2024-24559. Positive Train Control Systems

Table A—Total 10-Year Discounted Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits

[2023 Dollars] ¹

Category	Present value 2% ($)	Present value 3% ($)	Present value 7% ($)	Annualized 2% ($)	Annualized 3% ($)	Annualized 7% ($)
Industry Benefits	83,534,444	80,105,191	68,518,285	9,299,600	9,390,772	9,755,462
Total Costs	1,760,775	1,688,492	1,444,258	196,021	197,943	205,630
Industry Costs	1,514,075	1,451,919	1,241,905	168,557	170,209	176,819
Government Administrative Costs	246,700	236,573	202,353	27,464	27,734	28,811
Net Benefits 2	81,773,669	78,416,699	67,074,027	9,103,579	9,192,829	9,549,832
1  Numbers in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and benefits are calculated in this analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present value at the particular discount rate is: 1/(1+r)t , where “r” is the discount rate, and “t” is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used in this analysis.
2  Net Benefits = Industry Benefits − (Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and operating PTC systems.

II. Background

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations

Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required the Secretary to prescribe PTC regulations necessary to implement the statutory mandate, including regulations specifying the essential technical functionalities of PTC systems and how FRA certifies PTC systems.^[13] The Secretary delegated to the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration the authority to carry out the functions and exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 1.89(b).

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

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]

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).

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. ( print page 85466)

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 236.1006 Equipping Locomotives Operating in PTC Territory

Existing paragraph (b) in § 236.1006 contains a list of exceptions to the general requirement under paragraph (a) that each locomotive, locomotive consist, or train that operates on any PTC-governed track segment “be controlled by a locomotive equipped with an onboard PTC apparatus that is fully operative and functioning in accordance with the applicable PTCSP approved under this subpart.” 49 CFR 236.1006(a), (b)(1) through (5).

FRA proposes to add a new exception, under proposed paragraph (b)(6), to permit non-revenue passenger equipment to operate to maintenance facilities or yards, without being governed by PTC technology, under certain conditions. Currently, a similar exception is available only to freight railroads under existing paragraph (b)(5) of this section. The purpose of new proposed paragraph (b)(6) is to extend that type of exception to movements of certain non-revenue passenger equipment, which would include equipment owned or controlled by an intercity passenger railroad or commuter railroad.

The sole purpose of new proposed paragraph (b)(6) is to enable 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.

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.

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. ( print 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]

Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(6)(vii) imposes a notification requirement that a railroad must satisfy before moving non-revenue passenger equipment pursuant to this exception. Specifically, this paragraph proposes that before utilizing the default exception under paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (v) or the discretionary exception under paragraph (b)(6)(vi), the railroad must notify each person involved with the movement of the non-revenue passenger equipment, including any dispatchers and train crews, in addition to any roadway workers who may no longer work on that segment during the movement subject to this exception.

Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, Material Modifications, and Amendments

On December 31, 2022, the regulatory provision under 49 CFR 236.1029(g)(3) expired, which previously permitted a railroad to temporarily disable its PTC system when necessary to perform PTC system repair or maintenance, after notifying an FRA regional office. As § 236.1029(g)(3) has expired, a simple notification to FRA no longer suffices, and a railroad must obtain FRA's approval through an RFA pursuant to 49 CFR 236.1021(m) before a railroad temporarily disables its PTC system and continues rail operations.

The purpose of existing § 236.1021, in relevant part, is to prohibit a railroad from making certain changes to its PTC system or disabling or discontinuing its PTC system, unless the railroad first submits an RFA to its PTC system with certain information and obtains FRA's approval.

This NPRM proposes to add a new paragraph (m)(4) to § 236.1021 to clarify that the RFA process under existing paragraph (m) applies to a case where a railroad seeks to temporarily disable its PTC system, and to continue operations during that time, to facilitate repair, maintenance, infrastructure upgrades, or capital projects. During FRA's meetings with AAR, APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and their member railroads in November 2023 and February 2024 to discuss this NPRM, these four associations and several railroads, including all Class I railroads, Alaska Railroad, Amtrak, G&W, Metra, Metro-North, Metrolink, and SFRTA, expressed general support for FRA's proposal to revise existing paragraph (m) to acknowledge explicitly that it covers RFAs to PTC systems involving temporary outages.

Specifically, proposed paragraph (m)(4) clarifies that a host railroad must utilize the RFA process under paragraph (m) to request and obtain FRA's approval of a temporary PTC system outage, during which train movements may continue, including a short-term outage related to repair, maintenance, an infrastructure upgrade, or a capital project.^[21] To provide non-exhaustive examples of what a temporary PTC system outage includes, proposed paragraph (m)(4) clarifies that the term includes, but is not limited to, any scenario when the onboard PTC apparatus or subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, or back office subsystem would be disabled. FRA interprets the term “disabled” broadly and acknowledges the industry also uses the verb “disengage” interchangeably in this context.

Consistent with the current process under existing paragraph (m), proposed paragraph (m)(4)(i) provides that a railroad may temporarily disable PTC technology pursuant to this paragraph only after it obtains approval from the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.

Based on FRA's experience reviewing RFAs involving temporary outages throughout 2023 and 2024 to date, FRA found that the current content requirements for RFAs to PTC systems under existing paragraph (m)(2) do not yield sufficient information for FRA to assess the full scope and circumstances of each proposed temporary outage. Accordingly, proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I) identify nine additional content elements this type of RFA must include, in addition to the standard content requirements under paragraph (m)(2), which apply to a broader cross-section of RFAs to PTC systems and PTCSPs.

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(A) would require this specific type of RFA to describe the necessity for the proposed temporary outage. For example, in 2023 and 2024, railroads have filed RFAs seeking to temporarily disable a PTC system to facilitate the installation of automatic train control or a new interlocking, or to execute an upgrade of a computer-aided dispatch system, a back office server migration or replacement, or an electrical infrastructure upgrade. This section of the RFA would explain why temporarily ( print 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 § 236.1021(f) requires FRA to determine whether granting a request is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety, and it is important for an RFA to provide such information.

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(D) would require the railroad to provide the proposed timeframe of the temporary outage and an analysis that demonstrates the proposed period poses the least risk to railroad safety, compared to other times. This proposal mirrors a similar requirement under former § 236.1029(g)(3)(ii), which expired in December 2022. FRA has seen railroads prudently identify the timeslot of a specific day of the week with the least traffic, which is what FRA expects this content requirement will help ensure in future RFAs.

As a note, FRA has also seen cases where a railroad avoids needing to submit and obtain FRA's approval of an RFA involving a temporary outage, as the railroad either ceases all operations until it finishes the relevant work, or the railroad selects a time when no trains will operate. FRA commends railroads for structuring their projects that way and expects railroads to submit an RFA, seeking to disable its PTC system temporarily with continued rail service, under proposed paragraph (m)(4) only when ceasing operations would not be feasible.

