apply. 

Furthermore, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply 

to this action because, at this stage, it is 

an ANPRM and not a ‘‘rule’’ as defined 

in 5 U.S.C. 601. Following review of the 

comments received in response to this 

ANPRM, if DEA proceeds with a notice 

of proposed rulemaking regarding this 

matter, DEA will conduct all relevant 

analyses as required by statute or E.O. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on October 10, 2024, by Administrator 

Anne Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2024–24616 Filed 10–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 236 

[Docket No. FRA–2023–0064] 

RIN 2130–AC95 

Positive Train Control Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to amend 

certain regulations governing positive 

train control (PTC) systems. Since 

December 31, 2020, by law, PTC 

systems have generally governed rail 

operations on PTC-mandated main 

lines, which encompass nearly 59,000 

route miles today. Through FRA’s 

oversight and continued engagement 

with the industry, FRA has found that 

its existing PTC regulations do not 

adequately address temporary situations 

during which PTC technology is not 

enabled, including after certain 

initialization failures or in cases where 

a PTC system needs to be temporarily 

disabled to facilitate repair, 

maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or 

capital projects. FRA expects PTC 

systems to be reliable and robust, 

further reducing the occurrence of 

initialization failures and outages. This 

NPRM proposes to establish strict 

parameters and operating restrictions 

under which railroads may continue to 

operate safely in certain necessary 

scenarios when PTC technology is 

temporarily not governing rail 

operations. The purpose of this NPRM 

is to enable continued, safe operations 

and improve rail safety by facilitating 

prompt repairs, upgrades, and 

restoration of PTC system service. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by December 27, 2024. FRA 

believes a 60-day comment period is 

appropriate to allow the public to 

comment on this proposed rule. FRA 

will consider comments received after 

that date to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments: Comments related to 

Docket No. FRA–2023–0064 may be 

submitted by going to https://

www.regulations.gov and following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket 

number (FRA–2023–0064), and 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for 

this rulemaking (2130–AC95). All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov; this includes any 

personal information. Please see the 

Privacy Act heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal, Train 

Control, and Crossings Division, 

telephone: 816–516–7168, email: 

Gabe.Neal@dot.gov; or Stephanie 

Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone: 

202–834–0609, email: 

Stephanie.Anderson@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC 

Regulations 

B. Public Participation Prior to the 

Issuance of the NPRM 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by 

Executive Order 14094 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. International Trade Impact Assessment 

F. Environmental Impact 

G. Environmental Justice 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

I. Energy Impact 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

K. Tribal Consultation 

L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4) 

I. Executive Summary 

Section 20157 of title 49 of the United 

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

Class I railroad, and each entity 

providing regularly scheduled intercity 

or commuter rail passenger 

transportation, to implement an FRAcertified PTC system on: (1) its main 

lines over which poison- or toxic-byinhalation hazardous materials are 

transported, if the line carries five 

million or more gross tons of any annual 

traffic; (2) its main lines over which 

intercity or commuter rail passenger 

transportation is regularly provided; and 

(3) any other tracks the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85463 

1See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public 

Law 110–432, section 104, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 

2008), as amended by the Positive Train Control 

Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, 

Public Law 114–73, 129 Stat. 568 (Oct. 29, 2015); 

the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, 

Public Law 114–94, section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312 

(Dec. 4, 2015); and the Passenger Rail Expansion 

and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law 117–58, 

section 22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 2021), 

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

49 CFR part 236, subpart I. 

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

236.1005 (setting forth the technical specifications). 

3As this proposed rule primarily focuses on host 

railroads, FRA references the current number of 

PTC-mandated host railroads (37). A host railroad 

is ‘‘a railroad that has effective operating control 

over a segment of track,’’ and a tenant railroad is 

‘‘a railroad, other than a host railroad, operating on 

track upon which a PTC system is required.’’ See 

49 CFR 236.1003(b). 

4FRA acknowledges that one Class I railroad 

(Canadian Pacific Railway) recently acquired a 

second Class I railroad (Kansas City Southern 

Railway). However, for purposes of FRA’s PTC 

regulations and related oversight, FRA is currently 

counting these railroads separately, as they 

presently submit separate PTC filings and have 

indicated they will do so unless and until they fully 

integrate their PTC systems. 

5Federal Railroad Administration, FRA 

Announces Landmark Achievement with Full 

Implementation of Positive Train Control (Dec. 29, 

2020), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/ 

fra.dot.gov/files/2020-12/fra1920.pdf. 

6FRA’s existing regulations, including 49 CFR 

236.1029(b)(6), refer to repairing or exchanging a 

PTC system or component. To clarify, FRA notes 

that ‘‘exchange’’ is intended to refer to the 

industry’s practice of, for example, swapping out a 

defective component for a functioning component. 

7See 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(2). 

regulation or order.1 By law, PTC 

systems must be designed to prevent 

certain accidents or incidents, including 

train-to-train collisions, over-speed 

derailments, incursions into established 

work zones, and movements of trains 

through switches left in the wrong 

position.2

Currently, 37 host railroads 3— 

including 7 Class I railroads,4 24 entities 

that provide regularly scheduled 

intercity or commuter rail passenger 

transportation (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘intercity passenger railroads or 

commuter railroads,’’ respectively), and 

6 Class II or III, short line, or terminal 

railroads—are directly subject to the 

statutory mandate. On December 29, 

2020, FRA announced that railroads had 

fully implemented FRA-certified and 

interoperable PTC systems on all PTCmandated main lines.5 49 U.S.C. 

20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(7). 

Today, PTC technology is governing 

rail operations on nearly 59,000 route 

miles. Based on FRA’s oversight of PTC 

technology since FRA last amended its 

PTC regulations in 2021, FRA identified 

three aspects of its existing PTC 

regulations that warrant revision to 

address ongoing challenges. Overall, the 

proposed amendments would benefit 

the railroad industry, the public, and 

FRA by facilitating repairs, 

maintenance, upgrades, and capital 

improvements; expanding certain 

railroad informational requirements; 

reducing costs; and enabling the safe, 

reliable, and resilient movement of 

people and goods, while preserving rail 

safety. 

This NPRM proposes to establish 

strict parameters and operating 

restrictions under which railroads may 

continue to operate safely in three 

specific scenarios when PTC technology 

is temporarily not governing rail 

operations: 

1. When non-revenue passenger 

equipment needs to operate to a 

maintenance facility or yard, for the sole 

purpose of repairing or exchanging PTC 

technology; 

2. When a PTC system needs to be 

temporarily disabled to facilitate repair, 

maintenance, an infrastructure upgrade, 

or a capital project; and 

3. When a system-level or widescale 

problem occurs resulting in multiple 

trains’ PTC systems failing to initialize. 

FRA’s objective in this rulemaking is 

to establish clear, uniform processes, 

rather than addressing issues that arise 

in a reactive and piecemeal manner. 

FRA expects that establishing 

predictable, prescriptive processes will 

both enable continued operations and 

improve railroad safety by facilitating 

prompt repairs, upgrades, and 

restoration of PTC system service and 

eliminating uncertainty and 

inconsistent application of FRA’s 

regulations. FRA’s proposed parameters 

and operating restrictions in this NPRM 

are intended to be sufficiently strict to 

ensure that railroads and PTC system 

suppliers and vendors proactively 

identify and remedy problems before 

they arise and immediately correct any 

problems that may surface despite 

proactive measures. 

First, FRA is proposing to establish an 

exception, under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6), 

to permit, under certain conditions, 

non-revenue passenger equipment to 

operate to maintenance facilities or 

yards, without being governed by PTC 

technology. This NPRM proposes to 

extend the exception currently afforded 

to certain freight movements to 

movements of non-revenue passenger 

equipment, including equipment that is 

owned or controlled by an intercity 

passenger railroad or commuter 

railroad. 

This proposed exception would 

enable non-revenue passenger 

equipment, including a locomotive, 

locomotive consist, or train without 

passengers onboard, to operate to a 

maintenance facility or yard for the sole 

purpose of repairing or exchanging 6 a 

PTC system or component. Commuter 

railroads have informed FRA this 

proposed exception would be beneficial 

and necessary, as it would enable them, 

for example, to operate a PTC-equipped 

locomotive, where the onboard PTC 

technology is not functioning and 

requires repair, to a maintenance facility 

or yard to repair or exchange the PTC 

system. To ensure rail safety, FRA is 

proposing to impose six conditions on 

each movement of non-revenue 

passenger equipment subject to this 

exception, including speed and distance 

restrictions, the requirement to establish 

an absolute block (meaning no other 

traffic may be present in the area), and 

other protections of the route. 

Second, FRA proposes to improve the 

existing process, under 49 CFR 

236.1021(m), that railroads currently 

utilize to request and obtain FRA’s 

approval to disable their PTC systems 

temporarily when necessary to facilitate 

repair, maintenance, infrastructure 

upgrades, and capital projects. This 

NPRM proposes to add paragraph (m)(4) 

to existing § 236.1021 to focus on this 

specific type of request for amendment 

(RFA) to PTC systems (i.e., where a 

temporary PTC system outage is 

proposed), as it is different from the 

other types of RFAs that railroads 

submit under § 236.1021 and requires 

additional FRA oversight. 

FRA proposes to require railroads to 

provide additional, essential 

information in an RFA that seeks to 

temporarily disable a PTC system to 

enable FRA to evaluate more fully the 

scope, circumstances, and necessity of a 

proposed temporary outage and 

properly determine whether granting 

the request is in the public interest and 

consistent with railroad safety. For 

example, this NPRM proposes to impose 

nine additional content requirements for 

this specific type of RFA, including 

certain justifications, safety analyses, 

mitigations, and other documentation to 

demonstrate the proposed outage is as 

narrow in scope, impact, and duration, 

as possible. 

Third, FRA proposes to reintroduce as 

a permanent provision a version of a 

temporary provision regarding PTC 

system initialization failures, which 

expired on December 31, 2022.7 The 

expired regulatory provision previously 

permitted any train, including an 

individual train, to keep operating 

subject to certain restrictions, if the train 

failed to initialize for any reason prior 

to the train’s departure from its initial 

terminal. In FRA’s 2014 final rule, FRA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85464 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

8 79 FR 49693, 49706 (Aug. 22, 2014). 

9 Id. 

10Form FRA F 6180.152, Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2130–0553; 49 

U.S.C. 20157(m) (as amended by the Passenger Rail 

Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law 

117–58, section 22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 

2021)). 

11The referenced initialization failures exclude 

any initialization failures where the source or cause 

was the onboard subsystem, as proposed 

§ 236.1029(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures 

from receiving the flexibility afforded under 

proposed § 236.1029(g), as they typically impact 

one train. FRA is citing to the relevant initialization 

failures where the source or cause was, for example, 

the back office, wayside, or communications 

subsystems because those types of issues would 

generally impact more than one train and would be 

within the scope of this proposed provision. 

12An en route failure is a situation where a 

controlling locomotive experiences a ‘‘PTC system 

failure or the PTC system is otherwise cut out while 

en route (i.e., after the train has departed its initial 

terminal).’’ 49 CFR 236.1029(b) (emphasis added). 

FRA’s current regulations provide that when an en 

route failure occurs, a train may continue operating 

in accordance with certain restrictions, including 

speed limits that are based on the underlying signal 

or train control system still in effect, outlined under 

49 CFR 236.1029(b)(1) through (6). 

13Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 

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

authorized this provision temporarily, 

recognizing that ‘‘there may be issues 

that could be identified and resolved in 

the early days following PTC system 

implementation and revenue service 

operation.’’ 8 In 2014, FRA also observed 

that ‘‘[e]xperience over these 

intervening years will provide more 

empirical data on PTC system 

reliability, and may be a basis for FRA 

to revisit this issue at a later date should 

circumstances warrant.’’ 9

FRA’s intention in this NPRM, by 

proposing to reintroduce an updated 

version of this provision, is to address 

only system-level outages or failures 

that result in multiple trains’ PTC 

systems failing to initialize, impacting 

the trains of the host railroad and often 

most, if not all, of its tenant railroads. 

Currently, if a PTC system fails to 

initialize, trains are generally prohibited 

from operating, which has resulted in 

situations where passengers could be 

stranded, and vital freight shipments 

halted. 

Although PTC technology is generally 

reliable and robust, it is a complex 

technology, composed of many 

subsystems and dependent on external 

networks, and it continues to experience 

unplanned outages. For example, 

railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC 

System Performance 10 show that PTC 

technology failed to initialize on 

approximately 236 intercity passenger 

or commuter trains and 894 freight 

trains in 2023.11 Additionally, based on 

voluntary reporting by railroads, FRA is 

aware of eight (8) system-level outages 

that occurred in 2023 that caused 

multiple trains to fail to initialize. 

FRA is proposing to impose two tiers 

of operating restrictions that would 

become increasingly restrictive as time 

passes, to ensure both that railroads 

utilize any operating flexibility only 

when necessary and that railroads and 

their vendors and suppliers identify and 

resolve issues promptly. FRA expects 

this will help strike the appropriate 

balance between enabling continued 

operations subject to speed restrictions, 

pending resolution of a PTC failure, and 

restoring PTC systems as quickly as 

possible. In short, if a PTC system fails 

to initialize, impacting multiple trains, 

FRA proposes to permit railroads to 

continue operating for 24 hours, subject 

to the operating restrictions, including 

speed limits, that previously applied to 

initialization failures and that currently 

apply to en route failures.12 After the 

first 24 hours, FRA proposes to impose 

a significant speed limit of restricted 

speed, among other restrictions, both to 

help ensure rail safety and to propel the 

industry to act quickly to restore PTC 

system service. 

FRA analyzed the economic impact of 

this proposed rule over a 10-year period 

and estimated its benefits and costs, 

which are shown in the table below. 

The total estimated 10-year net benefits 

would be $81.8 million (discounted at 2 

percent), and the annualized net 

benefits would be $9.1 million 

(discounted at 2 percent). The industry 

benefits associated with FRA’s proposal 

to amend three provisions—i.e., to 

introduce a new exception for certain 

non-revenue passenger equipment 

movements, improve the RFA process 

regarding temporary PTC system 

outages, and permit continued 

operations following certain 

initialization failures, subject to 

operating restrictions—would outweigh 

the industry costs and government 

administrative costs associated with 

FRA’s proposal to expand the content 

requirements for RFAs related to 

temporary outages. 

TABLE A—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS

[2023 Dollars] 1

Category 

Present 

value 2% 

($) 

Present 

value 3% 

($) 

Present 

value 7% 

($) 

Annualized 

2% 

($) 

Annualized 

3% 

($) 

Annualized 

7% 

($) 

Industry Benefits ........................................................ 83,534,444 80,105,191 68,518,285 9,299,600 9,390,772 9,755,462 

Total Costs ................................................................. 1,760,775 1,688,492 1,444,258 196,021 197,943 205,630 

Industry Costs ............................................................ 1,514,075 1,451,919 1,241,905 168,557 170,209 176,819

Government Administrative Costs ............................. 246,700 236,573 202,353 27,464 27,734 28,811 

Net Benefits 2 ...................................................... 81,773,669 78,416,699 67,074,027 9,103,579 9,192,829 9,549,832 

1 Numbers in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and benefits are calculated in this 

analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present 

value at the particular discount rate is: 1/(1+r)t, where ‘‘r’’ is the discount rate, and ‘‘t’’ is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used in 

this analysis. 2 Net Benefits = Industry Benefits ¥ (Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and operating PTC systems. 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC 

Regulations 

Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 required the 

Secretary to prescribe PTC regulations 

necessary to implement the statutory 

mandate, including regulations 

specifying the essential technical 

functionalities of PTC systems and how 

FRA certifies PTC systems.13 The 

Secretary delegated to the Administrator 

of the Federal Railroad Administration 

the authority to carry out the functions 

and exercise the authority vested in the 

Secretary by the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 

1.89(b). 

