[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85462-85487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24559]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8ffd9dadd96f6ddd9d4f8dcd7cc96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f486e6d6a21416a6e634f6b607b21686079">[email protected]</span></a>; or Stephanie Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone: 
202-834-0609, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cd9eb9a8bda5aca3a4a8e38ca3a9a8bfbea2a38da9a2b9e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="16456273667e77787f733857787273646579785672796238717960">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 FRA-certified PTC system on: (1) its main lines over which 
poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are transported, if 
the line carries five million or more gross tons of any annual traffic; 
(2) its main lines over which intercity or commuter rail passenger 
transportation is regularly provided; and (3) any other tracks the 
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by

[[Page 85463]]

regulation or order.\1\ By law, PTC systems must be designed to prevent 
certain accidents or incidents, including train-to-train collisions, 
over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and 
movements of trains through switches left in the wrong position.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432, 
section 104, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), as amended by the 
Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-73, 129 Stat. 568 (Oct. 29, 2015); the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, section 
11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312 (Dec. 4, 2015); and the Passenger Rail 
Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law 117-58, section 
22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 2021), codified as amended at 49 
U.S.C. 20157. See also 49 CFR part 236, subpart I.
    \2\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005 
(setting forth the technical specifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PTC-mandated main lines.\5\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR 
236.1005(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As this proposed rule primarily focuses on host railroads, 
FRA references the current number of PTC-mandated host railroads 
(37). A host railroad is ``a railroad that has effective operating 
control over a segment of track,'' and a tenant railroad is ``a 
railroad, other than a host railroad, operating on track upon which 
a PTC system is required.'' See 49 CFR 236.1003(b).
    \4\ FRA acknowledges that one Class I railroad (Canadian Pacific 
Railway) recently acquired a second Class I railroad (Kansas City 
Southern Railway). However, for purposes of FRA's PTC regulations 
and related oversight, FRA is currently counting these railroads 
separately, as they presently submit separate PTC filings and have 
indicated they will do so unless and until they fully integrate 
their PTC systems.
    \5\ Federal Railroad Administration, FRA Announces Landmark 
Achievement with Full Implementation of Positive Train Control (Dec. 
29, 2020), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-12/fra1920.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FRA's existing regulations, including 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(6), 
refer to repairing or exchanging a PTC system or component. To 
clarify, FRA notes that ``exchange'' is intended to refer to the 
industry's practice of, for example, swapping out a defective 
component for a functioning component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 85464]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(2).
    \8\ 79 FR 49693, 49706 (Aug. 22, 2014).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Form FRA F 6180.152, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Control No. 2130-0553; 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) (as amended by the 
Passenger Rail Expansion and Rail Safety Act of 2021, Public Law 
117-58, section 22414, 135 Stat. 429 (Nov. 15, 2021)).
    \11\ The referenced initialization failures exclude any 
initialization failures where the source or cause was the onboard 
subsystem, as proposed Sec.  236.1029(g)(3) excludes such 
initialization failures from receiving the flexibility afforded 
under proposed Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ An en route failure is a situation where a controlling 
locomotive experiences a ``PTC system failure or the PTC system is 
otherwise cut out while en route (i.e., after the train has departed 
its initial terminal).'' 49 CFR 236.1029(b) (emphasis added). FRA's 
current regulations provide that when an en route failure occurs, a 
train may continue operating in accordance with certain 
restrictions, including speed limits that are based on the 
underlying signal or train control system still in effect, outlined 
under 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(1) through (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule over a 10-
year period and estimated its benefits and costs, which are shown in 
the table below. The total estimated 10-year net benefits would be 
$81.8 million (discounted at 2 percent), and the annualized net 
benefits would be $9.1 million (discounted at 2 percent). The industry 
benefits associated with FRA's proposal to amend three provisions--
i.e., to introduce a new exception for certain non-revenue passenger 
equipment movements, improve the RFA process regarding temporary PTC 
system outages, and permit continued operations following certain 
initialization failures, subject to operating restrictions--would 
outweigh the industry costs and government administrative costs 
associated with FRA's proposal to expand the content requirements for 
RFAs related to temporary outages.

                       Table A--Total 10-Year Discounted Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits
                                               [2023 Dollars] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Present      Present      Present
            Category               value 2%     value 3%     value 7%    Annualized    Annualized    Annualized
                                     ($)          ($)          ($)         2%  ($)       3%  ($)       7%  ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), 
codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49 
CFR 1.89(b),

[[Page 85465]]

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, 
performance-based safety standards for PTC systems . . . including 
requirements to ensure that the development, functionality, 
architecture, installation, implementation, inspection, testing, 
operation, maintenance, repair, and modification of those PTC systems 
will achieve and maintain an acceptable level of safety.'' 49 CFR 
236.1001(a). FRA subsequently amended its PTC regulations via final 
rules published in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2021.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010).
    \15\ See 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 (May 14, 
2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016); and 
86 FR 40154 (July 27, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, non-confidential information for the public 
to review and on which to comment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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%20Waiver%20Special%20Approval%20Other%20Requests%20for%20Approval%20to%20FRA%20%28Dec%202022%29%20final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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; Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 
District of Oregon (TriMet); Trinity Railway Express (TRE); Union 
Pacific Railroad (UP); Utah Transit Authority (UTA FrontRunner); and 
Virginia Railway Express (VRE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 85466]]

