[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82400-82425]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 236

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0075]
RIN 2130-AC75

Positive Train Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is proposing to revise its regulations governing changes
to positive train control (PTC) systems and reporting on PTC system
functioning. First, recognizing that the railroad industry intends to
enhance further FRA-certified PTC systems to continue improving rail
safety and PTC technology's reliability and operability, FRA proposes
to modify the process by which a host railroad must submit a request
for amendment (RFA) to FRA before making certain changes to its PTC
Safety Plan (PTCSP) and FRA-certified PTC system. Second, to enable
more effective FRA oversight, FRA proposes to: Expand an existing
reporting requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to
biannual; broaden the reporting requirement to encompass positive
performance-related information, not just failure-related information;
and require host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). Overall, the
proposed amendments would benefit the railroad industry, the public,
and FRA, by reducing unnecessary costs, facilitating innovation, and
improving FRA's ability to oversee PTC system performance and
reliability, while not negatively affecting rail safety.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 16, 2021. FRA
believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate to allow the public to
comment on this proposed rule. FRA will consider comments received
after that date to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES:

    Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2019-0075 may be
submitted by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name, docket
number (FRA-2019-0075), and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (2130-AC75). All comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted comments or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Acting Staff Director,
Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephanie Anderson, Attorney Adviser,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Supplementary Information

I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Summary of the Main Proposals in the NPRM
    A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations
    B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM
    C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-
Certified PTC Systems and the Associated PTCSPs
    D. Proposal To Expand the Performance-Related Reporting
Requirements
III. Section-by-Section Analysis
IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Federalism Implications
    E. International Trade Impact Assessment
    F. Environmental Impact
    G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Energy Impact
    J. Privacy Act Statement

I. Executive Summary

    Section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
mandates each Class I railroad, and each entity providing regularly
scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, to
implement an FRA-certified PTC system fully on: (1) Its main lines over
which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials are
transported, if the line carries five million or more gross tons of any
annual traffic; (2) its main lines over which intercity or commuter
rail passenger transportation is regularly provided; and (3) any other
tracks the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by
regulation or order.\1\ By law, PTC systems must be designed to prevent
certain accidents or incidents, including train-to-train collisions,
over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and
movements of trains through switches left in the wrong position.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-432,
104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), as amended by the Positive
Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Public Law
114-73, 129 Stat. 568, 576-82 (Oct. 29, 2015), and the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, section
11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015), codified as amended
at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 236, subpart I.
    \2\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005
(setting forth the technical specifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the statutory mandate requires that by December 31,
2020, FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems must govern
operations on all PTC-mandated main lines, currently encompassing
nearly 58,000 route miles nationwide.\3\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR
236.1005(b)(6)-(7). Currently, 35 host railroads \4\--including 7 Class
I railroads, 23 intercity passenger railroads or commuter railroads,
and 5 Class II or III, short line, or terminal railroads--are directly
subject to the statutory mandate to implement an FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC system on their PTC-mandated main lines by December
31, 2020. For purposes of FRA's PTC regulations, a host railroad is ``a
railroad that has effective operating control over a segment of
track,'' and a tenant railroad is ``a railroad, other than a host
railroad, operating on track upon which a PTC system is required.'' See
49 CFR 236.1003(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Except a railroad's controlling locomotives or cab cars that
are subject to either a temporary or permanent exception under 49
U.S.C. 20157(j)-(k) or 49 CFR 236.1006(b), Equipping locomotives
operating in PTC territory.
    \4\ The infographics on FRA's PTC website (https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc)
identify 41 railroads currently subject to the statutory mandate,
but six of those 41 railroads are tenant-only commuter railroads,
not host railroads. As this proposed rule primarily focuses on
requirements specific to host railroads, FRA will reference the
current number of PTC-mandated host railroads (35) and any host
railroads that may become subject to the statutory mandate in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For context, under the statutory mandate, ``interoperability'' is
the general requirement that the controlling locomotives and cab cars
of any host railroad and tenant railroad operating on the same main
line must communicate with and respond to the PTC system, including
uninterrupted movements over property boundaries, except as otherwise
permitted by law.\5\ As of September 2020, according to host railroads'
PTC Implementation Plans (PTCIP), approximately 93 distinct PTC-
required tenant railroads operate on main lines subject to the
statutory mandate. Because many railroads operate on multiple host
railroads' PTC-mandated main lines, there are approximately 219 host-
tenant railroad relationships in which PTC system interoperability must
be achieved by December 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), (i)(3), (j)-
(k); 49 CFR 236.1003, 236.1006, 236.1011(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2018 through 2020, FRA held three PTC Symposia and
Collaboration Sessions per year to underscore the importance of the
mandate, ensure the industry understands the statutory and regulatory
requirements, and facilitate timely compliance. In addition, the six
Collaboration Sessions during 2019 and 2020 provided the opportunity
for FRA to convene the industry's technical experts to share best
practices and jointly resolve common technical problems.
    Through these meetings and regular coordination with all railroads
implementing PTC systems, PTC system vendors and suppliers, and other
stakeholders, FRA began proactively identifying aspects of FRA's
existing PTC regulations that could impede either PTC-related
innovation or FRA's oversight, following the December 31, 2020,
statutory deadline for full PTC system implementation. Specifically,
FRA identified two existing regulatory provisions, 49 CFR 236.1021 and
236.1029(h), which, if not revised, could impede the industry's ability
to advance PTC technology efficiently and FRA's ability to oversee the
performance and reliability of PTC systems effectively.
    First, understanding that the railroad industry intends to update
FRA-certified PTC systems continually to ensure safe operations (e.g.,
through ongoing, necessary maintenance) and to enhance further the
technology (e.g., by adding new functionality or improving a PTC
system's reliability and operability), FRA is proposing to modify the
process under 49 CFR 236.1021 for

RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified systems. The improved process will
enable the industry to deploy upgrades and technological enhancements
more efficiently, and ensure FRA's review of changes or modifications
to FRA-certified systems is more predictable and consistent going
forward. The proposed process will apply only to PTC systems FRA has
already certified under 49 U.S.C. 20157(h). The statutory mandate
generally requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC system
complies with 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, before it operates in revenue
service, and this proposed rule will not amend the existing
certification process FRA developed to comply with this mandate (i.e.,
this proposed rule would not amend 49 CFR 236.1009 or 236.1015
regarding PTCSPs and the PTC System Certification process). To be
clear, FRA's proposal to modify the process that currently requires a
host railroad to submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to a
PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021 will not apply to any existing or new PTC
system, unless and until FRA has certified that PTC system under 49
U.S.C. 20157(h).
    Instead of the existing RFA approval process with an indefinite
decision timeline, FRA proposes to require railroads to comply with a
streamlined RFA process, which includes providing certain
documentation, analysis, and safety assurances. This proposed rule
would establish a 45-day deadline for FRA to review and approve or deny
railroads' RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs or FRA-certified PTC
systems. In addition, FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing
the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and
PTC Development Plans (PTCDP)--an option which, if exercised, would
efficiently leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination
among railroads operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the
number of similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA
for review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form
FRA F 6180.152) will be placed in the docket (Docket No. FRA-2019-
0075) for review when this NPRM is published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, FRA proposes to expand an existing reporting requirement--
49 CFR 236.1029(h), Annual report of system failures--by increasing the
frequency of the reporting requirement from annual to biannual;
broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information; and
requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) \6\ to enable more
effective FRA oversight. In addition, FRA proposes to amend Sec.
236.1029(h) by updating the provision to use certain statutory
terminology for consistency; clarifying the ambiguous filing obligation
by specifying that only host railroads directly submit these reports to
FRA; and explicitly requiring tenant railroads to provide the necessary
data to their applicable host railroads by a specific date before the
biannual filing deadlines.
    FRA analyzed the economic impact of this proposed rule over a ten-
year period and estimated its costs and cost savings, which are shown
in the table below. The cost savings associated with FRA's proposal to
amend Sec.  236.1021--i.e., to simplify the process for all RFAs to
PTCSPs and authorize host railroads to file joint RFAs to PTCSPs and
PTCDPs--would outweigh the costs associated with FRA's proposal to
expand the reporting requirement under paragraph (h) of Sec.  236.1029.