In accordance with its authority under 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85465 

14 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010). 

15See 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 

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

FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016); and 86 FR 40154 (July 

27, 2021). 

16 88 FR 1448 (Jan. 10, 2023); Federal Railroad 

Administration, Guidance on Submitting Requests 

for Waivers, Block Signal Applications, and Other 

Approval Requests to FRA (Dec. 2022), available at 

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/ 

2022-12/Guidance%20on%20Submitting%20

Waiver%20Special%20Approval%20Other%20

Requests%20for%20Approval%20

to%20FRA%20%28Dec%202022%29%20final.pdf. 

17 In addition to FRA’s meeting with APTA, FRA 

met with the following two user groups in February 

2024, as coordinated through APTA: the Enhanced 

Automatic Train Control (E–ATC) User Group and 

the Interoperable Electronic Train Management 

System (I–ETMS) User Group. 

FRA published its first final PTC rule on 

January 15, 2010, which is set forth, as 

amended, under 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart I.14 FRA’s PTC regulations 

under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, 

prescribe ‘‘minimum, performancebased safety standards for PTC systems 

. . . including requirements to ensure 

that the development, functionality, 

architecture, installation, 

implementation, inspection, testing, 

operation, maintenance, repair, and 

modification of those PTC systems will 

achieve and maintain an acceptable 

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

FRA subsequently amended its PTC 

regulations via final rules published in 

2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2021.15

Most recently, on July 27, 2021, FRA 

amended its PTC regulations to improve 

the process by which railroads submit, 

and FRA reviews, RFAs to railroads’ 

FRA-certified PTC systems and their 

associated PTC Safety Plans (PTCSPs), 

and to establish more robust reporting 

requirements to enable FRA to oversee 

the reliability and performance of 

railroads’ PTC systems effectively. Also, 

in January 2023, FRA announced that it 

issued a guidance document addressing 

requirements related to the submission 

of requests for waivers, applications to 

modify or discontinue a signal system, 

and other special approval requests to 

FRA, and FRA underscored the 

importance of ensuring that railroads’ 

filings contain sufficient, nonconfidential information for the public 

to review and on which to comment.16

In this proposed rule, FRA proposes 

to revise three sections, 49 CFR 

236.1006, 236.1021, and 236.1029, of 

FRA’s existing PTC regulations pursuant 

to its specific authority under 49 CFR 

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

general authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 

to prescribe regulations and issue orders 

for every area of railroad safety. 

B. Public Participation Prior to the 

Issuance of the NPRM 

FRA regularly engages with host 

railroads, tenant railroads, PTC system 

vendors and suppliers, industry 

associations, and labor organizations, as 

part of FRA’s oversight of railroads’ 

operation of PTC systems on the 

mandated main lines under 49 U.S.C. 

20157 and the other lines where 

railroads are voluntarily implementing 

PTC technology. The purpose of this 

section is to summarize FRA’s pertinent 

meetings prior to the issuance of this 

NPRM, pursuant to 49 CFR 5.5. 

From November 2023 to February 

2024, FRA met with the following four 

industry associations and their member 

railroads to discuss the objectives of this 

NPRM and solicit their feedback: the 

American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA), the American 

Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association (ASLRRA), the Association 

of American Railroads (AAR), and the 

Commuter Rail Coalition (CRC). 

Representatives from the following 35 

Class I railroads, commuter and 

passenger railroads, and short line and 

regional railroads, listed alphabetically, 

attended one or more of the AAR, 

APTA,17 ASLRRA, and CRC meetings 

referenced immediately above: Alaska 

Railroad; Altamont Corridor Express; 

BNSF Railway (BNSF); Canadian 

National Railway (CN); Canadian Pacific 

Kansas City Limited (CPKC); Capital 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

(CMTY); Central Florida Rail Corridor 

(CFRC); CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX); 

Denton County Transportation 

Authority; Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 

(G&W); Long Island Rail Road (LIRR); 

Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC); 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority (MBTA); Metro-North 

Railroad (Metro-North); National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak); New Jersey Transit (NJT); 

New Mexico Rail Runner Express; 

Norfolk Southern Railway (NS); North 

County Transit District (NCTD); 

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter 

Railroad Corporation (Metra); Northern 

Indiana Commuter Transportation 

District (NICD); Northstar Commuter 

Rail; Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers 

Board (Caltrain); Regional 

Transportation District (Denver RTDC); 

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 

(SMART); Sound Transit; South Florida 

Regional Transportation Authority 

(SFRTA); Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority (SEPTA); 

Southern California Regional Rail 

Authority (Metrolink); TEXRail; TriCounty Metropolitan Transportation 

District of Oregon (TriMet); Trinity 

Railway Express (TRE); Union Pacific 

Railroad (UP); Utah Transit Authority 

(UTA FrontRunner); and Virginia 

Railway Express (VRE). 

In addition, for the same purpose, 

FRA met with the following 10 labor 

organizations in February 2024: the 

American Train Dispatchers Association 

(ATDA); the Brotherhood of Locomotive 

Engineers and Trainmen, a Division of 

the Rail Conference of the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET); the 

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 

Employes Division of the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED); 

the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

(BRS); the Brotherhood of Railway 

Carmen Division, Transportation 

Communications International Union 

(BRC); the International Association of 

Machinists and Aerospace Workers 

(IAM); the International Association of 

Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and 

Transportation Workers— 

Transportation Division (SMART–TD); 

the International Brotherhood of 

Electrical Workers (IBEW); the 

Transport Workers Union of America 

(TWU); and the Transportation Trades 

Department, AFL–CIO (TTD). 

In general, the four industry 

associations and 35 railroads strongly 

supported the three objectives of this 

NPRM. The labor organizations FRA 

met with supported FRA’s objective of 

enabling operations while maintaining 

rail safety, but they expressed concern 

that regulatory flexibility might have the 

unintended consequence of degrading 

safety or delaying repairs to PTC 

technology. Accordingly, with all 

feedback in mind, FRA drafted its 

proposed requirements and restrictions 

in 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6), 

236.1021(m)(4), and 236.1029(g) to 

prioritize rail safety, address limited 

circumstances for facilitating repairs, 

maintenance, and infrastructure 

upgrades, and enable the safe, reliable, 

and resilient movement of passengers, 

commuters, and freight. 

As the detailed feedback the 

associations, railroads, and labor 

organizations provided during the 

meetings was directed at a specific 

proposal in this NPRM, FRA discusses 

the feedback in the appropriate portions 

of Section III (Section-by-Section 

Analysis) of this NPRM. 

The proposals in this NPRM are based 

on FRA’s own review and analysis and, 

in part, on the feedback provided during 

the meetings in 2023 and 2024, 

specified above. FRA seeks comments 

on all proposals made in this NPRM. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85466 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18Under 49 CFR 236.709, an absolute block is 

defined as a ‘‘block in which no train is permitted 

to enter while it is occupied by another train.’’ 

19To clarify, FRA notes that ‘‘exchange’’ is 

intended to refer to the industry’s practice of, for 

example, swapping out a defective component for 

a functioning component. 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 236.1006 Equipping 

Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory 

Existing paragraph (b) in § 236.1006 

contains a list of exceptions to the 

general requirement under paragraph (a) 

that each locomotive, locomotive 

consist, or train that operates on any 

PTC-governed track segment ‘‘be 

controlled by a locomotive equipped 

with an onboard PTC apparatus that is 

fully operative and functioning in 

accordance with the applicable PTCSP 

approved under this subpart.’’ 49 CFR 

236.1006(a), (b)(1) through (5). 

FRA proposes to add a new exception, 

under proposed paragraph (b)(6), to 

permit non-revenue passenger 

equipment to operate to maintenance 

facilities or yards, without being 

governed by PTC technology, under 

certain conditions. Currently, a similar 

exception is available only to freight 

railroads under existing paragraph (b)(5) 

of this section. The purpose of new 

proposed paragraph (b)(6) is to extend 

that type of exception to movements of 

certain non-revenue passenger 

equipment, which would include 

equipment owned or controlled by an 

intercity passenger railroad or 

commuter railroad. 

The sole purpose of new proposed 

paragraph (b)(6) is to enable nonrevenue passenger equipment, including 

a locomotive, locomotive consist, or 

train, to operate to a maintenance 

facility or yard for the purpose of 

repairing or exchanging a PTC system. 

During FRA’s APTA and CRC meetings 

in February 2024, several commuter 

railroads, including CMTY, MARC, 

Metro-North, NICD, and NJT, 

commented that this proposed 

exception would be beneficial and 

necessary, as it would enable them, for 

example, to operate a PTC-equipped 

locomotive, where the onboard PTC 

technology is not functioning and 

requires repair, to a maintenance facility 

or yard to repair or exchange the PTC 

system or component. Without this 

proposed provision, intercity passenger 

railroads and commuter railroads would 

need to utilize rescue trains or, in other 

words, use an operative, PTC-equipped 

locomotive, locomotive consist, or train 

to move the non-operative, PTCequipped equipment to a maintenance 

facility or yard. This proposed provision 

will enable a railroad to repair the 

equipment more efficiently, thus 

helping improve rail safety. 

During FRA’s meetings in February 

2024, commuter railroads cited often 

experiencing issues with transporting 

equipment requiring repair to their 

maintenance facilities, including 

unavailability of equipment and 

cascading schedule delays, and they 

supported this proposed exception, 

even though it would potentially 

constrain some operations. For example, 

the introductory text of proposed 

paragraph (b)(6) makes it clear that this 

proposed exception would apply only to 

non-revenue movements, meaning no 

intercity passenger or commuter rail 

service could be provided while moving 

this equipment not governed by a PTC 

system. 

Proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through 

(v) and (vii) outline the six additional 

conditions FRA proposes an intercity 

passenger railroad or commuter railroad 

must satisfy while utilizing this 

proposed exception. First, proposed 

paragraph (b)(6)(i) would limit the 

speed of the locomotive, locomotive 

consist, or train to a maximum of 49 

miles per hour (mph), which is 

significantly slower than the normal 

maximum authorized speed for 

passenger equipment, which generally 

ranges between 79 mph and 150 mph. 

Second, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(ii) 

would require an absolute block 18 to be 

established in front of the locomotive, 

locomotive consist, or train. This would 

help ensure safety by essentially 

eliminating the possibility of a train-totrain collision. During FRA’s February 

2024 meetings, CMTY, SMART, and 

UTA FrontRunner commented that they 

currently use absolute blocks in similar 

circumstances and supported the 

proposal of this condition. 

Third, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iii) 

specifies that there cannot be any 

working limits established under part 

214 of this chapter on any part of the 

route. FRA proposes to eliminate the 

risk of an incursion into an established 

work zone by not permitting work zones 

or any roadway workers at all on the 

route the non-revenue passenger 

equipment uses to reach the 

maintenance facility or yard to repair or 

exchange its PTC technology. To be 

clear, roadway workers may not perform 

any work on the route where the nonrevenue passenger equipment operates 

subject to this proposed exception, until 

after the equipment arrives at its 

destination, the maintenance facility or 

yard. 

Fourth, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iv) 

specifies that the locomotive, 

locomotive consist, or train could 

operate in non-revenue service no 

farther than the next forward location 

designated in the railroad’s PTCSP for 

the repair or exchange 19 of PTC 

technology. During FRA’s meeting with 

labor organizations in February 2024, 

BLET and BRS commented that they 

were concerned a railroad might utilize 

this proposed exception to avoid 

repairing the PTC system or to delay 

repairing the PTC system by operating 

the equipment to a more distant repair 

location than available. 

Relatedly, during a meeting in 

February 2024, NICD observed that the 

structure of commuter rail operations 

would inherently prevent railroads from 

overusing any exception or provision 

that involves speed restrictions because 

of the negative impact that has on their 

operations. For example, even a single 

train operating at a slower speed can 

create scheduling issues and cascading 

delays for commuter trains. In addition, 

FRA expects that its proposed 

conditions, including the imposition of 

a speed restriction, the prohibition 

against work zones, and an absolute 

block requirement, would prevent 

overuse of this exception. Also, FRA 

crafted proposed paragraph (b)(6)(iv) 

with BLET and BRS’s comments in 

mind, and this proposed condition 

would explicitly prohibit the nonrevenue passenger equipment from 

operating farther than the next forward 

designated location in the railroad’s 

FRA-approved PTCSP. 

Fifth, similar to a condition in the 

existing freight version of this exception 

in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, 

proposed (b)(6)(v) would require the 

railroad to protect the route against 

conflicting operations and establish and 

comply with sufficient operating rules 

to protect against a train-to-train 

collision and the movement of a train 

through a switch left in the wrong or 

improper position. This condition 

would further reduce the possibility of 

a train-to-train collision as it would 

address traffic on intersecting tracks. 

Furthermore, to protect against the 

movement of a train through a switch 

left in the wrong or improper position, 

a railroad’s operating rules could, for 

example, explain that the railroad 

utilizes a system or technology capable 

of monitoring switches. If a railroad 

does not have such a system or 

technology, a switch’s position must be 

manually verified before any movement 

over the switch points. To accomplish 

this, a switch tender must check the 

switch, or the train crew must stop and 

then confirm the switch position before 

operating over the switch. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85467 

20FRA notes that railroads would report any use 

of the proposed exception under 49 CFR 

236.1006(b)(6) in their Quarterly Reports of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB 

Control No. 2130–0553), as either a ‘‘cut out’’ or 

‘‘initialization failure’’ depending on the 

circumstances and based on the definitions under 

49 CFR 236.1003. 

21Several railroads have expressed that their 

chief concern is a path forward for undertaking 

non-PTC-related capital projects that necessitate 

temporarily disabling the PTC system, and FRA is 

using the general term ‘‘capital projects’’ in this 

NPRM to avoid any ambiguity and clarify that this 

process applies to such projects. 

During an FRA meeting in February 

2024, SFRTA inquired whether FRA 

intends to limit the distance of the 

movement of non-revenue passenger 

equipment in this proposed exception, 

as it does in the freight railroad 

exception in existing paragraph (b)(5). 