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 236.1006 Equipping Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory

    Existing paragraph (b) in Sec.  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 non-
revenue 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, PTC-equipped 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-to-train 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Under 49 CFR 236.709, an absolute block is defined as a 
``block in which no train is permitted to enter while it is occupied 
by another train.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-revenue 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ To clarify, FRA notes that ``exchange'' is intended to 
refer to the industry's practice of, for example, swapping out a 
defective component for a functioning component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-revenue 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.

[[Page 85467]]

    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-by-case circumstances. Accordingly, rather than imposing an exact 
distance limit, FRA expects that the five conditions in proposed 
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (v) would sufficiently define the scope of 
this exception.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vi) provides that FRA may, in its 
discretion, approve alternative criteria and conditions, in a PTCSP or 
an RFA to a PTCSP, if the railroad demonstrates that the alternative 
criteria and conditions would provide an equivalent or greater level of 
safety than the default criteria and conditions. FRA is proposing to 
add this paragraph to mirror that discretionary element of the freight 
yard movements exception in existing paragraph (b)(5)(vii). Proposed 
paragraph (b)(6)(vi) provides the opportunity for railroads to propose 
alternative applications of this exception to FRA for review and 
approval. An intercity passenger railroad or commuter railroad must 
obtain FRA's approval only if it seeks to use alternative exception 
criteria or conditions under proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vi), whereas the 
standard exception for non-revenue passenger equipment movements would 
be immediately available for use for any movement that meets all 
default criteria and conditions in proposed paragraphs (b)(6)(i) 
through (v).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FRA notes that railroads would report any use of the 
proposed exception under 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6) in their Quarterly 
Reports of PTC 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Several railroads have expressed that their chief concern 
is a path forward for undertaking non-PTC-related capital projects 
that necessitate temporarily disabling the PTC system, and FRA is 
using the general term ``capital projects'' in this NPRM to avoid 
any ambiguity and clarify that this process applies to such 
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 85468]]

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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 short-term 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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Consistent with FRA's current practice, if an RFA is 
missing required information, an FRA PTC specialist will contact the 
railroad via email to inform the railroad of the missing, required 
content(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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

[[Page 85469]]

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 Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, now-expired 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The definition under 49 CFR 236.1003 also clarifies, ``For 
the types of PTC systems that do not initialize by design, a failed 
departure test is considered an initialization failure for purposes 
of the reporting requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h), unless the PTC 
system successfully passes the departure test during a subsequent 
attempt in the same location or before entering PTC-governed 
territory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) system-level outages that 
occurred in 2023 that caused trains to fail to initialize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Form FRA F 6180.152, OMB Control No. 2130-0553; 49 U.S.C. 
20157(m).
    \26\ The referenced initialization failures exclude any 
initialization failures where the source or cause was the onboard 
subsystem, as proposed paragraph (g)(3) excludes such initialization 
failures from receiving the flexibility afforded under proposed 
paragraph (g). FRA is citing to the relevant initialization failures 
where the source or cause was, for example, the back office, 
wayside, or communications subsystems because those types of issues 
would generally impact more than one train and would be within the 
scope of this proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  236.1003, a train may proceed, 
during the first 24 hours, only as prescribed under existing paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (6) of Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 85470]]

within one-half the range of vision, but not exceeding 20 miles per 
hour.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Specifically, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4) through (6) require 
notifying the designated railroad officer of the failure or cut out 
as soon as safe and practicable, impose further operating 
restrictions if the PTC system is the exclusive method of delivering 
mandatory directives, and prohibit operating farther than the next 
forward designated location for the repair or exchange of onboard 
PTC apparatuses, if the failure or cut out was the result of a 
defective onboard PTC apparatus.
    \29\ 49 CFR 236.1003 (citing to the definition in subpart G, at 
49 CFR 236.812).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)<SUP>TM</SUP>. 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 Sec.  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 
PTC-governed 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 Sec.  
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Or in NJT's case, the Advanced Speed Enforcement System II 
(ASES II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 self-executing, 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

[[Page 85471]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 88 FR 21879 (Apr. 11, 2023), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-07760/modernizing-regulatory-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 (Nov. 9, 
2023), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf. See Section 4, Developing an Analytic 
Baseline, pages 11-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Present      Present      Present
            Category               value 2%     value 3%     value 7%    Annualized    Annualized    Annualized
                                     ($)          ($)          ($)         2% ($)        3% ($)        7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec.  236.1006(b)(6) 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 a PTC system. To ensure rail safety, FRA is proposing to 
impose five 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, 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 non-operative, 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, PTC-equipped 
equipment to a maintenance facility or yard.