Relatedly, proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(E) would require the RFA to include both a justification and an analysis that show how the proposed duration of the temporary outage is the minimum time necessary to complete the pertinent work, test the PTC system, and place the PTC system back into service without undue delay. FRA highlights that proposed paragraph (m)(4) is intended to address short-term outages only, and FRA will deny an RFA that seeks to disable a PTC system for an unreasonable, extensive period. In general, PTC-mandated main lines must be governed by PTC technology, given the presence of intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, or certain freight transportation. See, e.g.,49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR 236.1005(b), 236.1006(a). Railroads must show how the length of the proposed temporary outage is the minimum amount of time needed based on the circumstances, which could include outlining a precise schedule and the number of hours involved in each phase and justifications for each timeframe.

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(F) would require the RFA to outline the type and frequency of rail operations that would continue during the proposed temporary outage, including those of the host railroad and each tenant railroad.

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(G) would require the RFA to identify the applicable speed limit of any train that would operate during the proposed temporary outage, and any other operating restrictions in place to ensure rail safety. For example, a properly drafted RFA will outline the railroad's proposed reduced speed for each type of freight train, based on the commodity transported, and each intercity passenger or commuter train, compared to the normal authorized speeds.

Proposed paragraph (m)(4)(ii)(H) would require the railroad to specify in its RFA the additional safety measures that the host railroad and each tenant railroad must comply with during the proposed temporary outage, to ensure each type of PTC-preventable accident or incident does not occur. Specifically, such safety measures must be designed to prevent a train-to-train collision, an over-speed derailment, an incursion into an established work zone, and a movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. It is integral that FRA understands exactly how the railroad will mitigate and eliminate the risk of each type of PTC-preventable accident and incident during the 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 § 236.1021(m) process, the 45-day clock begins on the date the railroad or railroads properly submit any remaining information required under existing paragraph (m)(2)(i) through (iv) and proposed paragraphs (m)(4)(ii)(A) through (I). FRA expects this will help ensure a railroad submits a complete RFA, with all required information, in its initial filing.

In addition, FRA acknowledges that it currently publishes a notice in the Federal Register when a railroad submits an RFA to its PTC system under existing § 236.1021(m) and invites public comment on the RFA. See49 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 ( print 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 § 236.1021(e) is outside the scope of this NPRM and will remain part of FRA's regulations. As a reminder, FRA's December 2022 guidance document underscores the importance of ensuring that railroads' filings contain sufficient, non-confidential information for the public to review and on which to comment.^[23]

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and Failures

Currently, paragraphs (g)(1) through (3), entitled “Temporary exceptions,” of this section set forth expired regulations. Specifically, existing paragraph (g) indicates that paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) were in effect from October 21, 2014, through December 31, 2022. FRA proposes to replace existing paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) with new provisions that deal directly with initialization failures. FRA's existing regulations, at 49 CFR 236.1003, define “initialization failure” as “any instance when a PTC system fails to activate on a locomotive or train, unless the PTC system successfully activates during a subsequent attempt in the same location or before entering PTC-governed territory.” ^[24] In relevant part, 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.

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.

During FRA's meetings in November 2023 and February 2024, AAR, APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and many railroads ^[27] conveyed strong support for FRA's proposal to reintroduce requirements analogous to the provision that expired in 2022. Consistent with FRA's own observations, AAR, APTA, ASLRRA, CRC, and their member railroads underscored the need for FRA to establish a process to enable railroads to continue operating safely, following certain initialization failures, because otherwise freight, intercity passenger, and commuter trains will be unable to depart from their initial terminals or other locations and provide necessary transportation.

Specifically, FRA's intention in this NPRM is to address only system-level outages or failures that result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing to initialize, like when a back office server goes down, impacting the trains of the host railroad and most, if not all, of its tenant railroads. Accordingly, FRA proposes to provide a caveat in proposed paragraph (g)(4), which would specify that the relief under paragraph (g)(1), discussed below, does not apply to a single train that experiences an onboard PTC system failure when attempting to initialize. The purpose of proposed paragraph (g) is to address issues affecting multiple trains.

During FRA's meeting with labor organizations in February 2024, BLET, BRS, and TTD acknowledged that FRA's objective in proposed paragraph (g) is to enable operations while maintaining rail safety, but they expressed concern for the potential unintended consequence of degrading safety or delaying repairs to PTC technology. FRA agrees that it is important to structure proposed paragraph (g) to ensure railroads, vendors, and suppliers identify and fix any issues causing initialization failures immediately.

To ensure this provision is utilized only when necessary and railroads and their vendors and suppliers identify and promptly resolve the root cause of initialization failures, FRA is proposing to impose two tiers of operating requirements that would become increasingly restrictive over time. FRA expects this will help strike the appropriate balance between enabling continued operations, subject to restrictions, and restoring PTC systems as quickly as possible.

First, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i) provides that when a PTC system fails to initialize as defined in § 236.1003, a train may proceed, during the first 24 hours, only as prescribed under existing paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of § 236.1029. FRA is proposing to require railroads to utilize the current operating restrictions set forth in existing paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) because railroads, including train crews, are accustomed to complying with those speed limits and other restrictions when they experience en route failures, and those restrictions are based on the underlying signal or train control system still in effect. During FRA's meetings, the following railroads explicitly recommended this approach, based on industry's longstanding use of these operating restrictions when PTC technology fails or is otherwise cut out en route: Alaska Railroad, Amtrak, BNSF, CN, CPKC, CSX, G&W, MARC, Metra, Metrolink, NICD, NS, and UP.

Second, proposed paragraph (g)(1)(ii) states that after the first 24 hours, the train may proceed only as prescribed under paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) of this section and must not exceed restricted speed as defined in § 236.1003. FRA proposes to require compliance with existing paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) as they contain other applicable restrictions and communication requirements.^[28] However, instead of the standard speed restrictions under existing paragraph (b), this stricter tier of operating restrictions would limit any train that utilizes this provision beyond 24 hours to restricted speed, which is defined as a “speed that will permit stopping ( print page 85470) within one-half the range of vision, but not exceeding 20 miles per hour.” ^[29]

During FRA's meetings with APTA, CRC, and their member railroads in February 2024, several commuter railroads, including Denver RTD, MARC, Metra, NICD, NJT, TEXRail, TRE, and UTA FrontRunner supported FRA's intention to propose a two-tiered framework. For example, MARC and NICD noted that the unplanned outages they recently experienced were resolved in approximately two hours, which means those trains, in a similar scenario under this proposed framework, would be subject to the standard operating restrictions under existing paragraph (b). Furthermore, these commuter railroads expressed appreciation that this proposed framework—with more flexibility on day one—would enable them to transport commuters to their destination if PTC technology fails midday and trains are unable to initialize the PTC system for the remainder of the day. Without this proposed provision, if a train's PTC system fails midday and is not restored by the evening rush hour, commuters attempting to return home would be forced to rely on alternative modes of transportation, with little to no notice.