FRA notes that the purpose of the two 

exceptions is different: the purpose of 

the freight exception in paragraph (b)(5) 

is to facilitate freight switching and 

freight transfer train service, including 

in revenue service, in or near yards, 

whereas the purpose of the proposed 

paragraph (b)(6) exception would be to 

enable non-revenue passenger 

equipment to reach maintenance 

facilities or yards, without being 

governed by PTC technology, for the 

specific purpose of repairing or 

exchanging a PTC system. The 

commuter railroad SMART commented 

that it would not be possible to identify 

a specific distance that applies to all 

cases because the distance to each 

intercity passenger or commuter 

railroad’s maintenance facilities and 

yards, based on the starting point, is 

unique. FRA agrees, as the applicable 

distance varies greatly based on case-bycase circumstances. Accordingly, rather 

than imposing an exact distance limit, 

FRA expects that the five conditions in 

proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through 

(v) would sufficiently define the scope 

of this exception. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vi) 

provides that FRA may, in its discretion, 

approve alternative criteria and 

conditions, in a PTCSP or an RFA to a 

PTCSP, if the railroad demonstrates that 

the alternative criteria and conditions 

would provide an equivalent or greater 

level of safety than the default criteria 

and conditions. FRA is proposing to add 

this paragraph to mirror that 

discretionary element of the freight yard 

movements exception in existing 

paragraph (b)(5)(vii). Proposed 

paragraph (b)(6)(vi) provides the 

opportunity for railroads to propose 

alternative applications of this 

exception to FRA for review and 

approval. An intercity passenger 

railroad or commuter railroad must 

obtain FRA’s approval only if it seeks to 

use alternative exception criteria or 

conditions under proposed paragraph 

(b)(6)(vi), whereas the standard 

exception for non-revenue passenger 

equipment movements would be 

immediately available for use for any 

movement that meets all default criteria 

and conditions in proposed paragraphs 

(b)(6)(i) through (v).20

Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vii) 

imposes a notification requirement that 

a railroad must satisfy before moving 

non-revenue passenger equipment 

pursuant to this exception. Specifically, 

this paragraph proposes that before 

utilizing the default exception under 

paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (v) or the 

discretionary exception under 

paragraph (b)(6)(vi), the railroad must 

notify each person involved with the 

movement of the non-revenue passenger 

equipment, including any dispatchers 

and train crews, in addition to any 

roadway workers who may no longer 

work on that segment during the 

movement subject to this exception. 

Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, 

Material Modifications, and 

Amendments 

On December 31, 2022, the regulatory 

provision under 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(3) 

expired, which previously permitted a 

railroad to temporarily disable its PTC 

system when necessary to perform PTC 

system repair or maintenance, after 

notifying an FRA regional office. As 

§ 236.1029(g)(3) has expired, a simple 

notification to FRA no longer suffices, 

and a railroad must obtain FRA’s 

approval through an RFA pursuant to 49 

CFR 236.1021(m) before a railroad 

temporarily disables its PTC system and 

continues rail operations. 

The purpose of existing § 236.1021, in 

relevant part, is to prohibit a railroad 

from making certain changes to its PTC 

system or disabling or discontinuing its 

PTC system, unless the railroad first 

submits an RFA to its PTC system with 

certain information and obtains FRA’s 

approval. 

This NPRM proposes to add a new 

paragraph (m)(4) to § 236.1021 to clarify 

that the RFA process under existing 

paragraph (m) applies to a case where a 

railroad seeks to temporarily disable its 

PTC system, and to continue operations 

during that time, to facilitate repair, 

maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or 

capital projects. During FRA’s meetings 

with AAR, APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and 

their member railroads in November 

2023 and February 2024 to discuss this 

NPRM, these four associations and 

several railroads, including all Class I 

railroads, Alaska Railroad, Amtrak, 

G&W, Metra, Metro-North, Metrolink, 

and SFRTA, expressed general support 

for FRA’s proposal to revise existing 

paragraph (m) to acknowledge explicitly 

that it covers RFAs to PTC systems 

involving temporary outages. 

Specifically, proposed paragraph 

(m)(4) clarifies that a host railroad must 

utilize the RFA process under paragraph 

(m) to request and obtain FRA’s 

approval of a temporary PTC system 

outage, during which train movements 

may continue, including a short-term 

outage related to repair, maintenance, 

an infrastructure upgrade, or a capital 

project.21 To provide non-exhaustive 

examples of what a temporary PTC 

system outage includes, proposed 

paragraph (m)(4) clarifies that the term 

includes, but is not limited to, any 

scenario when the onboard PTC 

apparatus or subsystem, wayside 

subsystem, communications subsystem, 

or back office subsystem would be 

disabled. FRA interprets the term 

‘‘disabled’’ broadly and acknowledges 

the industry also uses the verb 

‘‘disengage’’ interchangeably in this 

context. 

Consistent with the current process 

under existing paragraph (m), proposed 

paragraph (m)(4)(i) provides that a 

railroad may temporarily disable PTC 

technology pursuant to this paragraph 

only after it obtains approval from the 

Director of FRA’s Office of Railroad 

Systems and Technology. 

Based on FRA’s experience reviewing 

RFAs involving temporary outages 

throughout 2023 and 2024 to date, FRA 

found that the current content 

requirements for RFAs to PTC systems 

under existing paragraph (m)(2) do not 

yield sufficient information for FRA to 

assess the full scope and circumstances 

of each proposed temporary outage. 

Accordingly, proposed paragraphs 

(m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I) identify nine 

additional content elements this type of 

RFA must include, in addition to the 

standard content requirements under 

paragraph (m)(2), which apply to a 

broader cross-section of RFAs to PTC 

systems and PTCSPs. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A) 

would require this specific type of RFA 

to describe the necessity for the 

proposed temporary outage. For 

example, in 2023 and 2024, railroads 

have filed RFAs seeking to temporarily 

disable a PTC system to facilitate the 

installation of automatic train control or 

a new interlocking, or to execute an 

upgrade of a computer-aided dispatch 

system, a back office server migration or 

replacement, or an electrical 

infrastructure upgrade. This section of 

the RFA would explain why temporarily 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85468 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

22Consistent with FRA’s current practice, if an 

RFA is missing required information, an FRA PTC 

specialist will contact the railroad via email to 

inform the railroad of the missing, required 

content(s). 

disabling a PTC system is technically 

necessary to perform that type of repair, 

maintenance, infrastructure upgrade, or 

capital project. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(B) 

would require the RFA to describe the 

physical limits and PTC system 

functions that would be affected by the 

proposed temporary outage. This 

section of the RFA would require an 

analysis that demonstrates the affected 

physical limits and affected functions 

pose the least risk to railroad safety, 

compared to other options. To assess the 

RFA, FRA needs to understand the exact 

location(s) that will be impacted, 

including milepost limits and other 

descriptors. Identifying the precise PTC 

system functions that would be 

impacted is also essential for FRA to 

understand the scope of the temporary 

outage, as an outage might impact only 

a narrow set of PTC system capabilities. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(C) 

would require the RFA to include an 

explanation about how the proposed 

temporary outage is in the public 

interest and consistent with railroad 

safety. Existing § 236.1021(f) requires 

FRA to determine whether granting a 

request is in the public interest and 

consistent with railroad safety, and it is 

important for an RFA to provide such 

information. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(D) 

would require the railroad to provide 

the proposed timeframe of the 

temporary outage and an analysis that 

demonstrates the proposed period poses 

the least risk to railroad safety, 

compared to other times. This proposal 

mirrors a similar requirement under 

former § 236.1029(g)(3)(ii), which 

expired in December 2022. FRA has 

seen railroads prudently identify the 

timeslot of a specific day of the week 

with the least traffic, which is what FRA 

expects this content requirement will 

help ensure in future RFAs. 

As a note, FRA has also seen cases 

where a railroad avoids needing to 

submit and obtain FRA’s approval of an 

RFA involving a temporary outage, as 

the railroad either ceases all operations 

until it finishes the relevant work, or the 

railroad selects a time when no trains 

will operate. FRA commends railroads 

for structuring their projects that way 

and expects railroads to submit an RFA, 

seeking to disable its PTC system 

temporarily with continued rail service, 

under proposed paragraph (m)(4) only 

when ceasing operations would not be 

feasible. 

Relatedly, proposed paragraph 

(m)(4)(ii)(E) would require the RFA to 

include both a justification and an 

analysis that show how the proposed 

duration of the temporary outage is the 

minimum time necessary to complete 

the pertinent work, test the PTC system, 

and place the PTC system back into 

service without undue delay. FRA 

highlights that proposed paragraph 

(m)(4) is intended to address short-term 

outages only, and FRA will deny an 

RFA that seeks to disable a PTC system 

for an unreasonable, extensive period. 

In general, PTC-mandated main lines 

must be governed by PTC technology, 

given the presence of intercity passenger 

rail, commuter rail, or certain freight 

transportation. See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 

20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b), 

236.1006(a). Railroads must show how 

the length of the proposed temporary 

outage is the minimum amount of time 

needed based on the circumstances, 

which could include outlining a precise 

schedule and the number of hours 

involved in each phase and 

justifications for each timeframe. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(F) 

would require the RFA to outline the 

type and frequency of rail operations 

that would continue during the 

proposed temporary outage, including 

those of the host railroad and each 

tenant railroad. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(G) 

would require the RFA to identify the 

applicable speed limit of any train that 

would operate during the proposed 

temporary outage, and any other 

operating restrictions in place to ensure 

rail safety. For example, a properly 

drafted RFA will outline the railroad’s 

proposed reduced speed for each type of 

freight train, based on the commodity 

transported, and each intercity 

passenger or commuter train, compared 

to the normal authorized speeds. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(H) 

would require the railroad to specify in 

its RFA the additional safety measures 

that the host railroad and each tenant 

railroad must comply with during the 

proposed temporary outage, to ensure 

each type of PTC-preventable accident 

or incident does not occur. Specifically, 

such safety measures must be designed 

to prevent a train-to-train collision, an 

over-speed derailment, an incursion 

into an established work zone, and a 

movement of a train through a switch 

left in the wrong position. It is integral 

that FRA understands exactly how the 

railroad will mitigate and eliminate the 

risk of each type of PTC-preventable 

accident and incident during the shortterm PTC system outage. For example, 

a railroad might propose to utilize an 

absolute block to mitigate and eliminate 

the risk of a train-to-train collision, 

enforce speed limits through the use of 

other technology, suspend the 

establishment of work zones, and 

protect switches through other specific 

means. 

Finally, proposed paragraph 

(m)(4)(ii)(I) would require the railroad to 

confirm in its RFA that each impacted 

railroad (including the host railroad and 

any applicable tenant railroads) will 

notify all applicable dispatchers, train 

crews, and roadway workers about the 

temporary PTC system outage (if FRA 

authorizes it), including the specific 

location and duration of the temporary 

outage, the additional safety measures 

with which the railroad must comply, 

and any actions the individual must 

take during the temporary outage. FRA 

expects that the proposed specific 

information an RFA must contain under 

proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) 

through (H) would aid the railroad in 

these notifications. The railroad may 

make these notifications in accordance 

with the railroad’s operating rules and 

practices, which may require, for 

example, such information to be 

provided via track bulletins, dispatcher 

bulletins, or special instructions. 

Also, FRA notes that its 45-day 

review-and-decision period under 

existing paragraph (m) begins when a 

railroad properly files a complete RFA 

with all information required under 

paragraph (m). To be clear, the 45-day 

clock will not begin on that initial filing 

date, if an RFA to a PTC system, 

involving a temporary outage, fails to 

include any of the contents explicitly 

required under existing paragraphs 

(m)(2)(i) through (iv) or the additional 

content requirements FRA is proposing 

in paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I).22

Instead, consistent with the current 

§ 236.1021(m) process, the 45-day clock 

begins on the date the railroad or 

railroads properly submit any remaining 

information required under existing 

paragraph (m)(2)(i) through (iv) and 

proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) 

through (I). FRA expects this will help 

ensure a railroad submits a complete 

RFA, with all required information, in 

its initial filing. 

In addition, FRA acknowledges that it 

currently publishes a notice in the 

Federal Register when a railroad 

submits an RFA to its PTC system under 

existing § 236.1021(m) and invites 

public comment on the RFA. See 49 

CFR 236.1021(e). During FRA’s meeting 

with labor organizations in February 

2024, TTD requested confirmation that 

FRA will not eliminate the opportunity 

for the public to comment on these 

RFAs. FRA confirmed during that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85469 

23 88 FR 1448 (Jan. 10, 2023); Federal Railroad 

Administration, Guidance on Submitting Requests 

for Waivers, Block Signal Applications, and Other 

Approval Requests to FRA (Dec. 2022), available at 

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/ 

2022-12//Guidance%20/on%20/Submitting%20/

Waiver%20/Special%20Approval%20/

Other%20Requests%20/for%20Approval%20/

to%20FRA%20%28/Dec%202022%29%/20final./

pdf. 

24The definition under 49 CFR 236.1003 also 

clarifies, ‘‘For the types of PTC systems that do not 

initialize by design, a failed departure test is 

considered an initialization failure for purposes of 

the reporting requirement under § 236.1029(h), 

unless the PTC system successfully passes the 

departure test during a subsequent attempt in the 

same location or before entering PTC-governed 

territory.’’ 

25Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB Control No. 2130– 

0553; 49 U.S.C. 20157(m). 

26The referenced initialization failures exclude 

any initialization failures where the source or cause 

was the onboard subsystem, as proposed paragraph 

(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures from 

receiving the flexibility afforded under proposed 

paragraph (g). FRA is citing to the relevant 

initialization failures where the source or cause 

was, for example, the back office, wayside, or 

communications subsystems because those types of 

issues would generally impact more than one train 

and would be within the scope of this proposed 

provision. 

27 Including, for example, Alaska Railroad, 

Amtrak, BNSF, Caltrain, CN, CPKC, CSX, Denver 

RTDC, G&W, MARC, MBTA, Metra, Metrolink, 

NICD, NJT, NS, OmniTRAX, TEXRail, TRE, UP, 

UTA FrontRunner, VRE, and Watco. 

28Specifically, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4) through (6) 

require notifying the designated railroad officer of 

the failure or cut out as soon as safe and practicable, 

impose further operating restrictions if the PTC 

system is the exclusive method of delivering 

mandatory directives, and prohibit operating farther 

than the next forward designated location for the 

repair or exchange of onboard PTC apparatuses, if 

the failure or cut out was the result of a defective 

onboard PTC apparatus. 

meeting that RFAs submitted pursuant 

to proposed paragraph (m)(4), like all 

RFAs submitted pursuant to paragraph 

(m), will be announced in the Federal 

Register, and the public will be afforded 

an opportunity to review and comment 

on such RFAs. That notice and 

comment requirement under 

§ 236.1021(e) is outside the scope of this 

NPRM and will remain part of FRA’s 

regulations. As a reminder, FRA’s 

December 2022 guidance document 

underscores the importance of ensuring 

that railroads’ filings contain sufficient, 

non-confidential information for the 

public to review and on which to 

comment.23

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and 

Failures 

Currently, paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(3), entitled ‘‘Temporary exceptions,’’ of 

this section set forth expired 

regulations. Specifically, existing 

paragraph (g) indicates that paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (3) were in effect from 

October 21, 2014, through December 31, 

2022. FRA proposes to replace existing 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) with new 

provisions that deal directly with 

initialization failures. FRA’s existing 

regulations, at 49 CFR 236.1003, define 

‘‘initialization failure’’ as ‘‘any instance 

when a PTC system fails to activate on 

a locomotive or train, unless the PTC 

system successfully activates during a 

subsequent attempt in the same location 

or before entering PTC-governed 

territory.’’ 24 In relevant part, nowexpired paragraph (g)(2) previously 

permitted any train to continue 

operating subject to certain speed limits, 

potentially indefinitely, if a PTC system 

failed to initialize for any reason. 