[[Page 85472]]

    Based on consultation with FRA subject matter experts, FRA 
calculated the potential benefits for train operations, under proposed 
Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 87 FR 43467 (July 21, 2022).
    \36\ Here, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates that this proposed provision 
would result in potential benefits of $1 million, at the 2-percent 
discount, or on an annual basis, $107,100, at the 2 percent discount.

Table C--Potential Benefits From Permitting Non-Revenue Passenger Equipment To Operate to Maintenance Facilities
                                      or Yards Without PTC--10-Year Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Undiscounted    Present value   Present value   Present value
                      Year                          benefit ($)       2% ($)          3% ($)          7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
236.1021(m)(4) in the future.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics, Transportation Economic Trends (2022), available at 
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/5h3f-jnbe#transportation-fares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ By ``train movement,'' FRA is referring to the movement or 
operation of a train.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 85473]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                      Table D--RFA Filings Involving Temporary PTC System Outages--Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    RFA average
                                     Estimated    Average number   Average cost   Average number      benefit
                                  number of RFAs     of train       per fare or    of passengers   (adjusted for
                                     per year        movements    train movement     per train    reduced speed)
                                                   during outage        ($)                             ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTC System Outages (Hours)--                   2               5             250             N/A           2,076
 Freight Railroads..............
PTC System Outages (Hours)--                  10              12              11             200         197,165
 Passenger or Commuter Railroads
PTC System Outages (Days)--                    3           1,700              11             200       8,379,494
 Passenger or Commuter Railroads
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................              15  ..............  ..............  ..............       8,578,734
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates railroads will submit 
approximately 150 RFAs under proposed Sec.  236.1021(m)(4) with 
potential benefits of $78.6 million, at the 2-percent discount, or $8.8 
million, at the 2-percent discount, on an annual basis.

   Table E--Potential Benefits From Continuous Train Operations Associated With RFAs for Temporary PTC System
                                            Outages--10-Year Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Undiscounted    Present value   Present value   Present value
                      Year                              ($)           2% ($)          3% ($)          7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 85474]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Average
                                                     Estimated     Average cost   Average number      benefit
                  Railroad type                       trains        per fare or    of passengers   (adjusted for
                                                     impacted     train movement     per train    reduced speed)
                                                     annually                                           ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec.  
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Freight     Passenger
             Year                railroads    railroads   Undiscounted     Present       Present       Present
                                    ($)          ($)       benefit ($)  value 2% ($)  value 3% ($)  value 7% ($)
                                          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 fuel-powered 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 fuel-
efficient than a fuel-powered truck.\43\ Similarly, passenger trains 
are up to 46% more efficient than driving fuel-powered vehicles.\44\ 
However, policies promoting electric vehicle use may lead to increased 
adoption of electric vehicles, which could reduce the anticipated 
emission benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Federal Railroad Administration, FRA Announces Climate 
Challenge to Meet Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 (Apr. 
22, 2022), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/newsroom/press-releases/federal-railroad-administration-announces-climate-challenge-meet-net-zero-0.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 85475]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Throughout this document, the dollar equivalent cost or 
benefit for the industry is derived from the Surface Transportation 
Board's 2023 Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate 
employee group hourly wage rate, which includes an additional 75 
percent for fringe benefits and overhead. For instance, the 2023 
hourly wage rate of $67.69 is burdened by 75 percent ($67.69 x 1.75 
= $118.46).

                        Table H--Costs of RFAs to PTC Systems Involving Temporary Outages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Total cost of
                                                    Hourly wage   Number of RFAs     Number of     RFAs per year
                                                     rate ($)        per year      hours per RFA        ($)
                                                               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 Sec.  236.1021(m)(4). FRA estimates that 
the total cost to the railroad industry would be $1.5 million, or 
$168,557 annualized, discounted at 2 percent.

                                             Table I--Total Costs of RFAs About Temporary PTC System Outages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Cost of new     Cost of     Undiscounted
                               Year                                   RFAs per    revised RFAs   cost of RFAs      Present       Present       Present
                                                                        year      per year ($)        ($)       value 2% ($)  value 3% ($)  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 85476]]



               Table J--Government Administrative Costs From RFA Review and Approval--Annual Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Average number    Hourly wage      Number of    Estimated RFAs
                                   of employees    rate ($) \46\   hours per RFA     per year     Total cost ($)
                                                               a               b               c   d = a * b * c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Safety Specialist (GS-                1           98.77               6              15           8,889
 13)--All locations.............
Railroad Safety Specialist (GS-                1          116.71               3              15           5,252
 14)--All locations.............
Railroad Safety Specialist (GS-                1          116.71               2              15           3,501
 14)--All locations.............
Railroad Safety Specialist                     1          147.96               1              15           2,219
 Supervisor (GS-15)--DC Metro...
Railroad Safety Specialist                     1          175.00               1              15           2,625
 Senior Executive--DC Metro.....
Attorney (GS-15)--DC Metro......               1          147.96               2              15           4,439
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annual Total Cost...........  ..............  ..............              15              15          26,926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ U.S. Office of Personnel Management, ``2023 General 
Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Tables,'' available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2023/general-schedule/. The base salary is burdened with an additional 75 
percent to account for fringe benefits and overhead.