These eight commuter railroads also recognized that a clear, tiered approach—which introduces additional restrictions, including restricted speed, 24 hours after the onset of the technical issue—would enable railroads to communicate effectively with their customers if the railroad finds that an issue cannot be remedied within the first 24 hours. Commuter railroads emphasized the importance of being able to provide advance notice to their customers about the speed restrictions that would apply the following day, as that could result in service reductions.

Several stakeholders, including ASLRRA, ATD, NJT, and UTA FrontRunner, stressed that the operating restrictions FRA proposes in paragraph (g) should be as simple, straightforward, and objective as possible given the complexity of other PTC regulations. Furthermore, FRA recognizes that predictability and transparency are vital when it comes to a process that will govern whether and how intercity passenger, commuter, and freight rail transportation may continue.

Proposed paragraph (g)(2) imposes a notification requirement that a railroad must, as early as is possible, ensure workers are aware of PTC system-level outages and corresponding operating restrictions. Specifically, proposed paragraph (g)(2) requires each railroad operating in accordance with (g)(1) to notify, as early as is possible, all dispatchers, train crews, and roadway workers about PTC system-level outages or failures that result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing to initialize, which result in trains proceeding in accordance with operating restrictions. Railroads must ensure job safety briefings reflect such operations.

Proposed paragraph (g)(3) proposes to require railroads to attempt to initialize the PTC system again, when the reason it is not initializing is loss of communications or lack of navigational information, like temporary lack of access to the Global Positioning System (GPS)^TM. FRA is aware of multiple PTC systems that rely on GPS, like I-ETMS and the Incremental Train Control System. Specifically, proposed paragraph (g)(3) would require, notwithstanding the relief under paragraph (g)(1), that when a PTC system fails to initialize due to loss of communications or lack of navigational information, the train must attempt to initialize the PTC system again at the next forward, available location. The next forward, available location, depending on the circumstances, could be a segment of a main line, a siding, a yard, or a station, whichever is closest.

In addition, FRA acknowledges that PTC systems are comprised of many subsystems and are often interfaced with other technology. For example, at an AAR meeting in November 2023, CN emphasized that the nature of a system of subsystems, like PTC technology, means there is always the possibility of an outage, as a PTC system relies or depends on the proper functioning of many subsystems. Similarly, FRA is also aware that PTC systems have failed to initialize due to a failure of an interfaced system, like a dispatching system or an electronic storage system. Accordingly, FRA wants to clarify that proposed paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section likewise apply to cases in which a PTC system fails to initialize due to an issue or failure arising from a subsystem or an interfaced system.

In addition, FRA wants to offer a clarification about the application of proposed paragraphs (g)(1) to (5) to the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II). An initialization failure is defined in existing § 236.1003 as “any instance when a PTC system fails to activate on a locomotive or train, unless the PTC system successfully activates during a subsequent attempt in the same location or before entering PTC-governed territory.” Section 236.1003 specifies that for the types of PTC systems that do not initialize by design, like ACSES II, a failed departure test is considered an initialization failure, unless the PTC system successfully passes the departure test during a subsequent attempt in the same location or before entering 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 § 236.1029. By contrast, however, if ATC fails its departure test, a railroad must comply with all applicable signal and train control prohibitions and restrictions in other subparts of part 236. FRA wants to address this nuance to clarify that proposed paragraph (g) does not supersede other existing signal and train control regulations that directly govern ATC.

Finally, proposed paragraph (g)(5) recognizes that FRA may impose additional operating restrictions and other conditions to address recurring issues that result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing to initialize. For example, under proposed paragraph (g)(5), FRA could require the applicable railroads and PTC system vendors and suppliers to take certain actions or satisfy additional reporting requirements, as they resolve the recurring issues. In addition, proposed paragraph (g)(4) would clarify that FRA reserves the right to deny the relief under proposed paragraph (g)(1) for recurring issues that result in multiple trains' PTC systems failing to initialize. Although the relief under proposed paragraph (g)(1) is generally 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 ( print 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.

FRA complied with OMB Circular A-4 when accounting for benefits, costs, and cost savings relative to a baseline condition. Typically, a baseline represents a best judgement about what the world would be like in the absence of the regulatory interventions.^[32]

In this analysis, discount rates are used to account for differences in the timing of the estimated benefits and costs. Benefits and costs that accrue further in the future are more heavily discounted than those impacts that occur today. Discounting reflects individuals' general preference to receive benefits sooner rather than later (and defer costs) and recognizes that costs incurred today are more expensive than future costs because businesses must forgo an expected rate of return on investment of that capital.^[33] OMB recommends using a discount rate of 2 percent.³⁴ This represents the real (inflation-adjusted) rate of return on long-term Federal Government debt over the last 30 years, calculated between 1993 and 2022, and is considered a reasonable approximation of the social rate of time preference.

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

The following table shows the estimated 10-year benefits, net benefits, and costs of the proposed rule. The total 10-year estimated benefits would be $83.5 million (discounted at 2 percent), with annualized benefits at $9.3 million (discounted at 2 percent). The total 10-year estimated costs would be $1.8 million (discounted at 2 percent), with annualized costs at $0.2 million (discounted at 2 percent).

Table B—Total 10-Year Discounted Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits

[2023 Dollars] ¹

Category	Present value 2% ($)	Present value 3% ($)	Present value 7% ($)	Annualized 2% ($)	Annualized 3% ($)	Annualized 7% ($)
Industry Benefits	83,534,444	80,105,191	68,518,285	9,299,600	9,390,772	9,755,462
Total Costs 2	1,760,775	1,688,492	1,444,258	196,021	197,943	205,630
Industry Costs	1,514,075	1,451,919	1,241,905	168,557	170,209	176,819
Government Administrative Costs	246,700	236,573	202,353	27,464	27,734	28,811
Net Benefits 3	81,773,669	78,416,699	67,074,027	9,103,579	9,192,829	9,549,832
1  Numbers in this table and subsequent tables may not sum due to rounding. The present value of costs and benefits are calculated in this analysis. Present value provides a way of converting future benefits into equivalent dollars today. The formula used to calculate the present value at the particular discount rate is: 1/(1+r)t , where “r” is the discount rate, and “t” is the year. Discount rates of 2%, 3%, and 7% are used in this analysis.
2 Total Costs = Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs.
3 Net Benefits = Industry Benefits—(Industry Costs + Government Administrative Costs). FRA notes that the net industry benefits of this proposed rule may help reduce the overall industry costs for implementing and operating PTC systems.

1. Ten-Year Benefits

Proposed 49 CFR 236.1006(b)(6)

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

The proposed exception under § 236.1006(b)(6) would enable 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.