FRA recognizes that unplanned 

outages and other technical issues 

continue to occur, causing PTC systems 

to fail to initialize, based on FRA’s 

oversight and railroads’ Quarterly 

Reports of PTC System Performance.25

Railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC 

System Performance show, for example, 

that PTC technology failed to initialize 

on approximately 236 intercity 

passenger or commuter trains and 894 

freight trains in 2023.26 Additionally, 

FRA, based on voluntary reporting by 

railroads, is aware of eight (8) systemlevel outages that occurred in 2023 that 

caused trains to fail to initialize. 

During FRA’s meetings in November 

2023 and February 2024, AAR, APTA, 

ASLRRA, CRC, and many railroads 27

conveyed strong support for FRA’s 

proposal to reintroduce requirements 

analogous to the provision that expired 

in 2022. Consistent with FRA’s own 

observations, AAR, APTA, ASLRRA, 

CRC, and their member railroads 

underscored the need for FRA to 

establish a process to enable railroads to 

continue operating safely, following 

certain initialization failures, because 

otherwise freight, intercity passenger, 

and commuter trains will be unable to 

depart from their initial terminals or 

other locations and provide necessary 

transportation. 

Specifically, FRA’s intention in this 

NPRM is to address only system-level 

outages or failures that result in 

multiple trains’ PTC systems failing to 

initialize, like when a back office server 

goes down, impacting the trains of the 

host railroad and most, if not all, of its 

tenant railroads. Accordingly, FRA 

proposes to provide a caveat in 

proposed paragraph (g)(4), which would 

specify that the relief under paragraph 

(g)(1), discussed below, does not apply 

to a single train that experiences an 

onboard PTC system failure when 

attempting to initialize. The purpose of 

proposed paragraph (g) is to address 

issues affecting multiple trains. 

During FRA’s meeting with labor 

organizations in February 2024, BLET, 

BRS, and TTD acknowledged that FRA’s 

objective in proposed paragraph (g) is to 

enable operations while maintaining rail 

safety, but they expressed concern for 

the potential unintended consequence 

of degrading safety or delaying repairs 

to PTC technology. FRA agrees that it is 

important to structure proposed 

paragraph (g) to ensure railroads, 

vendors, and suppliers identify and fix 

any issues causing initialization failures 

immediately. 

To ensure this provision is utilized 

only when necessary and railroads and 

their vendors and suppliers identify and 

promptly resolve the root cause of 

initialization failures, FRA is proposing 

to impose two tiers of operating 

requirements that would become 

increasingly restrictive over time. FRA 

expects this will help strike the 

appropriate balance between enabling 

continued operations, subject to 

restrictions, and restoring PTC systems 

as quickly as possible. 

First, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i) 

provides that when a PTC system fails 

to initialize as defined in § 236.1003, a 

train may proceed, during the first 24 

hours, only as prescribed under existing 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of 

§ 236.1029. FRA is proposing to require 

railroads to utilize the current operating 

restrictions set forth in existing 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) because 

railroads, including train crews, are 

accustomed to complying with those 

speed limits and other restrictions when 

they experience en route failures, and 

those restrictions are based on the 

underlying signal or train control 

system still in effect. During FRA’s 

meetings, the following railroads 

explicitly recommended this approach, 

based on industry’s longstanding use of 

these operating restrictions when PTC 

technology fails or is otherwise cut out 

en route: Alaska Railroad, Amtrak, 

BNSF, CN, CPKC, CSX, G&W, MARC, 

Metra, Metrolink, NICD, NS, and UP. 

Second, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(ii) 

states that after the first 24 hours, the 

train may proceed only as prescribed 

under paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of 

this section and must not exceed 

restricted speed as defined in 

§ 236.1003. FRA proposes to require 

compliance with existing paragraphs 

(b)(4) through (6) as they contain other 

applicable restrictions and 

communication requirements.28

However, instead of the standard speed 

restrictions under existing paragraph 

(b), this stricter tier of operating 

restrictions would limit any train that 

utilizes this provision beyond 24 hours 

to restricted speed, which is defined as 

a ‘‘speed that will permit stopping 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85470 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

29 49 CFR 236.1003 (citing to the definition in 

subpart G, at 49 CFR 236.812). 

30Or in NJT’s case, the Advanced Speed 

Enforcement System II (ASES II). 

31 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 11, 2023), available at 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/ 

04/11/2023-07760/modernizing-regulatory-review. 

within one-half the range of vision, but 

not exceeding 20 miles per hour.’’ 29

During FRA’s meetings with APTA, 

CRC, and their member railroads in 

February 2024, several commuter 

railroads, including Denver RTD, 

MARC, Metra, NICD, NJT, TEXRail, 

TRE, and UTA FrontRunner supported 

FRA’s intention to propose a two-tiered 

framework. For example, MARC and 

NICD noted that the unplanned outages 

they recently experienced were resolved 

in approximately two hours, which 

means those trains, in a similar scenario 

under this proposed framework, would 

be subject to the standard operating 

restrictions under existing paragraph 

(b). Furthermore, these commuter 

railroads expressed appreciation that 

this proposed framework—with more 

flexibility on day one—would enable 

them to transport commuters to their 

destination if PTC technology fails 

midday and trains are unable to 

initialize the PTC system for the 

remainder of the day. Without this 

proposed provision, if a train’s PTC 

system fails midday and is not restored 

by the evening rush hour, commuters 

attempting to return home would be 

forced to rely on alternative modes of 

transportation, with little to no notice. 

These eight commuter railroads also 

recognized that a clear, tiered 

approach—which introduces additional 

restrictions, including restricted speed, 

24 hours after the onset of the technical 

issue—would enable railroads to 

communicate effectively with their 

customers if the railroad finds that an 

issue cannot be remedied within the 

first 24 hours. Commuter railroads 

emphasized the importance of being 

able to provide advance notice to their 

customers about the speed restrictions 

that would apply the following day, as 

that could result in service reductions. 

Several stakeholders, including 

ASLRRA, ATD, NJT, and UTA 

FrontRunner, stressed that the operating 

restrictions FRA proposes in paragraph 

(g) should be as simple, straightforward, 

and objective as possible given the 

complexity of other PTC regulations. 

Furthermore, FRA recognizes that 

predictability and transparency are vital 

when it comes to a process that will 

govern whether and how intercity 

passenger, commuter, and freight rail 

transportation may continue. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2) imposes a 

notification requirement that a railroad 

must, as early as is possible, ensure 

workers are aware of PTC system-level 

outages and corresponding operating 

restrictions. Specifically, proposed 

paragraph (g)(2) requires each railroad 

operating in accordance with (g)(1) to 

notify, as early as is possible, all 

dispatchers, train crews, and roadway 

workers about PTC system-level outages 

or failures that result in multiple trains’ 

PTC systems failing to initialize, which 

result in trains proceeding in 

accordance with operating restrictions. 

Railroads must ensure job safety 

briefings reflect such operations. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3) proposes to 

require railroads to attempt to initialize 

the PTC system again, when the reason 

it is not initializing is loss of 

communications or lack of navigational 

information, like temporary lack of 

access to the Global Positioning System 

(GPS)TM. FRA is aware of multiple PTC 

systems that rely on GPS, like I–ETMS 

and the Incremental Train Control 

System. Specifically, proposed 

paragraph (g)(3) would require, 

notwithstanding the relief under 

paragraph (g)(1), that when a PTC 

system fails to initialize due to loss of 

communications or lack of navigational 

information, the train must attempt to 

initialize the PTC system again at the 

next forward, available location. The 

next forward, available location, 

depending on the circumstances, could 

be a segment of a main line, a siding, a 

yard, or a station, whichever is closest. 

In addition, FRA acknowledges that 

PTC systems are comprised of many 

subsystems and are often interfaced 

with other technology. For example, at 

an AAR meeting in November 2023, CN 

emphasized that the nature of a system 

of subsystems, like PTC technology, 

means there is always the possibility of 

an outage, as a PTC system relies or 

depends on the proper functioning of 

many subsystems. Similarly, FRA is also 

aware that PTC systems have failed to 

initialize due to a failure of an 

interfaced system, like a dispatching 

system or an electronic storage system. 

Accordingly, FRA wants to clarify that 

proposed paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) 

of this section likewise apply to cases in 

which a PTC system fails to initialize 

due to an issue or failure arising from 

a subsystem or an interfaced system. 

In addition, FRA wants to offer a 

clarification about the application of 

proposed paragraphs (g)(1) to (5) to the 

Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement 

System II (ACSES II). An initialization 

failure is defined in existing § 236.1003 

as ‘‘any instance when a PTC system 

fails to activate on a locomotive or train, 

unless the PTC system successfully 

activates during a subsequent attempt in 

the same location or before entering 

PTC-governed territory.’’ Section 

236.1003 specifies that for the types of 

PTC systems that do not initialize by 

design, like ACSES II, a failed departure 

test is considered an initialization 

failure, unless the PTC system 

successfully passes the departure test 

during a subsequent attempt in the same 

location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. ACSES II typically 

encompasses automatic train control 

(ATC), and FRA wants to emphasize 

that the FRA-certified PTC system, 

however, is ACSES II.30 If ACSES II fails 

to initialize (i.e., fails its departure test), 

an ACSES II-equipped train may utilize 

the relief outlined in proposed 

paragraph (g) of § 236.1029. By contrast, 

however, if ATC fails its departure test, 

a railroad must comply with all 

applicable signal and train control 

prohibitions and restrictions in other 

subparts of part 236. FRA wants to 

address this nuance to clarify that 

proposed paragraph (g) does not 

supersede other existing signal and train 

control regulations that directly govern 

ATC. 

Finally, proposed paragraph (g)(5) 

recognizes that FRA may impose 

additional operating restrictions and 

other conditions to address recurring 

issues that result in multiple trains’ PTC 

systems failing to initialize. For 

example, under proposed paragraph 

(g)(5), FRA could require the applicable 

railroads and PTC system vendors and 

suppliers to take certain actions or 

satisfy additional reporting 

requirements, as they resolve the 

recurring issues. In addition, proposed 

paragraph (g)(4) would clarify that FRA 

reserves the right to deny the relief 

under proposed paragraph (g)(1) for 

recurring issues that result in multiple 

trains’ PTC systems failing to initialize. 

Although the relief under proposed 

paragraph (g)(1) is generally selfexecuting, FRA may choose to intervene 

under proposed paragraph (g)(5) and 

deny such relief if, for example, a 

railroad and/or its applicable PTC 

system vendor and supplier are not 

sufficiently correcting a recurrent 

problem. 

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended 

by Executive Order 14094 

This proposed rule is a nonsignificant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 

14094, Modernizing Regulatory 

Review,31 and DOT Order 2100.6A 

(‘‘Rulemaking and Guidance 

Procedures’’). FRA made this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85471 

32U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular A–4 (Nov. 9, 2023), available at https://

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ 

CircularA-4.pdf. See Section 4, Developing an 

Analytic Baseline, pages 11–14. 

33U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 

Circular A–4 (Nov. 9, 2023). See Section 12, 

Discount Rates, pages 75–82. 

34 Id. 

determination by finding that the 

economic effects of this proposed 

regulatory action would not exceed the 

$100 million annual threshold defined 

by Executive Order 12866. 

FRA complied with OMB Circular A– 

4 when accounting for benefits, costs, 

and cost savings relative to a baseline 

condition. Typically, a baseline 

represents a best judgement about what 

the world would be like in the absence 

of the regulatory interventions.32

In this analysis, discount rates are 

used to account for differences in the 

timing of the estimated benefits and 

costs. Benefits and costs that accrue 

further in the future are more heavily 

discounted than those impacts that 

occur today. Discounting reflects 

individuals’ general preference to 

receive benefits sooner rather than later 

(and defer costs) and recognizes that 

costs incurred today are more expensive 

than future costs because businesses 

must forgo an expected rate of return on 

investment of that capital.33 OMB 

recommends using a discount rate of 2 

percent.34 This represents the real 

(inflation-adjusted) rate of return on 

long-term Federal Government debt over 

the last 30 years, calculated between 

1993 and 2022, and is considered a 

reasonable approximation of the social 

rate of time preference. 

FRA analyzed the economic impact of 

this proposed rule over a 10-year period 

and estimated its costs and benefits, as 

shown in the table below. The total 

estimated 10-year net benefits of this 

proposed rule would be $81.8 million 

(discounted at 2 percent), and the 

annualized net benefits would be $9.1 

million (discounted at 2 percent). The 

industry benefits associated with FRA’s 

proposal to amend three provisions— 

i.e., to introduce a new exception for 

certain non-revenue passenger 

equipment movements, improve the 

RFA process regarding temporary PTC 

system outages, and permit continued 

operations following certain 

initialization failures, subject to 

operating restrictions—would outweigh 

the industry costs and government 

administrative costs associated with 

FRA’s proposal to expand the content 

requirements for RFAs related to 

temporary outages. 

The following table shows the 

estimated 10-year benefits, net benefits, 

and costs of the proposed rule. The total 

10-year estimated benefits would be 

$83.5 million (discounted at 2 percent), 

with annualized benefits at $9.3 million 

(discounted at 2 percent). The total 10- 

year estimated costs would be $1.8 

million (discounted at 2 percent), with 

annualized costs at $0.2 million 

(discounted at 2 percent). 

TABLE B—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS

[2023 Dollars] 1

Category 

Present 

value 2% 

($) 

Present 

value 3% 

($) 

Present 

value 7% 

($) 

Annualized 

2% 

($) 

Annualized 

3% 

($) 

Annualized 

7% 

($) 

Industry Benefits ........................................................ 83,534,444 80,105,191 68,518,285 9,299,600 9,390,772 9,755,462 

Total Costs 2 ............................................................... 1,760,775 1,688,492 1,444,258 196,021 197,943 205,630 

Industry Costs ............................................................ 1,514,075 1,451,919 1,241,905 168,557 170,209 176,819

Government Administrative Costs ............................. 246,700 236,573 202,353 27,464 27,734 28,811 

Net Benefits 3 ...................................................... 81,773,669 78,416,699 67,074,027 9,103,579 9,192,829 9,549,832 

1 Numbers in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and benefits are calculated in this 

analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present 

value at the particular discount rate is: 1/(1+r)t, where ‘‘r’’ is the discount rate, and ‘‘t’’ is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used in 

this analysis. 2 Total Costs = Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs. 3 Net Benefits = Industry Benefits—(Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and operating PTC systems. 

1. Ten-Year Benefits 

Proposed 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6) 

FRA analyzed the potential industry 

benefits of the three proposed 

amendments. Overall, the three 

proposed amendments would benefit 

the railroad industry, the public, and 

FRA by facilitating repairs, 

maintenance, upgrades, and capital 

improvements; expanding certain 

railroad informational requirements; 

reducing costs; and enabling the safe, 

reliable, and resilient movement of 

people and goods, while preserving rail 

safety. 

The proposed exception under 

§ 236.1006(b)(6) would enable nonrevenue passenger equipment, including 

a locomotive, locomotive consist, or 

train without passengers onboard, to 

operate to a maintenance facility or yard 

for the sole purpose of repairing or 

exchanging a PTC system. To ensure rail 

safety, FRA is proposing to impose five 

conditions on each movement of nonrevenue passenger equipment subject to 

this exception, including speed and 

distance restrictions, the requirement to 

establish an absolute block, and other 

protections of the route. 