              Table K--Government Administrative Costs from RFA Review and Approval--10-Year Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Undiscounted
                                                   government      Present value   Present value   Present value
                     Year                        administrative       2% ($)          3% ($)          7% ($)
                                                    cost ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Present      Present      Present
            Category               value 2%     value 3%     value 7%    Annualized    Annualized    Annualized
                                     ($)          ($)          ($)         2% ($)        3% ($)        7% ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 PTC-mandated 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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 85478]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  236.1029(g).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this 
proposed rule to OMB \47\ under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995.\48\ Please note that any new or revised requirements, as proposed 
in this NPRM, are marked by asterisks (*) in the table below. The 
sections that contain the proposed and current information collection 
requirements under OMB Control No. 2130-0553 and the estimated time to 
fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ FRA will be using the OMB control number 2130-0553 for this 
information collection.
    \48\ 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total cost
         CFR section             Respondent      Total annual     Average time     Total annual    equivalent in
                                  universe        responses       per response     burden hours         USD
                                               (A)............  (B)............  (C = A * B)....   (D = C * wage
                                                                                                          rates)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
235.6(c)--Expedited           42 railroads...  10 expedited     5.00 hours.....  50.00 hours....       $4,456.50
 application for approval of                    applications.
 certain changes described
 in this section.
--Copy of expedited           42 railroads...  10 copies......  30.00 minutes..  5.00 hours.....          445.65
 application to labor union.
--Railroad letter rescinding  42 railroads...  1 letter.......  6.00 hours.....  6.00 hours.....          534.78
 its request for expedited
 application of certain
 signal system changes.
--Revised application for     42 railroads...  1 application..  5.00 hours.....  5.00 hours.....          445.65
 certain signal system
 changes.
--Copy of railroad revised    42 railroads...  1 copy.........  30.00 minutes..  0.50 hours.....           44.57
 application to labor union.
236.1--Railroad maintained    700 railroads..  25 plan changes  15.00 minutes..  6.25 hours.....          557.06
 signal plans at all
 interlockings, automatic
 signal locations, and
 controlled points, and
 updates to ensure accuracy.
236.15--Designation of        700 railroads..  10 timetable     30.00 minutes..  5.00 hours.....          445.65
 automatic block, traffic                       instructions.
 control, train stop, train
 control, cab signal, and
 PTC territory in timetable
 instructions.
236.18--Software management   2 railroads....  2 plans........  160.00 hours...  320.00 hours...       28,521.60
 control plan--New railroads.
236.23(e)--The names,         700 railroads..  2 modifications  1.00 hour......  2.00 hours.....          178.26
 indications, and aspects of
 roadway and cab signals
 shall be defined in the
 carrier's Operating Rule
 Book or Special
 Instructions. Modifications
 shall be filed with FRA
 within 30 days after such
 modifications become
 effective.
236.587(d)--Certification     742 railroads..  4,562,500 train  5.00 seconds...  6,336.81 hours.      564,799.88
 and departure test results.                    departures.
236.905(a)--Railroad Safety   2 railroads....  2 RSPPs........  40.00 hours....  80.00 hours....        7,130.40
 Program Plan (RSPP)--New
 railroads.
236.913(a)--Filing and        742 railroads..  1 joint plan...  2,000.00 hours.  2,000.00 hours.      236,920.00
 approval of a joint Product
 Safety Plan (PSP).
--(c)(1) Informational        742 railroads..  0.5 filings/     50.00 hours....  25.00 hours....        2,228.25
 filing/petition for special                    approval
 approval.                                      petitions.

[[Page 85479]]