( print page 85472)

Based on consultation with FRA subject matter experts, FRA calculated the potential benefits for train operations, under proposed § 236.1006(b)(6), by multiplying the expected number of impacted passenger equipment by the transportation cost of moving that equipment to a maintenance facility or yard. FRA estimated a range of $3,000 to $4,000 to transport this type of equipment, or an average cost of $3,500 per piece of equipment, similar to the amount utilized in another FRA NPRM ^[35] to estimate the transportation cost of moving an empty car. FRA estimates that the transportation cost savings of moving this equipment is the estimated number of non-revenue passenger equipment that may use this proposed exception ( i.e., 30 per year or 1 per intercity passenger or commuter railroad ^[36] ), multiplied by the expected transportation cost of $3,500, resulting in an overall transportation cost savings of $105,000 annually. Given the uncertainty about the amount of affected equipment and the five safety conditions or restrictions that FRA is proposing a railroad must comply with while utilizing this exception, FRA is seeking input from the public on whether the cost of these five safety conditions, which FRA did not calculate due to insufficient data, might reduce the calculated net benefits.

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

Table C—Potential Benefits From Permitting Non-Revenue Passenger Equipment To Operate to Maintenance Facilities or Yards Without PTC—10-Year Benefit

Year	Undiscounted benefit ($)	Present value 2% ($)	Present value 3% ($)	Present value 7% ($)
1	105,000	105,000	105,000	105,000
2	105,000	102,941	101,942	98,131
3	105,000	100,923	98,973	91,711
4	105,000	98,944	96,090	85,711
5	105,000	97,004	93,291	80,104
6	105,000	95,102	90,574	74,864
7	105,000	93,237	87,936	69,966
8	105,000	91,409	85,375	65,389
9	105,000	89,616	82,888	61,111
10	105,000	87,859	80,474	57,113
Total	1,050,000	962,035	922,541	789,099
Annualized		107,100	108,150	112,350

Proposed 49 CFR 236.1021(m)(4)

Under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4), a railroad seeking to temporarily disable its PTC system, for certain purposes, can request FRA's approval through the standard RFA process under existing § 236.1021(m). There have been no accidents or incidents associated with railroads' RFAs for temporary PTC system outages from 2022 to early 2024, the relevant period during which FRA began approving such outages by regulation.

Based on past RFA filings from 2022 to early 2024 involving temporary PTC system outages, FRA estimates that railroads will file approximately 15 RFAs, on average on an annual basis, under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4) in the future. FRA estimates that two-thirds of railroads' RFAs would involve a PTC system outage lasting for a few hours, while one-third would seek to disable PTC technology for a period of days, given the different nature of underlying capital improvement or maintenance projects. FRA used the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' (BTS) 2021 fare rates for intercity passenger and commuter rail transportation— i.e., a $72.10 average rate for Amtrak and a $6.30 average rate for commuter railroads. FRA estimated weighted fare rates by using those average 2021 BTS fare rates and analyzing past, pertinent RFAs to estimate that the average fare rate would be approximately $11 for each intercity passenger railroad or commuter railroad that submits an RFA pursuant to § 236.1021(m)(4) in the future.^[37]

Similarly, FRA analyzed the average number of passengers or commuters per train movement ^[38] during a temporary PTC system outage by analyzing past RFAs and found that each train carries, on average, approximately 200 passengers or commuters. Likewise, FRA analyzed the average number of train movements during a temporary PTC system outage by analyzing past RFAs and estimating the expected number of filings by type of railroad. Based on past RFAs, FRA estimates that on average, 5 trains operate during a freight railroad's temporary PTC system outage; 12 trains operate during an intercity passenger or commuter railroad's PTC system outage that lasts 24 hours or less; and 1,700 trains operate during an intercity passenger or commuter railroad's PTC system outage that lasts longer (days). For freight railroads, the average cost per train movement is $250, based on previous FRA estimates.

Then, the expected annual number of RFAs, involving temporary PTC system outages, is multiplied by: (1) the average number of train movements during the temporary outage; (2) the average cost per fare or train movement; and (3) the average number of passengers or commuters per train (for intercity passenger or commuter railroads), and is then adjusted for reduced speed.^[39] As shown in the tables below, the 15 relevant RFAs that FRA expects to receive annually would result in $8,578,734 in total benefits, undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this ( print 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.

Table D—RFA Filings Involving Temporary PTC System Outages—Benefits

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

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

Table E—Potential Benefits From Continuous Train Operations Associated With RFAs for Temporary PTC System Outages—10-Year Benefit

Year	Undiscounted ($)	Present value 2% ($)	Present value 3% ($)	Present value 7% ($)
1	8,578,734	8,578,734	8,578,734	8,578,734
2	8,578,734	8,410,524	8,328,868	8,017,509
3	8,578,734	8,245,612	8,086,280	7,492,999
4	8,578,734	8,083,933	7,850,757	7,002,803
5	8,578,734	7,925,425	7,622,094	6,544,675
6	8,578,734	7,770,024	7,400,092	6,116,519
7	8,578,734	7,617,671	7,184,555	5,716,373
8	8,578,734	7,468,305	6,975,296	5,342,405
9	8,578,734	7,321,867	6,772,132	4,992,902
10	8,578,734	7,178,301	6,574,886	4,666,263
Total	85,787,345	78,600,396	75,373,696	64,471,182
Annualized		8,750,309	8,836,097	9,179,246

Proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(g)

The proposed exception under § 236.1029(g) would reintroduce a revised version of a provision regarding PTC system initialization failures that expired on December 31, 2022. This proposed exception would be beneficial even with the conditions and restrictions outlined under this proposed provision.

In assessing the potential benefits of this proposed provision, FRA focused on the impact on train operations in the absence of this proposed rule. Currently, if a PTC system fails to initialize, trains are generally prohibited from operating, which could result in situations where passengers are stranded and vital freight shipments halted, as the prior regulatory process expired on December 31, 2022. Based on consultation with FRA subject matter experts, FRA estimates the number of future PTC system initialization failures by analyzing railroads' initialization failures in calendar year 2023, as reported to FRA in railroads' Quarterly Reports of PTC System Performance ^[41] and projecting to the future. In total, based on past data, FRA expects freight railroads to experience approximately 900 initialization failures per year and intercity passenger or commuter railroads to experience approximately 200 initialization failures per year in the future.^[42] Then, the expected annual number of initialization failures is multiplied by: (1) the average cost of $11 per fare for intercity passenger or ( print 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).