In assessing the potential benefits of 

the proposed provision, FRA focused on 

the impact on train operations in the 

absence of this proposed rule. The 

methodology employed involved 

estimating the transportation costs 

associated with relocating nonoperative, PTC-equipped passenger 

equipment to a maintenance facility or 

yard to repair or exchange the PTC 

technology. For example, without this 

proposed provision, intercity passenger 

railroads and commuter railroads would 

need to use an operative, PTC-equipped 

locomotive, locomotive consist, or train 

to move the non-operative, PTCequipped equipment to a maintenance 

facility or yard. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85472 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

35 87 FR 43467 (July 21, 2022). 

36Here, FRA is counting any intercity passenger 

railroad or commuter railroad, including tenant 

railroads that provide such service, as the proposed 

exception is not limited to host railroads. 

37U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, Transportation Economic 

Trends (2022), available at https://data.bts.gov/ 

stories/s/5h3f-jnbe#transportation-fares. 

38By ‘‘train movement,’’ FRA is referring to the 

movement or operation of a train. 

39 In its decision letters approving such RFAs, 

FRA typically requires railroads to comply with the 

operating restrictions under 49 CFR 236.1029(b), 

which limit the speed of trains depending on the 

underlying signal or train control system. 

Based on consultation with FRA 

subject matter experts, FRA calculated 

the potential benefits for train 

operations, under proposed 

§ 236.1006(b)(6), by multiplying the 

expected number of impacted passenger 

equipment by the transportation cost of 

moving that equipment to a 

maintenance facility or yard. FRA 

estimated a range of $3,000 to $4,000 to 

transport this type of equipment, or an 

average cost of $3,500 per piece of 

equipment, similar to the amount 

utilized in another FRA NPRM 35 to 

estimate the transportation cost of 

moving an empty car. FRA estimates 

that the transportation cost savings of 

moving this equipment is the estimated 

number of non-revenue passenger 

equipment that may use this proposed 

exception (i.e., 30 per year or 1 per 

intercity passenger or commuter 

railroad 36), multiplied by the expected 

transportation cost of $3,500, resulting 

in an overall transportation cost savings 

of $105,000 annually. Given the 

uncertainty about the amount of affected 

equipment and the five safety 

conditions or restrictions that FRA is 

proposing a railroad must comply with 

while utilizing this exception, FRA is 

seeking input from the public on 

whether the cost of these five safety 

conditions, which FRA did not calculate 

due to insufficient data, might reduce 

the calculated net benefits. 

Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates 

that this proposed provision would 

result in potential benefits of $1 million, 

at the 2-percent discount, or on an 

annual basis, $107,100, at the 2 percent 

discount. 

TABLE C—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM PERMITTING NON-REVENUE PASSENGER EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE TO

MAINTENANCE FACILITIES OR YARDS WITHOUT PTC—10-YEAR BENEFIT

Year 

Undiscounted 

benefit 

($) 

Present 

value 2% 

($) 

Present 

value 3% 

($) 

Present 

value 7% 

($) 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 102,941 101,942 98,131 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 100,923 98,973 91,711 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 98,944 96,090 85,711 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 97,004 93,291 80,104 

6 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 95,102 90,574 74,864 

7 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 93,237 87,936 69,966 

8 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 91,409 85,375 65,389 

9 ....................................................................................................................... 105,000 89,616 82,888 61,111 

10 ..................................................................................................................... 105,000 87,859 80,474 57,113 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1,050,000 962,035 922,541 789,099 

Annualized ................................................................................................ ........................ 107,100 108,150 112,350 

Proposed 49 CFR 236.1021(m)(4) 

Under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4), a 

railroad seeking to temporarily disable 

its PTC system, for certain purposes, can 

request FRA’s approval through the 

standard RFA process under existing 

§ 236.1021(m). There have been no 

accidents or incidents associated with 

railroads’ RFAs for temporary PTC 

system outages from 2022 to early 2024, 

the relevant period during which FRA 

began approving such outages by 

regulation. 

Based on past RFA filings from 2022 

to early 2024 involving temporary PTC 

system outages, FRA estimates that 

railroads will file approximately 15 

RFAs, on average on an annual basis, 

under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4) in the 

future. FRA estimates that two-thirds of 

railroads’ RFAs would involve a PTC 

system outage lasting for a few hours, 

while one-third would seek to disable 

PTC technology for a period of days, 

given the different nature of underlying 

capital improvement or maintenance 

projects. FRA used the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) 2021 

fare rates for intercity passenger and 

commuter rail transportation—i.e., a 

$72.10 average rate for Amtrak and a 

$6.30 average rate for commuter 

railroads. FRA estimated weighted fare 

rates by using those average 2021 BTS 

fare rates and analyzing past, pertinent 

RFAs to estimate that the average fare 

rate would be approximately $11 for 

each intercity passenger railroad or 

commuter railroad that submits an RFA 

pursuant to § 236.1021(m)(4) in the 

future.37

Similarly, FRA analyzed the average 

number of passengers or commuters per 

train movement 38 during a temporary 

PTC system outage by analyzing past 

RFAs and found that each train carries, 

on average, approximately 200 

passengers or commuters. Likewise, 

FRA analyzed the average number of 

train movements during a temporary 

PTC system outage by analyzing past 

RFAs and estimating the expected 

number of filings by type of railroad. 

Based on past RFAs, FRA estimates that 

on average, 5 trains operate during a 

freight railroad’s temporary PTC system 

outage; 12 trains operate during an 

intercity passenger or commuter 

railroad’s PTC system outage that lasts 

24 hours or less; and 1,700 trains 

operate during an intercity passenger or 

commuter railroad’s PTC system outage 

that lasts longer (days). For freight 

railroads, the average cost per train 

movement is $250, based on previous 

FRA estimates. 

Then, the expected annual number of 

RFAs, involving temporary PTC system 

outages, is multiplied by: (1) the average 

number of train movements during the 

temporary outage; (2) the average cost 

per fare or train movement; and (3) the 

average number of passengers or 

commuters per train (for intercity 

passenger or commuter railroads), and is 

then adjusted for reduced speed.39 As 

shown in the tables below, the 15 

relevant RFAs that FRA expects to 

receive annually would result in 

$8,578,734 in total benefits, 

undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85473 

40Another method for assessing the benefits 

regarding this proposed provision is to calculate the 

revenue per ton-mile, provided that information 

regarding the number of miles that would be 

utilized is available for the affected railroads. Since 

FRA does not currently possess that level of 

information, the methodology described above was 

employed. 

41Form FRA F 6180.152 (OMB Control No. 2130– 

0553), under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR 

236.1029(h). These reports include information 

about railroads’ initialization failures. 42The estimated 1,100 initialization failures 

exclude any initialization failures where the source 

or cause is the onboard subsystem, as proposed 

§ 236.1029(g)(3) excludes such initialization failures 

from receiving the flexibility afforded under 

proposed § 236.1029(g), as they typically impact 

one train. FRA’s estimate refers to the number of 

initialization failures where the source or cause is, 

for example, the back office, wayside, or 

communications subsystems because those types of 

issues would generally impact more than one train 

and would be within the scope of this proposed 

provision. 

calculation did not include variable 

operating costs such as fuel expenses 

and other operational costs. 

Determining these costs is challenging 

when assessing benefits. Therefore, the 

estimated benefits could be reduced by 

these variable operating costs, although 

the exact amount is unclear.40

Additionally, FRA is seeking comments 

on this economic analysis, its 

underlying assumptions, and any 

additional benefits that could be 

quantified, like the potential impact to 

ridership from avoiding related train 

delays or cancelations. 

TABLE D—RFA FILINGS INVOLVING TEMPORARY PTC SYSTEM OUTAGES—BENEFITS

Estimated 

number of 

RFAs per year 

Average 

number of 

train 

movements 

during outage 

Average 

cost per fare 

or train 

movement 

($) 

Average 

number of 

passengers 

per train 

RFA average 

benefit 

(adjusted for 

reduced 

speed) 

($) 

PTC System Outages (Hours)—Freight Railroads .............. 2 5 250 N/A 2,076 

PTC System Outages (Hours)—Passenger or Commuter 

Railroads .......................................................................... 10 12 11 200 197,165 

PTC System Outages (Days)—Passenger or Commuter 

Railroads .......................................................................... 3 1,700 11 200 8,379,494 

Total .............................................................................. 15 ........................ ........................ ........................ 8,578,734 

Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates 

railroads will submit approximately 150 

RFAs under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4) 

with potential benefits of $78.6 million, 

at the 2-percent discount, or $8.8 

million, at the 2-percent discount, on an 

annual basis. 

TABLE E—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM CONTINUOUS TRAIN OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RFAS FOR TEMPORARY PTC 

SYSTEM OUTAGES—10-YEAR BENEFIT

Year Undiscounted 

($) 

Present 

value 2% 

($) 

Present 

value 3% 

($) 

Present 

value 7% 

($) 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 8,578,734 8,578,734 8,578,734 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 8,410,524 8,328,868 8,017,509 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 8,245,612 8,086,280 7,492,999 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 8,083,933 7,850,757 7,002,803 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 7,925,425 7,622,094 6,544,675 

6 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 7,770,024 7,400,092 6,116,519 

7 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 7,617,671 7,184,555 5,716,373 

8 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 7,468,305 6,975,296 5,342,405 

9 ....................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 7,321,867 6,772,132 4,992,902 

10 ..................................................................................................................... 8,578,734 7,178,301 6,574,886 4,666,263 

Total .......................................................................................................... 85,787,345 78,600,396 75,373,696 64,471,182 

Annualized ................................................................................................ ........................ 8,750,309 8,836,097 9,179,246 

Proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(g) 

The proposed exception under 

§ 236.1029(g) would reintroduce a 

revised version of a provision regarding 

PTC system initialization failures that 

expired on December 31, 2022. This 

proposed exception would be beneficial 

even with the conditions and 

restrictions outlined under this 

proposed provision. 

In assessing the potential benefits of 

this proposed provision, FRA focused 

on the impact on train operations in the 

absence of this proposed rule. Currently, 

if a PTC system fails to initialize, trains 

are generally prohibited from operating, 

which could result in situations where 

passengers are stranded and vital freight 

shipments halted, as the prior regulatory 

process expired on December 31, 2022. 

Based on consultation with FRA subject 

matter experts, FRA estimates the 

number of future PTC system 

initialization failures by analyzing 

railroads’ initialization failures in 

calendar year 2023, as reported to FRA 

in railroads’ Quarterly Reports of PTC 

System Performance 41 and projecting to 

the future. In total, based on past data, 

FRA expects freight railroads to 

experience approximately 900 

initialization failures per year and 

intercity passenger or commuter 

railroads to experience approximately 

200 initialization failures per year in the 

future.42 Then, the expected annual 

number of initialization failures is 

multiplied by: (1) the average cost of 

$11 per fare for intercity passenger or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85474 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

43Federal Railroad Administration, FRA 

Announces Climate Challenge to Meet Net-Zero 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 (Apr. 22, 2022), 

available at https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/ 

press-releases/federal-railroad-administrationannounces-climate-challenge-meet-net-zero-0. 

44 Id. 

commuter railroads and $250 per train 

movement for freight railroads; and (2) 

the average number of passengers or 

commuters per train of 200 (for intercity 

passenger or commuter railroads), and is 

then adjusted for the reduced speed, 

based on the proposed speed 

restrictions under 49 CFR 236.1029(g). 

As shown in the table below, FRA’s 

proposal to permit the operation of 

approximately 1,100 trains that FRA 

expects might experience PTC system 

initialization failures would result in 

$433,520 in total benefits, 

undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this 

calculation did not include variable 

operating costs such as fuel expenses 

and other operational costs. Therefore, 

the estimated benefit could be reduced 

by these variable operating costs, 

although the exact amount is unclear. 

Additionally, FRA is seeking comments 

on this economic analysis, its 

underlying assumptions, and any 

additional benefits that could be 

quantified, like the potential impact on 

ridership from avoiding related train 

delays or cancelations. 

TABLE F—ENABLING THE OPERATION OF TRAINS IMPACTED BY INITIALIZATION FAILURES—BENEFITS

Railroad type 

Estimated 

trains 

impacted 

annually 

Average cost 

per fare or 

train 

movement 

Average 

number of 

passengers 

per train 

Average 

benefit 

(adjusted 

for reduced 

speed) 

($) 

Freight .............................................................................................................. 900 250 N/A $159,220 

Intercity Passenger or Commuter .................................................................... 200 11 200 274,300 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1,100 ........................ ........................ 433,520 

Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates 

that proposed § 236.1029(g) would 

result in potential benefits of $4.0 

million, or on an annualized basis, 

$442,190, discounted at 2 percent. 

TABLE G—POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM CONTINUOUS TRAIN OPERATIONS DUE TO PROCESS REGARDING CERTAIN

INITIALIZATION FAILURES—10-YEAR BENEFIT

Year 

Freight 

railroads 

($) 

Passenger 

railroads 

($) 

Undiscounted 

benefit 

($) 

Present 

value 2% 

($) 

Present 

value 3% 

($) 

Present 

value 7% 

($) 

a b c = a + b 

1 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 433,520 433,520 433,520

2 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 425,020 420,893 405,159

3 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 416,686 408,634 378,653

4 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 408,516 396,732 353,881

5 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 400,505 385,177 330,730

6 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 392,652 373,958 309,094

7 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 384,953 363,066 288,873

8 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 377,405 352,491 269,974

9 ............................................................................... 159,220 274,300 433,520 370,005 342,225 252,313

10 ............................................................................. 159,220 274,300 433,520 362,750 332,257 235,806 

Total .................................................................. 1,592,200 2,743,000 4,335,200 3,972,013 3,808,954 3,258,003 

Annualized ........................................................ .................... .................... ...................... 442,190 446,526 463,866 

In addition to these direct benefits, 

there are potential societal benefits to 

the proposals in the NPRM. For 

example, there are possible fuel and 

emission savings from people not using 

alternative transportation modes like 

traditional buses or cars that use fuel or 

non-carbon technologies like batteries, 

which would be necessary if the 

proposals in this NPRM did not exist, 

and railroads were not allowed to 

operate trains in certain circumstances. 

Freight trains are generally known for 

their fuel efficiency compared to fuelpowered trucks, and intercity passenger 

or commuter trains are more efficient 

than driving fuel-powered vehicles, 

potentially resulting in lower carbon 

emissions. Specifically, a single freight 

train can be up to 75% more fuelefficient than a fuel-powered truck.43

Similarly, passenger trains are up to 

46% more efficient than driving fuelpowered vehicles.44 However, policies 

promoting electric vehicle use may lead 

to increased adoption of electric 

vehicles, which could reduce the 

anticipated emission benefits. 