 
--(c)(2) Response to FRA's    742 railroads..  0.25 data calls/ 5.00 hours.....  1.25 hour......          111.41
 request for further data                       documents.
 after informational filing.
--(d)(1)(ii) Response to      742 railroads..  0.25 data calls/ 1.00 hour......  0.25 hours.....           22.28
 FRA's request for further                      documents.
 information within 15 days
 after receipt of the Notice
 of Product Development
 (NOPD).
--(d)(1)(iii) Technical       742 railroads..  0.25 technical   5.00 hours.....  1.25 hour......          111.41
 consultation by FRA with                       consultations.
 the railroad on the design
 and planned development of
 the product.
--(d)(1)(v) Railroad          742 railroads..  0.25 petitions.  1.00 hour......  0.25 hours.....           22.28
 petition to FRA for final
 approval of NOPD.
--(d)(2)(ii) Response to      742 railroads..  1 request......  50.00 hours....  50.00 hours....        4,456.50
 FRA's request for
 additional information
 associated with a petition
 for approval of PSP or PSP
 amendment.
--(e) Comments to FRA on      742 railroads..  0.5 comments/    10.00 hours....  5.00 hours.....          445.65
 railroad informational                         letters.
 filing or special approval
 petition.
--(h)(3)(i) Railroad          742 railroads..  2 amendments...  20.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        3,565.20
 amendment to PSP.
--(j) Railroad field testing/ 742 railroads..  1 field test/    100.00 hours...  100.00 hours...        8,913.00
 information filing document.                   document.
236.917(a)--Railroad          13 railroads     13 PSP safety    160.00 hours...  2,080.00 hours.      185,390.40
 retention of records:         with PSP.        results.
 results of tests and
 inspections specified in
 the PSP.
--(b) Railroad report that    13 railroads...  1 report.......  40.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        3,565.20
 frequency of safety-
 relevant hazards exceeds
 threshold set forth in PSP.
--(b)(3) Railroad final       13 railroads...  1 report.......  10.00 hours....  10.00 hours....          891.30
 report to FRA on the
 results of the analysis and
 countermeasures taken to
 reduce the frequency of
 safety-relevant hazards.
236.919(a)--Railroad          13 railroads...  1 OMM update...  40.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        3,565.20
 Operations and Maintenance
 Manual (OMM).
--(b) Plans for proper        13 railroads...  1 plan update..  40.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        3,565.20
 maintenance, repair,
 inspection, and testing of
 safety-critical products.
--(c) Documented hardware,    13 railroads...  1 revision.....  40.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        3,565.20
 software, and firmware
 revisions in OMM.
236.921 and 923(a)--Railroad  13 railroads...  1 program......  40.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        3,565.20
 Training and Qualification
 Program.
236.923(b)--Training records  13 railroads...  350 records....  10.00 minutes..  58.33 hours....        5,198.95
 retained in a designated
 location and available to
 FRA upon request.
236.1001(b)--A railroad's     38 railroads...  1 rule or        40.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        4,738.40
 additional or more                             instruction.
 stringent rules than
 prescribed under 49 CFR
 part 236, subpart I.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(i)-(ii)--A       The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1009(a) and
 railroad's submission of                                          236.1021.
 estimated traffic
 projections for the next 5
 years, to support a
 request, in a PTCIP or an
 RFA, not to implement a PTC
 system based on reductions
 in rail traffic.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(iii)--A        7 Class I        1 exception      40.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        3,565.20
 railroad's request for a de   railroads.       request.
 minimis exception, in a
 PTCIP or an RFA, based on a
 minimal quantity of PIH
 materials traffic.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(5) A railroad's           The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1009(a) and
 request to remove a line                                          236.1021.
 from its PTCIP based on the
 sale of the line to another
 railroad and any related
 request for FRA review from
 the acquiring railroad.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 85480]]

 
--(g)(1)(i) A railroad's      38 railroads...  45 routing       8.00 hours.....  360.00 hours...       32,086.80
 request to temporarily                         extension
 reroute trains not equipped                    requests.
 with a PTC system onto PTC-
 equipped tracks and vice
 versa during certain
 emergencies.
--(g)(1)(ii) A railroad's     38 railroads...  45 written or    2.00 hours.....  90.00 hours....        8,021.70
 written or telephonic                          telephonic
 notice to FRA of the                           notices.
 conditions necessitating
 emergency rerouting and
 other required information
 under 236.1005(i).
--(g)(2) A railroad's         38 railroads...  720 requests...  8.00 hours.....  5,760.00 hours.      513,388.80
 temporary rerouting request
 due to planned maintenance
 not exceeding 30 days.
--(h)(1) A response to any    38 railroads...  10 responses...  2.00 hours.....  20.00 hours....        1,782.60
 request for additional
 information from FRA, prior
 to commencing rerouting due
 to planned maintenance.
--(h)(2) A railroad's         38 railroads...  160 requests...  8.00 hours.....  1,280.00 hours.      114,086.40
 request to temporarily
 reroute trains due to
 planned maintenance
 exceeding 30 days.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)--A                     The paperwork requirement is no longer applicable.
 progress report due by
 December 31, 2020, and by
 December 31, 2022, from any
 Class II or III railroad
 utilizing a temporary
 exception under this
 section.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(5)(vii) A railroad's        The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1015 and
 request to utilize                                                236.1021.
 different yard movement
 procedures, as part of a
 freight yard movements
 exception--.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(6) Establishing a new       There is no paperwork requirement associated with this proposed provision.
 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*).
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1007(b)(1)--For any high-     The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1015 and
 speed service over 90 miles                                       236.1021.
 per hour (mph), a
 railroad's PTC Safety Plan
 (PTCSP) must additionally
 establish that the PTC
 system was designed and
 will be operated to meet
 the fail-safe operation
 criteria in appendix C.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c) An HSR-125 document     38 railroads...  1 HSR-125        3,200.00 hours.  3,200.00 hours.      379,072.00
 accompanying a host                            document.
 railroad's PTCSP, for
 operations over 125 mph.
--(c)(1) A railroad's         38 railroads...  0.33 requests..  8,000.00 hours.  2,640.00 hours.      235,303.20
 request for approval to use
 foreign service data, prior
 to submission of a PTCSP.
--(d) A railroad's request    38 railroads...  1 request......  1,000.00 hours.  1,000.00 hours.      118,460.00
 in a PTCSP that FRA excuse
 compliance with one or more
 of this section's
 requirements.
236.1009(a)(2)--A PTCIP if a  264 railroads..  1 PTCIP........  535.00 hours...  535.00 hours...       63,376.10
 railroad becomes a host
 railroad of a main line
 requiring the
 implementation of a PTC
 system, including the
 information under 49 U.S.C.
 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR
 236.1011.
--(a)(3) Any new PTCIPs       264 railroads..  1 joint PTCIP..  267.00 hours...  267.00 hours...       31,628.82
 jointly filed by a host
 railroad and a tenant
 railroad.
--(b)(1) A host railroad's    264 railroads..  1 document.....  8.00 hours.....  8.00 hours.....          713.04
 submission, individually or
 jointly with a tenant
 railroad or PTC system
 supplier, of an unmodified
 Type Approval.