As shown in the table below, FRA's proposal to permit the operation of approximately 1,100 trains that FRA expects might experience PTC system initialization failures would result in $433,520 in total benefits, undiscounted, per year. FRA notes this calculation did not include variable operating costs such as fuel expenses and other operational costs. Therefore, the estimated benefit could be reduced by these variable operating costs, although the exact amount is unclear. Additionally, FRA is seeking comments on this economic analysis, its underlying assumptions, and any additional benefits that could be quantified, like the potential impact on ridership from avoiding related train delays or cancelations.

Table F—Enabling the Operation of Trains Impacted by Initialization Failures—Benefits

Railroad type	Estimated trains impacted annually	Average cost per fare or train movement	Average number of passengers per train	Average benefit (adjusted for reduced speed) ($)
Freight	900	250	N/A	$159,220
Intercity Passenger or Commuter	200	11	200	274,300
Total	1,100			433,520

Over a 10-year period, FRA estimates that proposed § 236.1029(g) would result in potential benefits of $4.0 million, or on an annualized basis, $442,190, discounted at 2 percent.

Table G—Potential Benefits From Continuous Train Operations Due to Process Regarding Certain Initialization Failures—10-Year Benefit

Year	Freight railroads ($)	Passenger railroads ($)	Undiscounted benefit ($)	Present value 2% ($)	Present value 3% ($)	Present value 7% ($)
	a	b	c = a + b
1	159,220	274,300	433,520	433,520	433,520	433,520
2	159,220	274,300	433,520	425,020	420,893	405,159
3	159,220	274,300	433,520	416,686	408,634	378,653
4	159,220	274,300	433,520	408,516	396,732	353,881
5	159,220	274,300	433,520	400,505	385,177	330,730
6	159,220	274,300	433,520	392,652	373,958	309,094
7	159,220	274,300	433,520	384,953	363,066	288,873
8	159,220	274,300	433,520	377,405	352,491	269,974
9	159,220	274,300	433,520	370,005	342,225	252,313
10	159,220	274,300	433,520	362,750	332,257	235,806
Total	1,592,200	2,743,000	4,335,200	3,972,013	3,808,954	3,258,003
Annualized				442,190	446,526	463,866

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

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 ( print 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 § 236.1021(m)(4), which contains additional content requirements to enable FRA to assess the full scope and circumstances of each proposed temporary outage. Since the other two proposed provisions, under §§ 236.1006(b)(6) and 236.1029(g), would establish an exception or process with certain conditions, there may be minimal potential costs tied to these proposed provisions. However, FRA expects the potential benefits of these proposed provisions to outweigh any potential costs they might present. FRA welcomes comments on the potential impact.

Also, FRA acknowledges that a proposal to establish a new exception for non-revenue passenger equipment and reintroduce a limited version of an expired process might appear to present safety risks, if not properly addressed. Accordingly, FRA's proposed rule contains multiple operating restrictions and other protections to help mitigate or eliminate any associated risks and help preserve or improve rail safety.

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

Table H—Costs of RFAs to PTC Systems Involving Temporary Outages

	Hourly wage rate ($)	Number of RFAs per year	Number of hours per RFA	Total cost of RFAs per year ($)
	a	b	c	d = a * b * c
New RFAs	118.46	15	90	159,921
Revised RFAs	118.46	1	45	5,331
Total				165,252

The following table provides the 10-year cost to the railroad industry associated with the filing of an RFA involving a temporary PTC system outage under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4). FRA estimates that the total cost to the railroad industry would be $1.5 million, or $168,557 annualized, discounted at 2 percent.

Table I—Total Costs of RFAs About Temporary PTC System Outages

Year	Cost of new RFAs per year	Cost of revised RFAs per year ($)	Undiscounted cost of RFAs ($)	Present value 2% ($)	Present value 3% ($)	Present value 7% ($)
1	159,921	5,331	165,252	165,252	165,252	165,252
2	159,921	5,331	165,252	162,011	160,439	154,441
3	159,921	5,331	165,252	158,835	155,766	144,337
4	159,921	5,331	165,252	155,720	151,229	134,895
5	159,921	5,331	165,252	152,667	146,824	126,070
6	159,921	5,331	165,252	149,674	142,548	117,822
7	159,921	5,331	165,252	146,739	138,396	110,114
8	159,921	5,331	165,252	143,862	134,365	102,910
9	159,921	5,331	165,252	141,041	130,451	96,178
10	159,921	5,331	165,252	138,275	126,652	89,886
Total	159,921	5,331	1,652,517	1,514,075	1,451,919	1,241,905
Annualized				168,557	170,209	176,819

Additionally, alongside the railroad industry's cost of filing RFAs under proposed § 236.1021(m)(4), there are governmental costs associated with the filing of these RFAs. The following table shows the annual estimated government costs for reviewing railroads' RFAs pertaining to temporary PTC system outages and issuing related decision letters. ( print page 85476)

Table J—Government Administrative Costs From RFA Review and Approval—Annual Costs

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

The 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.

Table K—Government Administrative Costs from RFA Review and Approval—10-Year Costs

Year	Undiscounted government administrative cost ($)	Present value 2% ($)	Present value 3% ($)	Present value 7% ($)
1	26,926	26,926	26,926	26,926
2	26,926	26,398	26,142	25,164
3	26,926	25,880	25,380	23,518
4	26,926	25,373	24,641	21,979
5	26,926	24,875	23,923	20,542
6	26,926	24,387	23,226	19,198
7	26,926	23,909	22,550	17,942
8	26,926	23,440	21,893	16,768
9	26,926	22,981	21,255	15,671
10	26,926	22,530	20,636	14,646
Total	269,258	246,700	236,573	202,353
Annualized		27,464	27,734	28,811

3. Results

The industry benefits associated with FRA's proposal to amend three provisions— i.e., to introduce a new exception for certain non-revenue passenger equipment movements, improve the RFA process regarding temporary PTC system outages, and permit continued operations following certain initialization failures, subject to operating restrictions—would outweigh the industry costs and government administrative costs associated with FRA's proposal to expand the content requirements for RFAs related to temporary outages.

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

Table L—Total 10-Year Discounted Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits

[2023 Dollars]

Category	Present value 2% ($)	Present value 3% ($)	Present value 7% ($)	Annualized 2% ($)	Annualized 3% ($)	Annualized 7% ($)
Industry Benefits	83,534,444	80,105,191	68,518,285	9,299,600	9,390,772	9,755,462
Total Costs	1,760,775	1,688,492	1,444,258	196,021	197,943	205,630
Industry Costs	1,514,075	1,451,919	1,241,905	168,557	170,209	176,819
Government Administrative Costs	246,700	236,573	202,353	27,464	27,734	28,811
Net Benefits	81,773,669	78,416,699	67,074,027	9,103,579	9,192,829	9,549,832

( print 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 §§ 236.1006(b), 236.1021(m) and 236.1029(g)— i.e., to introduce a new exception for certain non-revenue passenger equipment movements, improve the RFA process regarding temporary PTC system outages, and permit continued operations following certain initialization failures, subject to operating restrictions—would outweigh the industry costs and government administrative costs associated with FRA's proposal to expand the content requirements for RFAs related to temporary outages under § 236.1021(m), while also maintaining rail safety.