2. Ten-Year Costs 

FRA analyzed the potential industry 

costs of the proposed amendments, 

which would: (1) permit non-revenue 

passenger equipment to operate to 

maintenance facilities or yards, without 

being governed by PTC technology and 

with no passengers onboard, for the sole 

purpose of repairing or exchanging a 

PTC system, under certain conditions; 

(2) improve the existing process 

railroads utilize to request and obtain 

FRA’s approval to disable their PTC 

systems temporarily—when necessary 

to facilitate repair, maintenance, 

infrastructure upgrades, and capital 

projects—by requiring railroads to 

provide additional, essential 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85475 

45Throughout this document, the dollar 

equivalent cost or benefit for the industry is derived 

from the Surface Transportation Board’s 2023 Full 

Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate 

employee group hourly wage rate, which includes 

an additional 75 percent for fringe benefits and 

overhead. For instance, the 2023 hourly wage rate 

of $67.69 is burdened by 75 percent ($67.69 × 1.75 

= $118.46). 

information in their requests to amend 

their PTC systems; and (3) reintroduce 

a limited version of a provision 

regarding PTC system initialization 

failures, which expired on December 31, 

2022, under certain conditions. 

Of the three proposed amendments, 

FRA analyzed the cost of railroads filing 

RFAs regarding temporary PTC system 

outages under proposed 

§ 236.1021(m)(4), which contains 

additional content requirements to 

enable FRA to assess the full scope and 

circumstances of each proposed 

temporary outage. Since the other two 

proposed provisions, under 

§§ 236.1006(b)(6) and 236.1029(g), 

would establish an exception or process 

with certain conditions, there may be 

minimal potential costs tied to these 

proposed provisions. However, FRA 

expects the potential benefits of these 

proposed provisions to outweigh any 

potential costs they might present. FRA 

welcomes comments on the potential 

impact. 

Also, FRA acknowledges that a 

proposal to establish a new exception 

for non-revenue passenger equipment 

and reintroduce a limited version of an 

expired process might appear to present 

safety risks, if not properly addressed. 

Accordingly, FRA’s proposed rule 

contains multiple operating restrictions 

and other protections to help mitigate or 

eliminate any associated risks and help 

preserve or improve rail safety. 

Based on consultation with FRA 

subject matter experts, FRA calculated 

the total cost for filing an RFA by 

multiplying the number of submissions 

by its associated hourly burden. The 

hourly burden is then multiplied by the 

wage rate of an Executive, Official, & 

Staff Assistant employee. For this 

analysis, FRA used the fully burdened 

wage rate of $118.46 to calculate both 

costs (i.e., the cost of submitting a new 

RFA and the cost of submitting a revised 

RFA).45 This wage rate includes factors 

such as salary, benefits, and overhead 

costs associated with employing staff 

members involved in the RFA filing 

process. 

TABLE H—COSTS OF RFAS TO PTC SYSTEMS INVOLVING TEMPORARY OUTAGES

Hourly 

wage rate 

($) 

Number of 

RFAs per year 

Number of 

hours per RFA 

Total cost of 

RFAs per year 

($) 

a b c d = a * b * c 

New RFAs ........................................................................................................ 118.46 15 90 159,921 

Revised RFAs .................................................................................................. 118.46 1 45 5,331

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 165,252 

The following table provides the 10- 

year cost to the railroad industry 

associated with the filing of an RFA 

involving a temporary PTC system 

outage under proposed 

§ 236.1021(m)(4). FRA estimates that the 

total cost to the railroad industry would 

be $1.5 million, or $168,557 annualized, 

discounted at 2 percent. 

TABLE I—TOTAL COSTS OF RFAS ABOUT TEMPORARY PTC SYSTEM OUTAGES

Year 

Cost of new 

RFAs per 

year 

Cost of 

revised RFAs 

per year 

($) 

Undiscounted 

cost of RFAs 

($) 

Present 

value 2% 

($) 

Present 

value 3% 

($) 

Present 

value 7% 

($) 

1 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 165,252 165,252 165,252 

2 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 162,011 160,439 154,441 

3 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 158,835 155,766 144,337 

4 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 155,720 151,229 134,895 

5 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 152,667 146,824 126,070 

6 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 149,674 142,548 117,822 

7 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 146,739 138,396 110,114 

8 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 143,862 134,365 102,910 

9 ......................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 141,041 130,451 96,178 

10 ....................................................................... 159,921 5,331 165,252 138,275 126,652 89,886 

Total ............................................................ 159,921 5,331 1,652,517 1,514,075 1,451,919 1,241,905 

Annualized .................................................. ...................... ...................... ........................ 168,557 170,209 176,819 

Additionally, alongside the railroad 

industry’s cost of filing RFAs under 

proposed § 236.1021(m)(4), there are 

governmental costs associated with the 

filing of these RFAs. The following table 

shows the annual estimated government 

costs for reviewing railroads’ RFAs 

pertaining to temporary PTC system 

outages and issuing related decision 

letters. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85476 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

46U.S. Office of Personnel Management, ‘‘2023 

General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables,’’ 

available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2023/generalschedule/. The base salary is burdened with an 

additional 75 percent to account for fringe benefits 

and overhead. 

TABLE J—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FROM RFA REVIEW AND APPROVAL—ANNUAL COSTS

Average 

number of 

employees 

Hourly wage 

rate 

($) 46

Number of 

hours per RFA 

Estimated 

RFAs per year Total cost ($) 

a b c d = a * b * c 

Railroad Safety Specialist (GS–13)—All locations .............. 1 98.77 6 15 8,889 

Railroad Safety Specialist (GS–14)—All locations .............. 1 116.71 3 15 5,252 

Railroad Safety Specialist (GS–14)—All locations .............. 1 116.71 2 15 3,501 

Railroad Safety Specialist Supervisor (GS–15)—DC Metro 1 147.96 1 15 2,219 

Railroad Safety Specialist Senior Executive—DC Metro .... 1 175.00 1 15 2,625 

Attorney (GS–15)—DC Metro .............................................. 1 147.96 2 15 4,439 

Annual Total Cost ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 15 15 26,926 

The followingtable shows the 10-year 

estimated government costs for 

reviewing RFAs pertaining to temporary 

PTC system outages and issuing related 

decision letters. FRA expects it would 

cost approximately $246,700 over the 

10-year period, or $27,464 annualized, 

discounted at 2 percent, to review and 

approve or deny these RFAs, as shown 

in the following table. 

TABLE K—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FROM RFA REVIEW AND APPROVAL—10-YEAR COSTS

Year 

Undiscounted 

government 

administrative 

cost 

($) 

Present 

value 2% 

($) 

Present 

value 3% 

($) 

Present 

value 7% 

($) 

1 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 26,926 26,926 26,926 

2 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 26,398 26,142 25,164 

3 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 25,880 25,380 23,518 

4 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 25,373 24,641 21,979 

5 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 24,875 23,923 20,542 

6 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 24,387 23,226 19,198 

7 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 23,909 22,550 17,942 

8 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 23,440 21,893 16,768 

9 ................................................................................................................. 26,926 22,981 21,255 15,671 

10 ............................................................................................................... 26,926 22,530 20,636 14,646 

Total .................................................................................................... 269,258 246,700 236,573 202,353 

Annualized .......................................................................................... .............................. 27,464 27,734 28,811 

3. Results 

The industry benefits associated with 

FRA’s proposal to amend three 

provisions—i.e., to introduce a new 

exception for certain non-revenue 

passenger equipment movements, 

improve the RFA process regarding 

temporary PTC system outages, and 

permit continued operations following 

certain initialization failures, subject to 

operating restrictions—would outweigh 

the industry costs and government 

administrative costs associated with 

FRA’s proposal to expand the content 

requirements for RFAs related to 

temporary outages. 

The following table shows the 

estimated 10-year costs, benefits, and 

net benefits of the proposed rule. The 

total estimated 10-year net benefits 

would be $81.8 million (discounted at 2 

percent) and annualized net benefits 

would be $9.1 million (discounted at 2 

percent). 

TABLE L—TOTAL 10-YEAR DISCOUNTED BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS

[2023 Dollars] 

Category 

Present 

value 2% 

($) 

Present 

value 3% 

($) 

Present 

value 7% 

($) 

Annualized 

2% 

($) 

Annualized 

3% 

($) 

Annualized 

7% 

($) 

Industry Benefits ........................................................ 83,534,444 80,105,191 68,518,285 9,299,600 9,390,772 9,755,462 

Total Costs ................................................................. 1,760,775 1,688,492 1,444,258 196,021 197,943 205,630 

Industry Costs ............................................................ 1,514,075 1,451,919 1,241,905 168,557 170,209 176,819

Government Administrative Costs ............................. 246,700 236,573 202,353 27,464 27,734 28,811 

Net Benefits ........................................................ 81,773,669 78,416,699 67,074,027 9,103,579 9,192,829 9,549,832 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85477 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of 

Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 

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

agency review of proposed and final 

rules to assess their impacts on small 

entities. An agency must prepare an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) unless it determines and certifies 

that a rule, if promulgated, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

FRA has not determined whether this 

proposed rule would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

FRA invites all interested parties to 

submit comments, data, and information 

demonstrating the potential economic 

impact on small entities that will result 

from the adoption of this proposed rule. 

FRA particularly encourages small 

entities potentially impacted by the 

proposed amendments to participate in 

the public comment process. FRA will 

consider all comments received during 

the public comment period for this 

NPRM when making a final 

determination of the rule’s economic 

impact on small entities. FRA prepared 

an IRFA, which is included below, to 

aid the public in commenting on the 

potential small business impacts of the 

proposed requirements in this NPRM. 

1. Reasons for Considering Agency 

Action 

Through FRA’s oversight and 

continued engagement with the 

industry, FRA has found that its existing 

PTC regulations do not adequately 

address temporary situations during 

which PTC technology is not enabled, 

including after certain initialization 

failures or in cases where a PTC system 

needs to be temporarily disabled to 

facilitate repair, maintenance, 

infrastructure upgrades, or capital 

projects. This NPRM proposes to 

establish parameters and operating 

restrictions under which railroads may 

continue to operate safely in certain 

scenarios when PTC technology is 

temporarily not governing rail 

operations. Overall, the proposed 

amendments would benefit the railroad 

industry, the public, and FRA by 

facilitating repairs, maintenance, 

upgrades, and capital improvements; 

expanding certain railroad 

informational requirements; reducing 

costs; and enabling the safe, reliable, 

and efficient movement of people and 

goods, while preserving rail safety. 

2. A Succinct Statement of the 

Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for, 

the Proposed Rule 

FRA is proposing to revise three PTC 

regulations based on the statutory 

general authority of the Secretary. The 

Secretary has broad statutory authority 

to ‘‘prescribe regulations and issue 

orders for every area of railroad safety’’ 

under 49 U.S.C. 20103 and regarding 

PTC technology under 49 U.S.C. 

20157(g). The Secretary delegated this 

authority to the Federal Railroad 

Administrator. 49 CFR 1.89(b). 

This proposed rule would provide 

flexibility to certain train movements 

and improve existing processes, which 

would result in net benefits to railroads. 

The industry benefits associated with 

FRA’s proposal to amend 

§§ 236.1006(b), 236.1021(m) and 

236.1029(g)—i.e., to introduce a new 

exception for certain non-revenue 

passenger equipment movements, 

improve the RFA process regarding 

temporary PTC system outages, and 

permit continued operations following 

certain initialization failures, subject to 

operating restrictions—would outweigh 

the industry costs and government 

administrative costs associated with 

FRA’s proposal to expand the content 

requirements for RFAs related to 

temporary outages under § 236.1021(m), 

while also maintaining rail safety. 

FRA’s objective in this rulemaking is 

to establish clear, uniform processes, 

rather than addressing issues that arise 

in a reactive and piecemeal manner. 

FRA expects that establishing 

predictable, prescriptive processes will 

both enable continued operations and 

improve railroad safety by eliminating 

uncertainty and inconsistent application 

of FRA’s regulations and facilitating 

prompt repairs, upgrades, and 

restoration of PTC system service. FRA’s 

proposed parameters and operating 

restrictions in this NPRM are intended 

to be sufficiently strict to ensure that 

railroads and PTC system suppliers and 

vendors proactively identify and 

remedy problems before they arise and 

immediately correct any problems that 

may surface despite proactive measures. 

3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, 

an Estimate of the Number of Small 

Entities to Which the Proposed Rule 

Would Apply 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires a review of proposed and final 

rules to assess their impact on small 

entities, unless the Secretary certifies 

that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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

601 as a small business concern that is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field of operation. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has authority to regulate issues 

related to small businesses, and 

stipulates in its size standards that a 

‘‘small entity’’ in the railroad industry is 

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

fewer than 1,500 employees, a ‘‘short 

line railroad’’ with fewer than 500 

employees, or a ‘‘commuter rail system’’ 

with annual receipts of less than seven 

million dollars. See ‘‘Size Eligibility 

Provisions and Standards,’’ 13 CFR part 

121, subpart A. 

The proposed rule would directly 

apply to all 37 host railroads subject to 

49 U.S.C. 20157—including 7 Class I 

railroads, 24 intercity passenger 

railroads or commuter railroads, and 6 

Class II or III, short line, or terminal 

railroads. Only 5 of the current PTCmandated host railroads are small 

entities. 

4. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Class of 

Small Entities That Will be Subject to 

the Requirements and the Type of 

Professional Skill Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

The proposed amendments would 

improve the process railroads use to file 

an RFA involving a temporary PTC 

system outage. Those entities would be 

subject to the requirements of this 

proposed rule and would also benefit 

from the additional flexibility associated 

with this proposed rule. 

FRA expects that a railroad’s RFA 

pursuant to proposed § 236.1021(m)(4) 

would be completed by an executive or 

senior manager and require analytical 

and writing skills. 

To calculate the individual costs for 

small entities, FRA divided the total 

annualized cost by the number of 

estimated host railroads. FRA assumes 

that the hourly burden to submit an 

RFA is independent of an entity’s size 

because the RFA depends upon the PTC 

system and not the individual railroad 

making the submission. The total 

annualized cost for all host railroads 

would be $168,557, discounted at 2 

percent. FRA estimates that the 

annualized cost to each host railroad 

would be approximately $4,556, 

discounted at 2 percent. Although the 

proposed rule would impose costs on 

those host railroads that are small 

entities, benefits would also accrue. 

To calculate the individual benefit for 

small entities, FRA divided the total 

annualized benefits by the number of 

estimated host railroads. The total 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85478 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

47FRA will be using the OMB control number 

2130–0553 for this information collection. 

48 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

annualized benefits for all host railroads 

would be $9.3 million, discounted at 2 

percent. FRA estimates that the 

annualized benefit for each host railroad 

would be $251,341, discounted at 2 

percent. FRA requests comments on the 

economic impact that small entities 

would face under this proposed rule. 

5. Identification, to the Extent 

Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 

Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With the Proposed Rule 

FRA is not aware of any relevant 

Federal rule that duplicates, overlaps 

with, or conflicts with the proposed 

rule. This proposed rule intends to 

improve the process associated with 

RFAs for temporary PTC system 

outages, establish a new exception for 

certain non-revenue passenger 

equipment, and reintroduce a limited 

version of a provision that previously 

expired. 

6. A Description of Significant 

Alternatives to the Rule 

The proposed amendments in this 

rulemaking would benefit the railroad 

industry, the public, and FRA by 

facilitating repairs, maintenance, 

upgrades, and capital improvements; 

expanding certain railroad 

informational requirements; reducing 

costs; and enabling the safe, reliable, 

and resilient movement of people and 

goods, while preserving rail safety. 