[[Page 85481]]

 
--(b)(2) A host railroad's    264 railroads..  1 PTCDP........  2,000.00 hours.  2,000.00 hours.      178,260.00
 submission of a PTCDP with
 the information required
 under 49 CFR 236.1013,
 requesting a Type Approval
 for a PTC system that
 either does not have a Type
 Approval or has a Type
 Approval that requires one
 or more variances.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(d) A host railroad's               The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.   236.1015.
 submission of a PTCSP.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e)(3) Any request for      38 railroads...  10               8.00 hours.....  80.00 hours....        7,130.40
 full or partial                                confidentialit
 confidentiality of a PTCIP,                    y requests.
 Notice of Product Intent
 (NPI), PTCDP, or PTCSP.
--(h) Any responses or        38 railroads...  36 interviews    4.00 hours.....  144.00 hours...       12,834.72
 documents submitted in                         and documents.
 connection with FRA's use
 of its authority to
 monitor, test, and inspect
 processes, procedures,
 facilities, documents,
 records, design and testing
 materials, artifacts,
 training materials and
 programs, and any other
 information used in the
 design, development,
 manufacture, test,
 implementation, and
 operation of the PTC
 system, including
 interviews with railroad
 personnel.
--(j)(2)(iii) Any additional  38 railroads...  1 set of         400.00 hours...  400.00 hours...       35,652.00
 information provided in                        additional
 response to FRA's                              information.
 consultations or inquiries
 about a PTCDP or PTCSP.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1011(a) through (b)--     The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1009(a) and (e)
 PTCIP content requirements.                                     and 236.1021.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Any public comment on   38 railroads...  2 public         8.00 hours.....  16.00 hours....        1,426.08
 PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and                      comments.
 PTCSPs.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1013--PTCDP and NPI        The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1009(b), (c),
 content requirements.                                       and (e) and 236.1021.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1015--Any new host        264 railroads..  1 PTCSP........  8,000.00 hours.  8,000.00 hours.         713,040
 railroad's PTCSP meeting
 all content requirements
 under 49 CFR 236.1015.
--(g) A PTCSP for a PTC       38 railroads...  0.33 PTCSPs....  3,200.00 hours.  1,056.00 hours.       94,121.28
 system replacing an
 existing certified PTC
 system.
--(h) A quantitative risk     38 railroads...  0.33             800.00 hours...  264.00 hours...       23,530.32
 assessment, if FRA requires                    assessments.
 one to be submitted.
236.1017(a)--An independent   38 railroads...  0.33             1,600.00 hours.  528.00 hours...       62,546.88
 third-party assessment, if                     assessments.
 FRA requires one to be
 conducted and submitted.
--(b) A railroad's written    38 railroads...  0.33 written     8.00 hours.....  2.64 hours.....          235.30
 request to confirm whether                     requests.
 a specific entity qualifies
 as an independent third
 party.
--Further information         38 railroads...  0.33 sets of     20.00 hours....  6.60 hours.....          588.26
 provided to FRA upon                           additional
 request.                                       information.
--(d) A request not to        38 railroads...  0.33 requests..  20.00 hours....  6.60 hours.....          588.26
 provide certain documents
 otherwise required under
 appendix F for an
 independent, third-party
 assessment.
--(e) A request for FRA to    38 railroads...  0.33 requests..  32.00 hours....  10.56 hours....          941.21
 accept information
 certified by a foreign
 regulatory entity for
 purposes of 49 CFR 236.1017
 and/or 236.1009(i).
236.1019(b)--A request for a  38 railroads...  1 MTEA.........  160.00 hours...  160.00 hours...       14,260.80
 passenger terminal main
 line track exception (MTEA).