FRA's objective in this rulemaking is to establish clear, uniform processes, rather than addressing issues that arise in a reactive and piecemeal manner. FRA expects that establishing predictable, prescriptive processes will both enable continued operations and improve railroad safety by eliminating uncertainty and inconsistent application of FRA's regulations and facilitating prompt repairs, upgrades, and restoration of PTC system service. FRA's proposed parameters and operating restrictions in this NPRM are intended to be sufficiently strict to ensure that railroads and PTC system suppliers and vendors proactively identify and remedy problems before they arise and immediately correct any problems that may surface despite proactive measures.

3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires a review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities, unless the Secretary certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entity” is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business concern that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and stipulates in its size standards that a “small entity” in the railroad industry is a for-profit “line-haul railroad” that has fewer than 1,500 employees, a “short line railroad” with fewer than 500 employees, or a “commuter rail system” with annual receipts of less than seven million dollars. See “Size Eligibility Provisions and Standards,” 13 CFR part 121, subpart A.

The proposed rule would directly apply to all 37 host railroads subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157—including 7 Class I railroads, 24 intercity passenger railroads or commuter railroads, and 6 Class II or III, short line, or terminal railroads. Only 5 of the current 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 § 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 ( print 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 § 236.1021(m) that host railroads use to submit RFAs for temporary PTC system outages. In the absence of this proposed rule, non-revenue passenger equipment would not be afforded the same type of exception currently available to freight railroads under § 236.1006(b). In addition, without this rule, railroads would not be able to operate in certain scenarios when PTC technology is temporarily not governing rail operations under proposed § 236.1029(g).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

FRA is submitting the information collection requirements in this proposed rule to 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:

CFR section	Respondent universe	Total annual responses	Average time per response	Total annual burden hours	Total cost equivalent in USD
		(A)	(B)	(C = A * B)	(D = C * wage rates)
235.6(c)—Expedited application for approval of certain changes described in this section	42 railroads	10 expedited applications	5.00 hours	50.00 hours	$4,456.50
—Copy of expedited application to labor union	42 railroads	10 copies	30.00 minutes	5.00 hours	445.65
—Railroad letter rescinding its request for expedited application of certain signal system changes	42 railroads	1 letter	6.00 hours	6.00 hours	534.78
—Revised application for certain signal system changes	42 railroads	1 application	5.00 hours	5.00 hours	445.65
—Copy of railroad revised application to labor union	42 railroads	1 copy	30.00 minutes	0.50 hours	44.57
236.1—Railroad maintained signal plans at all interlockings, automatic signal locations, and controlled points, and updates to ensure accuracy	700 railroads	25 plan changes	15.00 minutes	6.25 hours	557.06
236.15—Designation of automatic block, traffic control, train stop, train control, cab signal, and PTC territory in timetable instructions	700 railroads	10 timetable instructions	30.00 minutes	5.00 hours	445.65
236.18—Software management control plan—New railroads	2 railroads	2 plans	160.00 hours	320.00 hours	28,521.60
236.23(e)—The names, indications, and aspects of roadway and cab signals shall be defined in the carrier's Operating Rule Book or Special Instructions. Modifications shall be filed with FRA within 30 days after such modifications become effective	700 railroads	2 modifications	1.00 hour	2.00 hours	178.26
236.587(d)—Certification and departure test results	742 railroads	4,562,500 train departures	5.00 seconds	6,336.81 hours	564,799.88
236.905(a)—Railroad Safety Program Plan (RSPP)—New railroads	2 railroads	2 RSPPs	40.00 hours	80.00 hours	7,130.40
236.913(a)—Filing and approval of a joint Product Safety Plan (PSP)	742 railroads	1 joint plan	2,000.00 hours	2,000.00 hours	236,920.00
—(c)(1) Informational filing/petition for special approval	742 railroads	0.5 filings/approval petitions	50.00 hours	25.00 hours	2,228.25
( print page 85479)
—(c)(2) Response to FRA's request for further data after informational filing	742 railroads	0.25 data calls/documents	5.00 hours	1.25 hour	111.41
—(d)(1)(ii) Response to FRA's request for further information within 15 days after receipt of the Notice of Product Development (NOPD)	742 railroads	0.25 data calls/documents	1.00 hour	0.25 hours	22.28
—(d)(1)(iii) Technical consultation by FRA with the railroad on the design and planned development of the product	742 railroads	0.25 technical consultations	5.00 hours	1.25 hour	111.41
—(d)(1)(v) Railroad petition to FRA for final approval of NOPD	742 railroads	0.25 petitions	1.00 hour	0.25 hours	22.28
—(d)(2)(ii) Response to FRA's request for additional information associated with a petition for approval of PSP or PSP amendment	742 railroads	1 request	50.00 hours	50.00 hours	4,456.50
—(e) Comments to FRA on railroad informational filing or special approval petition	742 railroads	0.5 comments/letters	10.00 hours	5.00 hours	445.65
—(h)(3)(i) Railroad amendment to PSP	742 railroads	2 amendments	20.00 hours	40.00 hours	3,565.20
—(j) Railroad field testing/information filing document	742 railroads	1 field test/document	100.00 hours	100.00 hours	8,913.00
236.917(a)—Railroad retention of records: results of tests and inspections specified in the PSP	13 railroads with PSP	13 PSP safety results	160.00 hours	2,080.00 hours	185,390.40
—(b) Railroad report that frequency of safety-relevant hazards exceeds threshold set forth in PSP	13 railroads	1 report	40.00 hours	40.00 hours	3,565.20
—(b)(3) Railroad final report to FRA on the results of the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-relevant hazards	13 railroads	1 report	10.00 hours	10.00 hours	891.30
236.919(a)—Railroad Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM)	13 railroads	1 OMM update	40.00 hours	40.00 hours	3,565.20
—(b) Plans for proper maintenance, repair, inspection, and testing of safety-critical products	13 railroads	1 plan update	40.00 hours	40.00 hours	3,565.20
—(c) Documented hardware, software, and firmware revisions in OMM	13 railroads	1 revision	40.00 hours	40.00 hours	3,565.20
236.921 and 923(a)—Railroad Training and Qualification Program	13 railroads	1 program	40.00 hours	40.00 hours	3,565.20
236.923(b)—Training records retained in a designated location and available to FRA upon request	13 railroads	350 records	10.00 minutes	58.33 hours	5,198.95
236.1001(b)—A railroad's additional or more stringent rules than prescribed under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I	38 railroads	1 rule or instruction	40.00 hours	40.00 hours	4,738.40
236.1005(b)(4)(i)-(ii)—A railroad's submission of estimated traffic projections for the next 5 years, to support a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA, not to implement a PTC system based on reductions in rail traffic	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
236.1005(b)(4)(iii)—A railroad's request for a de minimis exception, in a PTCIP or an RFA, based on a minimal quantity of PIH materials traffic	7 Class I railroads	1 exception request	40.00 hours	40.00 hours	3,565.20
—(b)(5) A railroad's request to remove a line from its PTCIP based on the sale of the line to another railroad and any related request for FRA review from the acquiring railroad	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
( print page 85480)
—(g)(1)(i) A railroad's request to temporarily reroute trains not equipped with a PTC system onto PTC-equipped tracks and vice versa during certain emergencies	38 railroads	45 routing extension requests	8.00 hours	360.00 hours	32,086.80
—(g)(1)(ii) A railroad's written or telephonic notice to FRA of the conditions necessitating emergency rerouting and other required information under 236.1005(i)	38 railroads	45 written or telephonic notices	2.00 hours	90.00 hours	8,021.70
—(g)(2) A railroad's temporary rerouting request due to planned maintenance not exceeding 30 days	38 railroads	720 requests	8.00 hours	5,760.00 hours	513,388.80
—(h)(1) A response to any request for additional information from FRA, prior to commencing rerouting due to planned maintenance	38 railroads	10 responses	2.00 hours	20.00 hours	1,782.60
—(h)(2) A railroad's request to temporarily reroute trains due to planned maintenance exceeding 30 days	38 railroads	160 requests	8.00 hours	1,280.00 hours	114,086.40
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)—A progress report due by December 31, 2020, and by December 31, 2022, from any Class II or III railroad utilizing a temporary exception under this section	The paperwork requirement is no longer applicable.
—(b)(5)(vii) A railroad's request to utilize different yard movement procedures, as part of a freight yard movements exception—	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.
—(b)(6) Establishing a new exception to permit non-revenue passenger equipment to operate to maintenance facilities or yards, without being governed by PTC technology, under certain conditions (*New proposed provision*)	There is no paperwork requirement associated with this proposed provision.
236.1007(b)(1)—For any high-speed service over 90 miles per hour (mph), a railroad's PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) must additionally establish that the PTC system was designed and will be operated to meet the fail-safe operation criteria in appendix C	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.
—(c) An HSR-125 document accompanying a host railroad's PTCSP, for operations over 125 mph	38 railroads	1 HSR-125 document	3,200.00 hours	3,200.00 hours	379,072.00
—(c)(1) A railroad's request for approval to use foreign service data, prior to submission of a PTCSP	38 railroads	0.33 requests	8,000.00 hours	2,640.00 hours	235,303.20
—(d) A railroad's request in a PTCSP that FRA excuse compliance with one or more of this section's requirements	38 railroads	1 request	1,000.00 hours	1,000.00 hours	118,460.00
236.1009(a)(2)—A PTCIP if a railroad becomes a host railroad of a main line requiring the implementation of a PTC system, including the information under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR 236.1011	264 railroads	1 PTCIP	535.00 hours	535.00 hours	63,376.10
—(a)(3) Any new PTCIPs jointly filed by a host railroad and a tenant railroad	264 railroads	1 joint PTCIP	267.00 hours	267.00 hours	31,628.82
—(b)(1) A host railroad's submission, individually or jointly with a tenant railroad or PTC system supplier, of an unmodified Type Approval	264 railroads	1 document	8.00 hours	8.00 hours	713.04
( print page 85481)
—(b)(2) A host railroad's submission of a PTCDP with the information required under 49 CFR 236.1013, requesting a Type Approval for a PTC system that either does not have a Type Approval or has a Type Approval that requires one or more variances	264 railroads	1 PTCDP	2,000.00 hours	2,000.00 hours	178,260.00
—(d) A host railroad's submission of a PTCSP	The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1015.
—(e)(3) Any request for full or partial confidentiality of a PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent (NPI), PTCDP, or PTCSP	38 railroads	10 confidentiality requests	8.00 hours	80.00 hours	7,130.40
—(h) Any responses or documents submitted in connection with FRA's use of its authority to monitor, test, and inspect processes, procedures, facilities, documents, records, design and testing materials, artifacts, training materials and programs, and any other information used in the design, development, manufacture, test, implementation, and operation of the PTC system, including interviews with railroad personnel	38 railroads	36 interviews and documents	4.00 hours	144.00 hours	12,834.72