The main alternative to this 

rulemaking would be to maintain the 

status quo. The alternative of not issuing 

the proposed rule would forgo 

improving the process under 

§ 236.1021(m) that host railroads use to 

submit RFAs for temporary PTC system 

outages. In the absence of this proposed 

rule, non-revenue passenger equipment 

would not be afforded the same type of 

exception currently available to freight 

railroads under § 236.1006(b). In 

addition, without this rule, railroads 

would not be able to operate in certain 

scenarios when PTC technology is 

temporarily not governing rail 

operations under proposed 

§ 236.1029(g). 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

FRA is submitting the information 

collection requirements in this proposed 

rule to OMB47 under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995.48 Please note 

that any new or revised requirements, as 

proposed in this NPRM, are marked by 

asterisks (*) in the table below. The 

sections that contain the proposed and 

current information collection 

requirements under OMB Control No. 

2130–0553 and the estimated time to 

fulfill each requirement are as follows: 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total cost 

equivalent 

in USD 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 

235.6(c)—Expedited application for approval of certain changes described 

in this section.

42 railroads ........... 10 expedited applications.5.00 hours ............. 50.00 hours ........... $4,456.50 

—Copy of expedited application to labor 

union.

42 railroads ........... 10 copies .............. 30.00 minutes ....... 5.00 hours ............. 445.65 

—Railroad letter rescinding its request 

for expedited application of certain 

signal system changes.

42 railroads ........... 1 letter ................... 6.00 hours ............. 6.00 hours ............. 534.78 

—Revised application for certain signal 

system changes.

42 railroads ........... 1 application .......... 5.00 hours ............. 5.00 hours ............. 445.65 

—Copy of railroad revised application to 

labor union.

42 railroads ........... 1 copy ................... 30.00 minutes ....... 0.50 hours ............. 44.57 

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 ... 15.00 minutes ....... 6.25 hours ............. 557.06 

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.30.00 minutes ....... 5.00 hours ............. 445.65 

236.18—Software management control 

plan—New railroads.

2 railroads ............. 2 plans .................. 160.00 hours ......... 320.00 hours ......... 28,521.60 

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 ...... 1.00 hour ............... 2.00 hours ............. 178.26 

236.587(d)—Certification and departure 

test results.

742 railroads ......... 4,562,500 train departures.5.00 seconds ........ 6,336.81 hours ...... 564,799.88 

236.905(a)—Railroad Safety Program 

Plan (RSPP)—New railroads.

2 railroads ............. 2 RSPPs ............... 40.00 hours ........... 80.00 hours ........... 7,130.40 

236.913(a)—Filing and approval of a 

joint Product Safety Plan (PSP).

742 railroads ......... 1 joint plan ............ 2,000.00 hours ...... 2,000.00 hours ...... 236,920.00 

—(c)(1) Informational filing/petition for 

special approval.

742 railroads ......... 0.5 filings/approval 

petitions.

50.00 hours ........... 25.00 hours ........... 2,228.25 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85479 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total cost 

equivalent 

in USD 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 

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

further data after informational filing.

742 railroads ......... 0.25 data calls/documents.5.00 hours ............. 1.25 hour ............... 111.41 

—(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.1.00 hour ............... 0.25 hours ............. 22.28 

—(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.5.00 hours ............. 1.25 hour ............... 111.41 

—(d)(1)(v) Railroad petition to FRA for 

final approval of NOPD.

742 railroads ......... 0.25 petitions ........ 1.00 hour ............... 0.25 hours ............. 22.28 

—(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 ............... 50.00 hours ........... 50.00 hours ........... 4,456.50 

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

petition.

742 railroads ......... 0.5 comments/letters.10.00 hours ........... 5.00 hours ............. 445.65 

—(h)(3)(i) Railroad amendment to PSP 742 railroads ......... 2 amendments ...... 20.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 3,565.20 

—(j) Railroad field testing/information filing document.742 railroads ......... 1 field test/document.100.00 hours ......... 100.00 hours ......... 8,913.00 

236.917(a)—Railroad retention of 

records: results of tests and inspections specified in the PSP.

13 railroads with 

PSP.

13 PSP safety results.160.00 hours ......... 2,080.00 hours ...... 185,390.40 

—(b) Railroad report that frequency of 

safety-relevant hazards exceeds 

threshold set forth in PSP.

13 railroads ........... 1 report ................. 40.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 3,565.20 

—(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 ................. 10.00 hours ........... 10.00 hours ........... 891.30 

236.919(a)—Railroad Operations and 

Maintenance Manual (OMM).

13 railroads ........... 1 OMM update ...... 40.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 3,565.20 

—(b) Plans for proper maintenance, repair, inspection, and testing of safetycritical products.13 railroads ........... 1 plan update ........ 40.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 3,565.20 

—(c) Documented hardware, software, 

and firmware revisions in OMM.

13 railroads ........... 1 revision .............. 40.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 3,565.20 

236.921 and 923(a)—Railroad Training 

and Qualification Program.

13 railroads ........... 1 program ............. 40.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 3,565.20 

236.923(b)—Training records retained 

in a designated location and available 

to FRA upon request.

13 railroads ........... 350 records ........... 10.00 minutes ....... 58.33 hours ........... 5,198.95 

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 40.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 4,738.40 

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

236.1005(b)(4)(iii)—A railroad’s request 

for a de minimis exception, in a 

PTCIP or an RFA, based on a minimal quantity of PIH materials traffic.

7 Class I railroads 1 exception request.40.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 3,565.20 

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85480 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total cost 

equivalent 

in USD 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 

—(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 routing extension requests.8.00 hours ............. 360.00 hours ......... 32,086.80 

—(g)(1)(ii) A railroad’s written or telephonic notice to FRA of the conditions necessitating emergency rerouting and other required information 

under 236.1005(i).

38 railroads ........... 45 written or telephonic notices.2.00 hours ............. 90.00 hours ........... 8,021.70 

—(g)(2) A railroad’s temporary rerouting 

request due to planned maintenance 

not exceeding 30 days.

38 railroads ........... 720 requests ......... 8.00 hours ............. 5,760.00 hours ...... 513,388.80 

—(h)(1) A response to any request for 

additional information from FRA, prior 

to commencing rerouting due to 

planned maintenance.

38 railroads ........... 10 responses ........ 2.00 hours ............. 20.00 hours ........... 1,782.60 

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

maintenance exceeding 30 days.

38 railroads ........... 160 requests ......... 8.00 hours ............. 1,280.00 hours ...... 114,086.40 

236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)—A progress report due by December 31, 2020, and 

by December 31, 2022, from any 

Class II or III railroad utilizing a temporary exception under this section.

The paperwork requirement is no longer applicable. 

—(b)(5)(vii) A railroad’s request to utilize different yard movement procedures, as part of a freight yard movements exception—.The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021. 

—(b)(6) Establishing a new exception to 

permit non-revenue passenger equipment to operate to maintenance facilities or yards, without being governed 

by PTC technology, under certain 

conditions (*New proposed 

provision*).

There is no paperwork requirement associated with this proposed provision. 

236.1007(b)(1)—For any high-speed 

service over 90 miles per hour (mph), 

a railroad’s PTC Safety Plan 

(PTCSP) must additionally establish 

that the PTC system was designed 

and will be operated to meet the failsafe operation criteria in appendix C.

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

—(c) An HSR–125 document accompanying a host railroad’s PTCSP, for 

operations over 125 mph.

38 railroads ........... 1 HSR–125 document.3,200.00 hours ...... 3,200.00 hours ...... 379,072.00 

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

prior to submission of a PTCSP.

38 railroads ........... 0.33 requests ........ 8,000.00 hours ...... 2,640.00 hours ...... 235,303.20 

—(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 ............... 1,000.00 hours ...... 1,000.00 hours ...... 118,460.00 

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 ................ 535.00 hours ......... 535.00 hours ......... 63,376.10 

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

a host railroad and a tenant railroad.

264 railroads ......... 1 joint PTCIP ........ 267.00 hours ......... 267.00 hours ......... 31,628.82 

—(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 ........... 8.00 hours ............. 8.00 hours ............. 713.04 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85481 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total cost 

equivalent 

in USD 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 

—(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 ............... 2,000.00 hours ...... 2,000.00 hours ...... 178,260.00 

—(d) A host railroad’s submission of a 

PTCSP.

The burden for this requirement is included under § 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.

8.00 hours ............. 80.00 hours ........... 7,130.40 

—(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.

4.00 hours ............. 144.00 hours ......... 12,834.72 

—(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.

400.00 hours ......... 400.00 hours ......... 35,652.00 

236.1011(a) through (b)—PTCIP content requirements.The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021. 

—(e) Any public comment on PTCIPs, 

NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs.

38 railroads ........... 2 public comments 8.00 hours ............. 16.00 hours ........... 1,426.08 

236.1013—PTCDP and NPI content requirements.The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 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 ............... 8,000.00 hours ...... 8,000.00 hours ...... 713,040 

—(g) A PTCSP for a PTC system replacing an existing certified PTC system.38 railroads ........... 0.33 PTCSPs ........ 3,200.00 hours ...... 1,056.00 hours ...... 94,121.28 

—(h) A quantitative risk assessment, if 

FRA requires one to be submitted.

38 railroads ........... 0.33 assessments 800.00 hours ......... 264.00 hours ......... 23,530.32 

236.1017(a)—An independent thirdparty assessment, if FRA requires 

one to be conducted and submitted.

38 railroads ........... 0.33 assessments 1,600.00 hours ...... 528.00 hours ......... 62,546.88 

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

as an independent third party.

38 railroads ........... 0.33 written requests.8.00 hours ............. 2.64 hours ............. 235.30 

—Further information provided to FRA 

upon request.

38 railroads ........... 0.33 sets of additional information.20.00 hours ........... 6.60 hours ............. 588.26 

—(d) A request not to provide certain 

documents otherwise required under 

appendix F for an independent, thirdparty assessment.

38 railroads ........... 0.33 requests ........ 20.00 hours ........... 6.60 hours ............. 588.26 

—(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 ........... 0.33 requests ........ 32.00 hours ........... 10.56 hours ........... 941.21 

236.1019(b)—A request for a passenger terminal main line track exception (MTEA).38 railroads ........... 1 MTEA ................. 160.00 hours ......... 160.00 hours ......... 14,260.80 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85482 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total cost 

equivalent 

in USD 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 

—(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.

160.00 hours ......... 160.00 hours ......... 14,260.80 

—(c)(2) A request for a limited operations exception for a non-Class I, 

freight railroad’s track.

10 railroads ........... 1 request ............... 160.00 hours ......... 160.00 hours ......... 14,260.80 

—(c)(3) A request for a limited operations exception for a Class I railroad’s track.7 railroads ............. 1 request ............... 160.00 hours ......... 160.00 hours ......... 14,260.80 

—(d) A railroad’s collision hazard analysis in support of an MTEA, if FRA 

requires one to be conducted and 

submitted.

38 railroads ........... 0.33 collision hazard analyses.50.00 hours ........... 16.50 hours ........... 1,470.65 

—(e) Any temporal separation procedures utilized under the 49 CFR 

236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.

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

236.1021(a) through (d)—An RFA to a 

railroad’s PTCIP or PTCDP.

38 railroads ........... 10 RFAs ................ 160.00 hours ......... 1,600.00 hours ...... 142,608.00 

—(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.

16.00 hours ........... 160.00 hours ......... 14,260.80 

—(l) Any jointly filed RFA to a PTCDP 

or PTCSP.

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

—(m) Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCSP .. 38 railroads ........... 15 RFAs ................ 80.00 hours ........... 1,200.0 hours ........ 106,956.00 

—(m)(4) Any RFA to a railroad’s PTC 

system that involves a proposed temporary PTC system outage (*New 

proposed provision*).

38 railroads ........... 15 RFAs ................ 90.00 hours ........... 1,350.0 hours ........ 159,921.00 

—(m) A railroad’s revised RFA, if needed.38 railroads ........... 1 revised RFA ....... 45.00 hours ........... 45.00 hours ........... 5,330.70 

236.1023(a)—A railroad’s PTC Product 

Vendor List, which must be continually updated.

38 railroads ........... 2 updated lists ...... 8.00 hours ............. 16.00 hours ........... 1,426.08 

—(b)(1) The railroad shall specify within 

its PTCSP all contractual arrangements between a railroad and its 

hardware and software suppliers or 

vendors for certain immediate notifications.

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

—(b)(2) through (3) A vendor’s or supplier’s notification, upon receipt of a 

report of any safety-critical failure of 

its product, to any railroads using the 

product.

10 vendors or suppliers.10 notifications ...... 8.00 hours ............. 80.00 hours ........... 7,130.40 

—(c)(1) through (2) A railroad’s process 

and procedures for taking action 

upon being notified of a safety-critical 

failure or a safety-critical upgrade, 

patch, revision, repair, replacement, 

or modification, and a railroad’s configuration/revision control measures, 

set forth in its PTCSP.

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85483 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total cost 

equivalent 

in USD 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 

—(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 ........... 2.50 notifications ... 16.00 hours ........... 40.00 hours ........... 3,565.20 

—(e) A railroad’s database of all safetyrelevant hazards, which must be 

maintained after the PTC system is 

placed in service.

38 railroads ........... 38 database updates.16.00 hours ........... 608.00 hours ......... 54,191.04 

—(e)(1) A railroad’s notification to the 

vendor or supplier and FRA if the frequency of a safety-relevant hazard 

exceeds the threshold set forth in the 

PTCDP and PTCSP, and about the 

failure, malfunction, or defective condition that decreased or eliminated 

the safety functionality—Form FRA F 

6180.179—Errors and Malfunctions 

Notification.

38 railroads ........... 8 notifications ........ 7.50 hours ............. 60.00 hours ........... 5,347.80 

—(e)(2) Continual updates about any 

and all subsequent failures.

38 railroads ........... 1 update ................ 8.00 hours ............. 8.00 hours ............. 713.04 

—(f) Any notifications that must be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR 

236.1023.

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

—(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 ........... 0.50 reports ........... 40.00 hours ........... 20.00 hours ........... 1,782.60 

—(h) A PTC system vendor’s or supplier’s reports of any safety-relevant 

failures, defective conditions, previously unidentified hazards, recommended mitigation actions, and 

any affected railroads—Form FRA F 

6180.179—Errors and Malfunctions 

Notification.

10 vendors ............ 20 reports .............. 7.50 hours ............. 150.00 hours ......... 13,370 

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

233.7. 

—236.1029(b)(4)—A report of an en 

route failure, other failure, or cut out 

to a designated railroad officer of the 

host railroad.

150 host and tenant railroads.1,000 reports ......... 30.00 minutes ....... 500.00 hours ......... 44,565 

—(g) Reintroducing a provision regarding initialization failures that previously expired in December 2022, 

and establishing operating restrictions 

under which railroads may continue 

to operate safely when a PTC system 

fails to initialize (* New proposed requirement *).

In this proposed provision, there is no paperwork requirement. However, under an existing regulation, 

FRA requires host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC systems to submit Quarterly Reports of 

PTC System Performance, using Form FRA F 6180.152, under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR 

236.1029(h). These reports include information about railroads’ initialization failures. 

—(h) Form FRA F 6180.152—Report of 

PTC System Performance.