[[Page 85482]]

 
--(c)(1) A request for a      38 railroads...  1 request and/   160.00 hours...  160.00 hours...       14,260.80
 limited operations                             or plan.
 exception (based on
 restricted speed, temporal
 separation, or a risk
 mitigation plan).
--(c)(2) A request for a      10 railroads...  1 request......  160.00 hours...  160.00 hours...       14,260.80
 limited operations
 exception for a non-Class
 I, freight railroad's track.
--(c)(3) A request for a      7 railroads....  1 request......  160.00 hours...  160.00 hours...       14,260.80
 limited operations
 exception for a Class I
 railroad's track.
--(d) A railroad's collision  38 railroads...  0.33 collision   50.00 hours....  16.50 hours....        1,470.65
 hazard analysis in support                     hazard
 of an MTEA, if FRA requires                    analyses.
 one to be conducted and
 submitted.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(e) Any temporal                 The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.   236.1019(c)(1).
 separation procedures
 utilized under the 49 CFR
 236.1019(c)(1)(ii)
 exception.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1021(a) through (d)--An   38 railroads...  10 RFAs........  160.00 hours...  1,600.00 hours.      142,608.00
 RFA to a railroad's PTCIP
 or PTCDP.
--(e) Any public comments,    5 Interested     10 RFA public    16.00 hours....  160.00 hours...       14,260.80
 if an RFA includes a          parties.         comments.
 request for approval of a
 discontinuance or material
 modification of a signal or
 train control system and a
 Federal Register notice is
 published.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(l) Any jointly filed RFA    The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.   236.1021(a) through (d)
 to a PTCDP or PTCSP.                                               and (m).
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(m) Any RFA to a            38 railroads...  15 RFAs........  80.00 hours....  1,200.0 hours..      106,956.00
 railroad's PTCSP.
--(m)(4) Any RFA to a         38 railroads...  15 RFAs........  90.00 hours....  1,350.0 hours..      159,921.00
 railroad's PTC system that
 involves a proposed
 temporary PTC system outage
 (*New proposed provision*).
--(m) A railroad's revised    38 railroads...  1 revised RFA..  45.00 hours....  45.00 hours....        5,330.70
 RFA, if needed.
236.1023(a)--A railroad's     38 railroads...  2 updated lists  8.00 hours.....  16.00 hours....        1,426.08
 PTC Product Vendor List,
 which must be continually
 updated.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(1) The railroad shall       The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1015 and
 specify within its PTCSP                                          236.1021.
 all contractual
 arrangements between a
 railroad and its hardware
 and software suppliers or
 vendors for certain
 immediate notifications.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b)(2) through (3) A        10 vendors or    10               8.00 hours.....  80.00 hours....        7,130.40
 vendor's or supplier's        suppliers.       notifications.
 notification, upon receipt
 of a report of any safety-
 critical failure of its
 product, to any railroads
 using the product.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(c)(1) through (2) A            The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1015 and
 railroad's process and                                            236.1021.
 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.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 85483]]

 
--(d) A railroad's            38 railroads...  2.50             16.00 hours....  40.00 hours....        3,565.20
 submission, to the                             notifications.
 applicable vendor or
 supplier, of the railroad's
 procedures for action upon
 notification of a safety-
 critical failure, upgrade,
 patch, or revision to the
 PTC system and actions to
 be taken until it is
 adjusted, repaired, or
 replaced.
--(e) A railroad's database   38 railroads...  38 database      16.00 hours....  608.00 hours...       54,191.04
 of all safety-relevant                         updates.
 hazards, which must be
 maintained after the PTC
 system is placed in service.
--(e)(1) A railroad's         38 railroads...  8 notifications  7.50 hours.....  60.00 hours....        5,347.80
 notification to the vendor
 or supplier and FRA if the
 frequency of a safety-
 relevant hazard exceeds the
 threshold set forth in the
 PTCDP and PTCSP, and about
 the failure, malfunction,
 or defective condition that
 decreased or eliminated the
 safety functionality--Form
 FRA F 6180.179--Errors and
 Malfunctions Notification.
--(e)(2) Continual updates    38 railroads...  1 update.......  8.00 hours.....  8.00 hours.....          713.04
 about any and all
 subsequent failures.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(f) Any notifications that   The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.   236.1023(e)(1), (g), and
 must be submitted to FRA                                          (h)(1)(2).
 under 49 CFR 236.1023.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) A railroad's and        38 railroads...  0.50 reports...  40.00 hours....  20.00 hours....        1,782.60
 vendor's or supplier's
 report, upon FRA request,
 about an investigation of
 an accident or service
 difficulty due to a
 manufacturing or design
 defect and their corrective
 actions.
--(h) A PTC system vendor's   10 vendors.....  20 reports.....  7.50 hours.....  150.00 hours...          13,370
 or supplier's reports of
 any safety-relevant
 failures, defective
 conditions, previously
 unidentified hazards,
 recommended mitigation
 actions, and any affected
 railroads--Form FRA F
 6180.179--Errors and
 Malfunctions Notification.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(k) A report of a failure    The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.   236.1023(e)(1), (g), and
 of a PTC system resulting                                (h)(1)(2) and 49 CFR 233.7.
 in a more favorable aspect
 than intended or other
 condition hazardous to the
 movement of a train,
 including the reports
 required under part 233.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--236.1029(b)(4)--A report    150 host and     1,000 reports..  30.00 minutes..  500.00 hours...          44,565
 of an en route failure,       tenant
 other failure, or cut out     railroads.
 to a designated railroad
 officer of the host
 railroad.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(g) Reintroducing a          In this proposed provision, there is no paperwork requirement. However, under an
 provision regarding              existing regulation, FRA requires host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC
 initialization failures        systems to submit Quarterly Reports of PTC System Performance, using Form FRA F
 that previously expired in     6180.152, under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR 236.1029(h). These reports include
 December 2022, and                          information about railroads' initialization failures.
 establishing operating
 restrictions under which
 railroads may continue to
 operate safely when a PTC
 system fails to initialize
 (* New proposed requirement
 *).
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(h) Form FRA F 6180.152--   38 railroads...  148 reports....  32.00 hours....  4,736.00 hours.      422,119.68
 Report of PTC System
 Performance.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 85484]]