—(j)(2)(iii) Any additional information provided in response to FRA's consultations or inquiries about a PTCDP or PTCSP	38 railroads	1 set of additional information	400.00 hours	400.00 hours	35,652.00
236.1011(a) through (b)—PTCIP content requirements	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.
—(e) Any public comment on PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs	38 railroads	2 public comments	8.00 hours	16.00 hours	1,426.08
236.1013—PTCDP and NPI content requirements	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.
236.1015—Any new host railroad's PTCSP meeting all content requirements under 49 CFR 236.1015	264 railroads	1 PTCSP	8,000.00 hours	8,000.00 hours	713,040
—(g) A PTCSP for a PTC system replacing an existing certified PTC system	38 railroads	0.33 PTCSPs	3,200.00 hours	1,056.00 hours	94,121.28
—(h) A quantitative risk assessment, if FRA requires one to be submitted	38 railroads	0.33 assessments	800.00 hours	264.00 hours	23,530.32
236.1017(a)—An independent third-party assessment, if FRA requires one to be conducted and submitted	38 railroads	0.33 assessments	1,600.00 hours	528.00 hours	62,546.88
—(b) A railroad's written request to confirm whether a specific entity qualifies as an independent third party	38 railroads	0.33 written requests	8.00 hours	2.64 hours	235.30
—Further information provided to FRA upon request	38 railroads	0.33 sets of additional information	20.00 hours	6.60 hours	588.26
—(d) A request not to provide certain documents otherwise required under appendix F for an independent, third-party assessment	38 railroads	0.33 requests	20.00 hours	6.60 hours	588.26
—(e) A request for FRA to accept information certified by a foreign regulatory entity for purposes of 49 CFR 236.1017 and/or 236.1009(i)	38 railroads	0.33 requests	32.00 hours	10.56 hours	941.21
236.1019(b)—A request for a passenger terminal main line track exception (MTEA)	38 railroads	1 MTEA	160.00 hours	160.00 hours	14,260.80
( print page 85482)
—(c)(1) A request for a limited operations exception (based on restricted speed, temporal separation, or a risk mitigation plan)	38 railroads	1 request and/or plan	160.00 hours	160.00 hours	14,260.80
—(c)(2) A request for a limited operations exception for a non-Class I, freight railroad's track	10 railroads	1 request	160.00 hours	160.00 hours	14,260.80
—(c)(3) A request for a limited operations exception for a Class I railroad's track	7 railroads	1 request	160.00 hours	160.00 hours	14,260.80
—(d) A railroad's collision hazard analysis in support of an MTEA, if FRA requires one to be conducted and submitted	38 railroads	0.33 collision hazard analyses	50.00 hours	16.50 hours	1,470.65
—(e) Any temporal separation procedures utilized under the 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception	The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1019(c)(1).
236.1021(a) through (d)—An RFA to a railroad's PTCIP or PTCDP	38 railroads	10 RFAs	160.00 hours	1,600.00 hours	142,608.00
—(e) Any public comments, if an RFA includes a request for approval of a discontinuance or material modification of a signal or train control system and a Federal Register notice is published	5 Interested parties	10 RFA public comments	16.00 hours	160.00 hours	14,260.80
—(l) Any jointly filed RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP	The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1021(a) through (d) and (m).
—(m) Any RFA to a railroad's PTCSP	38 railroads	15 RFAs	80.00 hours	1,200.0 hours	106,956.00
—(m)(4) Any RFA to a railroad's PTC system that involves a proposed temporary PTC system outage (*New proposed provision*)	38 railroads	15 RFAs	90.00 hours	1,350.0 hours	159,921.00
—(m) A railroad's revised RFA, if needed	38 railroads	1 revised RFA	45.00 hours	45.00 hours	5,330.70
236.1023(a)—A railroad's PTC Product Vendor List, which must be continually updated	38 railroads	2 updated lists	8.00 hours	16.00 hours	1,426.08
—(b)(1) The railroad shall specify within its PTCSP all contractual arrangements between a railroad and its hardware and software suppliers or vendors for certain immediate notifications	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.
—(b)(2) through (3) A vendor's or supplier's notification, upon receipt of a report of any safety-critical failure of its product, to any railroads using the product	10 vendors or suppliers	10 notifications	8.00 hours	80.00 hours	7,130.40
—(c)(1) through (2) A railroad's process and procedures for taking action upon being notified of a safety-critical failure or a safety-critical upgrade, patch, revision, repair, replacement, or modification, and a railroad's configuration/revision control measures, set forth in its PTCSP	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1015 and 236.1021.
( print page 85483)
—(d) A railroad's submission, to the applicable vendor or supplier, of the railroad's procedures for action upon notification of a safety-critical failure, upgrade, patch, or revision to the PTC system and actions to be taken until it is adjusted, repaired, or replaced	38 railroads	2.50 notifications	16.00 hours	40.00 hours	3,565.20
—(e) A railroad's database of all safety-relevant hazards, which must be maintained after the PTC system is placed in service	38 railroads	38 database updates	16.00 hours	608.00 hours	54,191.04
—(e)(1) A railroad's notification to the vendor or supplier and FRA if the frequency of a safety-relevant hazard exceeds the threshold set forth in the PTCDP and PTCSP, and about the failure, malfunction, or defective condition that decreased or eliminated the safety functionality—Form FRA F 6180.179—Errors and Malfunctions Notification	38 railroads	8 notifications	7.50 hours	60.00 hours	5,347.80
—(e)(2) Continual updates about any and all subsequent failures	38 railroads	1 update	8.00 hours	8.00 hours	713.04
—(f) Any notifications that must be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR 236.1023	The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1023(e)(1), (g), and (h)(1)(2).
—(g) A railroad's and vendor's or supplier's report, upon FRA request, about an investigation of an accident or service difficulty due to a manufacturing or design defect and their corrective actions	38 railroads	0.50 reports	40.00 hours	20.00 hours	1,782.60
—(h) A PTC system vendor's or supplier's reports of any safety-relevant failures, defective conditions, previously unidentified hazards, recommended mitigation actions, and any affected railroads—Form FRA F 6180.179—Errors and Malfunctions Notification	10 vendors	20 reports	7.50 hours	150.00 hours	13,370
—(k) A report of a failure of a PTC system resulting in a more favorable aspect than intended or other condition hazardous to the movement of a train, including the reports required under part 233	The burden for this requirement is included under § 236.1023(e)(1), (g), and (h)(1)(2) and 49 CFR 233.7.
—236.1029(b)(4)—A report of an en route failure, other failure, or cut out to a designated railroad officer of the host railroad	150 host and tenant railroads	1,000 reports	30.00 minutes	500.00 hours	44,565
—(g) Reintroducing a provision regarding initialization failures that previously expired in December 2022, and establishing operating restrictions under which railroads may continue to operate safely when a PTC system fails to initialize (* New proposed requirement *)	In this proposed provision, there is no paperwork requirement. However, under an existing regulation, FRA requires host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC systems to submit Quarterly Reports of PTC System Performance, using Form FRA F 6180.152, under 49 U.S.C. 20157(m) and 49 CFR 236.1029(h). These reports include information about railroads' initialization failures.
—(h) Form FRA F 6180.152—Report of PTC System Performance	38 railroads	148 reports	32.00 hours	4,736.00 hours	422,119.68
( print page 85484)
236.1031(a)-(d)—A railroad's Request for Expedited Certification	FRA anticipates that there will be zero requests for expedited certification during this 3-year ICR.
236.1033—Communications and security requirements	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009 and 236.1015.
236.1035(a) through (b)—A railroad's request for authorization to field test an uncertified PTC system and any responses to FRA's testing conditions	38 railroads	10 requests	40.00 hours	400.00 hours	35,652.00
236.1037(a)(1) through (2)—Records retention	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1009 and 236.1015.
—(a)(3) through (4) Records retention	The burden for this requirement is included under §§ 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).
—(b) Results of inspections and tests specified in a railroad's PTCSP and PTCDP	38 railroads	800 records	1.00 hour	800.00 hours	71,304.00
—(c) A contractor's records related to the testing, maintenance, or operation of a PTC system maintained at a designated office	20 contractors	1,600 records	10.00 minutes	266.67 hours	23,768.30
—(d)(3) A railroad's final report of the results of the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of safety-related hazards below the threshold set forth in the PTCSP	38 railroads	8 final reports	160.00 hours	1,280 hours	114,086.40
236.1039(a) through (c), (e)—A railroad's PTC Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM), which must be maintained and available to FRA upon request	38 railroads	2 OMM updates	10.00 hours	20.00 hours	1,782.60
—(d) A railroad's identification of a PTC system's safety-critical components, including spare equipment	38 railroads	1 identified new component	1.00 hour	1.00 hour	89.13
236.1041(a) through (b) and 236.1043(a)—A railroad's PTC Training and Qualification Program ( i.e., a written plan)	38 railroads	2 programs	10.00 hours	20.00 hours	1,782.60
236.1043(b)—Training records retained in a designated location and available to FRA upon request	150 host and tenant railroads	150 PTC training records	1.00 hour	150.00 hours	13,369.50
Total	742 railroads and 10 vendors	4,567,839 responses	N/A	53,309 hours	5,014,416