38 railroads ........... 148 reports ............ 32.00 hours ........... 4,736.00 hours ...... 422,119.68 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85484 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

CFR section Respondent 

universe 

Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total cost 

equivalent 

in USD 

(A) (B) (C = A * B) (D = C * wage 

rates) 

236.1031(a)–(d)—A railroad’s Request 

for Expedited Certification.

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

236.1033—Communications and security requirements.The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009 and 236.1015. 

236.1035(a) through (b)—A railroad’s 

request for authorization to field test 

an uncertified PTC system and any 

responses to FRA’s testing conditions.

38 railroads ........... 10 requests ........... 40.00 hours ........... 400.00 hours ......... 35,652.00 

236.1037(a)(1) through (2)—Records 

retention.

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

—(a)(3) through (4) Records retention .. The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1039 and 236.1043(b). 

—(b) Results of inspections and tests 

specified in a railroad’s PTCSP and 

PTCDP.

38 railroads ........... 800 records ........... 1.00 hour ............... 800.00 hours ......... 71,304.00 

—(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 ........ 10.00 minutes ....... 266.67 hours ......... 23,768.30 

—(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 ........ 160.00 hours ......... 1,280 hours ........... 114,086.40 

236.1039(a) through (c), (e)—A railroad’s PTC Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM), which must be 

maintained and available to FRA 

upon request.

38 railroads ........... 2 OMM updates .... 10.00 hours ........... 20.00 hours ........... 1,782.60 

—(d) A railroad’s identification of a PTC 

system’s safety-critical components, 

including spare equipment.

38 railroads ........... 1 identified new 

component.

1.00 hour ............... 1.00 hour ............... 89.13 

236.1041(a) through (b) and 

236.1043(a)—A railroad’s PTC Training and Qualification Program (i.e., a 

written plan).

38 railroads ........... 2 programs ............ 10.00 hours ........... 20.00 hours ........... 1,782.60 

236.1043(b)—Training records retained 

in a designated location and available 

to FRA upon request.

150 host and tenant railroads.150 PTC training 

records.

1.00 hour ............... 150.00 hours ......... 13,369.50 

Total ................................................ 742 railroads and 

10 vendors.

4,567,839 responses.N/A ........................ 53,309 hours ......... 5,014,416 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. Pursuant to 

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

comments concerning: whether these 

information collection requirements are 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of FRA, including whether 

the information has practical utility; the 

accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the 

burden of the information collection 

requirements; the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and whether the burden of 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology, may be minimized. 

Organizations and individuals desiring 

to submit comments on the collection of 

information requirements or to request a 

copy of the paperwork package 

submitted to OMB should contact Ms. 

Arlette Mussington, Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, at email: 

arlette.mussington@dot.gov or 

telephone: (571) 609–1285, or Ms. 

Joanne Swafford, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, at email: 

joanne.swafford@dot.gov or telephone: 

(757) 897–9908. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

FRA is not authorized to impose a 

penalty on persons for violating 

information collection requirements that 

do not display a current OMB control 

number, if required. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85485 

49Executive Order 14096 ‘‘Revitalizing Our 

Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice,’’ 

issued on April 26, 2023, supplements Executive 

Order 12898, but is not currently referenced in DOT 

Order 5610.2C. 

D. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

requires FRA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 

10, 1999). ‘‘Policies that have federalism 

implications’’ are defined in Executive 

Order 13132 to include regulations 

having ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Id. Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

under the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13132. 

FRA has determined this proposed rule 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States or their political 

subdivisions; on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States or their political subdivisions; 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In addition, FRA 

has determined this proposed rule does 

not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

This proposed rule could have 

preemptive effect by the operation of 

law under a provision of the former 

Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, 

repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 

20106. Section 20106 provides that 

States may not adopt or continue in 

effect any law, regulation, or order 

related to railroad safety or security that 

covers the subject matter of a regulation 

prescribed or order issued by the 

Secretary of Transportation (with 

respect to railroad safety matters) or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (with 

respect to railroad security matters), 

except when the State law, regulation, 

or order qualifies under the ‘‘essentially 

local safety or security hazard’’ 

exception to section 20106. 

FRA has analyzed this proposed rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. As explained above, FRA has 

determined that this proposed rule has 

no federalism implications, other than 

the possible preemption of State laws 

under Federal railroad safety statutes, 

specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106. 

Accordingly, FRA has determined that 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement for this proposed rule 

is not required. 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This proposed rule is 

not expected to affect trade 

opportunities for U.S. firms doing 

business overseas or for foreign firms 

doing business in the United States. 

F. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this proposed rule 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

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

Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

parts 1500 through 1508, and FRA’s 

NEPA implementing regulations at 23 

CFR part 771, and determined that it is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review and therefore 

does not require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions 

identified in an agency’s NEPA 

implementing regulations that do not 

normally have a significant impact on 

the environment and therefore do not 

require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 

1508.4. Specifically, FRA has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 23 

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

rules, the issuance of policy statements, 

the waiver or modification of existing 

regulatory requirements, or 

discretionary approvals that do not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise.’’ 

This proposed rule does not directly 

or indirectly impact any environmental 

resources and would not result in 

significantly increased emissions of air 

or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the 

proposed rule is likely to result in safety 

benefits. In analyzing the applicability 

of a CE, FRA must also consider 

whether unusual circumstances are 

present that would warrant a more 

detailed environmental review. See 23 

CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that 

no such unusual circumstances exist 

with respect to this proposed rule and 

the proposal meets the requirements for 

categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 

771.116(c)(15). 

Pursuant to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

its implementing regulations, FRA has 

determined this undertaking has no 

potential to affect historic properties. 

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

determined that this rulemaking does 

not approve a project resulting in a use 

of a resource protected by section 4(f). 

See Department of Transportation Act of 

1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 

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

G. Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations’’ requires DOT 

agencies to achieve environmental 

justice as part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects, including 

interrelated social and economic effects, 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations. DOT Order 

5610.2C (‘‘U.S. Department of 

Transportation Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’) instructs DOT agencies to 

address compliance with Executive 

Order 12898 and requirements within 

DOT Order 5610.2C in rulemaking 

activities, as appropriate, and also 

requires consideration of the benefits of 

transportation programs, policies, and 

other activities where minority 

populations and low-income 

populations benefit, at a minimum, to 

the same level as the general population 

as a whole when determining impacts 

on minority and low-income 

populations.49 FRA has evaluated this 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
85486 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

50As noted above, passenger trains are up to 46% 

more efficient than driving and 34% more efficient 

than flying. Also, a single freight train can be up 

to 75% more fuel-efficient than a truck. 51 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000). 

proposed rule under Executive Orders 

12898 and 14096 and DOT Order 

5610.2C and has determined it would 

not cause disproportionate and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on communities with environmental 

justice concerns. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Under section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal 

agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

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

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in promulgation of any rule that 

includes any Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

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

or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any 1 year, and before promulgating 

any final rule for which a general notice 

of proposed rulemaking was published, 

the agency shall prepare a written 

statement’’ detailing the effect on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. This proposed rule 

would not result in the expenditure, in 

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

(as adjusted annually for inflation) in 

any one year, and thus preparation of 

such a statement is not required. 

I. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

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

2001). As FRA acknowledged in section 

IV, there are societal benefits to the 

proposals in this NPRM. For example, 

there are possible fuel savings and 

carbon emission savings 50 from people 

not using alternative transportation 

modes like buses or cars, which would 

be necessary if the proposed flexibilities 

in this NPRM did not exist and railroads 

were not allowed to operate trains in 

certain circumstances. FRA evaluated 

this proposed rule under Executive 

Order 13211 and determined that this 

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211, based on 

currently available information. 

However, FRA welcomes comments on 

the extent to which this proposed rule 

would result in fuel and emission 

savings. 

J. Privacy Act Statement 

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

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, to www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice, DOT/ALL–14 FDMS, accessible 

through https://www.transportation.gov/ 

privacy. To facilitate comment tracking 

and response, DOT encourages 

commenters to provide their name, or 

the name of their organization; however, 

submission of names is completely 

optional. Whether or not commenters 

identify themselves, all timely 

comments will be fully considered. If 

you wish to provide comments 

containing proprietary or confidential 

information, please contact the agency 

for alternate submission instructions. 

K. Tribal Consultation 

FRA has evaluated this NPRM in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments.’’ 51

The proposed rule would not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, would not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian Tribal governments, and would 

not preempt Tribal laws. Therefore, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply, 

and a Tribal summary impact statement 

is not required. 

L. Rulemaking Summary, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(4) 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rulemaking can be 

found in the Abstract section of the 

Department’s Unified Agenda entry for 

this rulemaking at: https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&

RIN=2130-AC95. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236 

Penalties, Positive train control, 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA 

proposes to amend 49 CFR part 236 as 

follows: 

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 § 236.1006 by adding 

paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 236.1006 Equipping locomotives 

operating in PTC territory. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) Exception for certain non-revenue 

passenger equipment movements. This 

exception is available to enable only 

non-revenue passenger equipment, 

including a locomotive, locomotive 

consist, or train without passengers, to 

operate to a maintenance facility or yard 

for the purpose of repairing or 

exchanging a PTC system. Such nonrevenue equipment may operate to a 

maintenance facility or yard without 

being governed by PTC technology, as 

otherwise required under this part, only 

if it meets the criteria in this paragraph 

(b)(6) and the following conditions: 

(i) The speed of the locomotive, 

locomotive consist, or train must not 

exceed 49 miles per hour; 

(ii) An absolute block must be 

established in front of the locomotive, 

locomotive consist, or train; 

(iii) There cannot be any working 

limits established under part 214 of this 

chapter or any roadway workers on any 

part of the route; 

(iv) The locomotive, locomotive 

consist, or train must operate no farther 

than the next forward location 

designated in the railroad’s PTCSP for 

the repair or exchange of PTC 

technology; and 

(v) The railroad must protect the route 

of the locomotive, locomotive consist, or 

train against conflicting operations and 

establish and comply with sufficient 

operating rules to protect against a trainto-train collision and the movement of 

a train through a switch left in the 

improper position. 

(vi) FRA may, in its discretion, 

approve exception criteria and 

conditions other than those outlined in 

paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(6)(i) through 

(v) of this section, in a PTCSP or an 

RFA, if the proposed criteria and 

conditions provide an equivalent or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2024 / Proposed Rules 85487 

greater level of safety than these default 

criteria and conditions. 

(vii) Before utilizing the default 

exception under paragraphs (b)(6)(i) 

through (v) of this section or the 

discretionary exception under 

paragraph (b)(6)(vi) of this section, the 

railroad must notify each person 

involved with the movement of the nonrevenue passenger equipment, including 

any dispatchers and train crews, and 

any roadway workers who may no 

longer work on that segment during the 

movement subject to this exception. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 236.1021 by adding 

paragraph (m)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 236.1021 Discontinuances, material 

modifications, and amendments. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(4) A host railroad must utilize the 

RFA process under this paragraph (m) to 

request and obtain FRA’s approval of a 

temporary PTC system outage, during 

which train movements may continue, 

including a short-term outage related to 

repair, maintenance, an infrastructure 

upgrade, or a capital project. A 

temporary PTC system outage includes, 

but is not limited to, any scenario when 

the onboard PTC apparatus or 

subsystem, wayside subsystem, 

communications subsystem, or back 

office subsystem would be disabled to 

perform a repair, maintenance, an 

infrastructure upgrade, or a capital 

project. 

(i) A railroad may temporarily disable 

PTC technology pursuant to paragraph 

(m)(4) of this section only after it 

obtains approval from the Director of 

FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems and 

Technology. 

(ii) In addition to the content 

requirements outlined in paragraph 

(m)(2) of this section, an RFA that seeks 

to disable a PTC system temporarily 

must also contain the following 

information: 

(A) The technical necessity for the 

proposed temporary outage to perform 

the repair, maintenance, infrastructure 

upgrade, or capital project; 

(B) The physical limits and PTC 

system functions that would be affected 

by the proposed temporary outage, and 

an analysis that demonstrates the 

affected physical limits and affected 

functions pose the least risk to railroad 

safety, compared to other options; 

(C) An explanation about how the 

proposed temporary outage is in the 

public interest and consistent with 

railroad safety; 

(D) The proposed timeframe of the 

temporary outage, and an analysis that 

demonstrates the proposed period of 

time poses the least risk to railroad 

safety, compared to other times; 

(E) A justification and an analysis that 

show how the proposed duration of the 

temporary outage is the minimum time 

necessary to complete the pertinent 

work, test the PTC system, and place the 

PTC system back into service without 

undue delay; 

(F) The type and frequency of rail 

operations that would continue during 

the proposed temporary outage, 

including those of the host railroad and 

each tenant railroad; 

(G) The applicable speed limit of any 

train that would operate during the 

proposed temporary outage and the 

speed limit prior to any proposed 

temporary outage, and any other 

operating restrictions; 

(H) The additional safety measures 

the host railroad and each tenant 

railroad must comply with during the 

proposed temporary outage, to ensure 

each type of PTC-preventable accident 

or incident does not occur. Specifically, 

such safety measures must be designed 

to prevent a train-to-train collision, an 

over-speed derailment, an incursion 

into an established work zone, and a 

movement of a train through a switch 

left in the wrong position; and 

(I) A confirmation that before 

initiating the proposed temporary 

outage (if FRA authorizes it), each 

impacted railroad will notify all 

applicable dispatchers, train crews, and 

roadway workers about the temporary 

PTC system outage, including the 

specific location and duration of the 

temporary outage, the additional safety 

measures with which the railroad must 

comply, and any actions the individual 

must take during the temporary outage. 

■ 4. Amend § 236.1029 by revising 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 236.1029 PTC system use and failures. 

* * * * * 

(g) Initialization failures. (1) Except as 

stated under paragraph (g)(3) or (4) of 

this section, when a PTC system fails to 

initialize as defined in § 236.1003, a 

train may proceed only according to the 

following operating restrictions: 

(i) For the first 24 hours, the train may 

proceed only as prescribed under 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 

section; and 

(ii) After the first 24 hours, the train 

may proceed only as prescribed under 

paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this 

section, and must not exceed restricted 

speed as defined in § 236.1003. 

(2) Each railroad operating in 

accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section will notify, as early as is 

possible, all dispatchers, train crews, 

and roadway workers about PTC 

system-level outages or failures that 

result in multiple trains’ PTC systems 

failing to initialize, thus resulting in 

trains proceeding in accordance with 

operating restrictions. Railroads must 

ensure that job safety briefings reflect 

such operations. 

(3) Notwithstanding the relief under 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section, when a 

PTC system fails to initialize due to loss 

of communications or lack of 

navigational information, the train must 

attempt to initialize the PTC system at 

the next forward, available location, 

including a main line, siding, yard, or 

station, whichever is closest. 

(4) The relief under paragraph (g)(1) of 

this section does not apply to a single 

train that experiences an onboard PTC 

system failure at the initial terminal. 

The purpose of this paragraph (g) is to 

address issues affecting multiple trains. 

(5) FRA reserves the right to impose 

additional operating restrictions and 

other conditions to address recurring 

issues that result in multiple trains’ PTC 

systems failing to initialize and to deny 

the relief under paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section for recurring issues that result in 

multiple trains’ PTC systems failing to 

initialize. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Amitabha Bose, 

Administrator. 

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

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1