 
236.1031(a)-(d)--A               FRA anticipates that there will be zero requests for expedited certification
 railroad's Request for                                     during this 3-year ICR.
 Expedited Certification.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1033--Communications and      The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1009 and
 security requirements.                                            236.1015.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1035(a) through (b)--A    38 railroads...  10 requests....  40.00 hours....  400.00 hours...       35,652.00
 railroad's request for
 authorization to field test
 an uncertified PTC system
 and any responses to FRA's
 testing conditions.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1037(a)(1) through (2)--      The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1009 and
 Records retention.                                                236.1015.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(a)(3) through (4) Records      The burden for this requirement is included under Sec.  Sec.   236.1039 and
 retention.                                                       236.1043(b).
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--(b) Results of inspections  38 railroads...  800 records....  1.00 hour......  800.00 hours...       71,304.00
 and tests specified in a
 railroad's PTCSP and PTCDP.
--(c) A contractor's records  20 contractors.  1,600 records..  10.00 minutes..  266.67 hours...       23,768.30
 related to the testing,
 maintenance, or operation
 of a PTC system maintained
 at a designated office.
--(d)(3) A railroad's final   38 railroads...  8 final reports  160.00 hours...  1,280 hours....      114,086.40
 report of the results of
 the analysis and
 countermeasures taken to
 reduce the frequency of
 safety-related hazards
 below the threshold set
 forth in the PTCSP.
236.1039(a) through (c),      38 railroads...  2 OMM updates..  10.00 hours....  20.00 hours....        1,782.60
 (e)--A railroad's PTC
 Operations and Maintenance
 Manual (OMM), which must be
 maintained and available to
 FRA upon request.
--(d) A railroad's            38 railroads...  1 identified     1.00 hour......  1.00 hour......           89.13
 identification of a PTC                        new component.
 system's safety-critical
 components, including spare
 equipment.
236.1041(a) through (b) and   38 railroads...  2 programs.....  10.00 hours....  20.00 hours....        1,782.60
 236.1043(a)--A railroad's
 PTC Training and
 Qualification Program
 (i.e., a written plan).
236.1043(b)--Training         150 host and     150 PTC          1.00 hour......  150.00 hours...       13,369.50
 records retained in a         tenant           training
 designated location and       railroads.       records.
 available to FRA upon
 request.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................  742 railroads    4,567,839        N/A............  53,309 hours...       5,014,416
                               and 10 vendors.  responses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ccadbea0a9b8b8a9e2a1b9bfbfa5a2abb8a3a28ca8a3b8e2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0667746a63727263286b7375756f68617269684662697228616970">[email protected]</span></a> or telephone: 
(571) 609-1285, or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, at email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d9dcd2ddddd69dc0c4d2d5d5dcc1d7f3d7dcc79dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="701a1f111e1e155e03071116161f021430141f045e171f06">[email protected]</span></a> 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.

[[Page 85485]]

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

[[Page 85486]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Executive Order 14096 ``Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice,'' issued on April 26, 2023, 
supplements Executive Order 12898, but is not currently referenced 
in DOT Order 5610.2C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ As noted above, passenger trains are up to 46% more 
efficient than driving and 34% more efficient than flying. Also, a 
single freight train can be up to 75% more fuel-efficient than a 
truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  236.1006 by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 non-
revenue 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 train-to-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

[[Page 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 non-revenue 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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  236.1021 by adding paragraph (m)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
0
4. Amend Sec.  236.1029 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>