                                          Net Cost Savings in Millions
                                                 [2019 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Present value    Present value
                                                       7%               3%         Annualized 7%   Annualized 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Costs................................         $324,158         $379,231         $46,153         $44,457
Industry Cost Savings.........................        6,116,671        7,202,273         870,876         844,326
Government Cost Savings.......................       17,978,594       21,188,896       2,559,747       2,483,985
Net Cost Savings..............................       23,771,107       28,011,938       3,384,471       3,283,854
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Summary of the Main Proposals in the NPRM

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC Regulations

    Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required
the Secretary to prescribe PTC regulations necessary to implement the
statutory mandate, including regulations specifying the essential
technical functionalities of PTC systems and the means by which FRA
will certify PTC systems.\7\ The Secretary delegated to the Federal
Railroad Administrator the authority to carry out the functions and
exercise the authority vested in the Secretary by the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 1.89(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), codified
as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49
CFR 1.89(b), FRA issued its first final PTC rule on January 15, 2010,
which is set forth, as amended, under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I,
Positive Train Control Systems.\8\ FRA's PTC regulations under 49 CFR
part 236, subpart I, prescribe ``minimum, performance-based safety
standards for PTC systems . . . including requirements to ensure that
the development, functionality, architecture, installation,
implementation, inspection, testing, operation, maintenance, repair,
and modification of those PTC systems will achieve and maintain an
acceptable level of safety.'' 49 CFR 236.1001(a). FRA subsequently
amended its PTC regulations via final rules issued in 2010, 2012, 2014,
and 2016.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010).
    \9\ See 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 (May 14,
2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, on February 29, 2016, as required, FRA amended its
PTC regulations to revise the regulations' date-specific deadlines for
conformity with the Positive Train Control Enforcement and
Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act).\10\ Specifically, the PTCEI Act
extended the original statutory deadline for full implementation of PTC
systems from December 31, 2015, to at least December 31, 2018.\11\ In
addition, the PTCEI Act permits railroads to utilize an

``alternative schedule and sequence'' with a full implementation
deadline beyond December 31, 2018, but not later than December 31,
2020. Further, the legislation required FRA to approve a railroad's
alternative schedule and sequence if the railroad demonstrated it met
the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative
schedule and sequence.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Public Law 114-73, 129 Stat. 568, 576-82 (Oct. 29, 2015),
as amended by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act,
Public Law 114-94, section 11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4,
2015). See also 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016), amending 49 CFR part
236, subpart I.
    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(a). Please note that the PTCEI Act also
required FRA to extend each deadline under 49 CFR
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B) by three years, related to certain Class II
and Class III railroads that operate in PTC territory. See 49 U.S.C.
20157(k); 81 FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016).
    \12\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(C) (using the term ``shall''). As
background, four PTC-mandated host railroads reported that they
fully implemented an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on
all their required main lines by December 31, 2018. Every other host
railroad subject to the statutory mandate in 2018 formally requested
an alternative schedule and sequence under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3). By
March 5, 2019, FRA approved all applicable requests for an
alternative schedule and sequence, as each railroad sufficiently
demonstrated it, at a minimum, met the six statutory criteria
necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule and sequence, under
the statutory mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposed rule, FRA proposes to revise three sections, 49
CFR 236.1003, 236.1021, and 236.1029, of FRA's existing PTC regulations
pursuant to its specific authority under 49 CFR 1.89 and 49 U.S.C.
20157(g), and its general authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 to prescribe
regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety.

B. Public Participation Prior to the Issuance of the NPRM

    As referenced above, FRA regularly engages with host railroads,
tenant railroads, and PTC system vendors and suppliers, as part of
FRA's oversight of railroads' implementation of PTC systems on the
mandated main lines under 49 U.S.C. 20157 and the other lines where
railroads are voluntarily implementing PTC technology. The purpose of
this section is to summarize FRA's pertinent meetings prior to the
issuance of this NPRM, pursuant to 49 CFR 5.19.
    During two of FRA's PTC Collaboration Sessions in 2019 and 2020,
FRA generally discussed its intention to propose to modify the RFA
process under Sec.  236.1021, specifically as it relates to FRA-
approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified PTC systems. One of these two
Collaboration Sessions was held on February 6, 2019 at DOT's
Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the other was hosted via
teleconference on June 10, 2020.
    Specifically, during the Collaboration Session on February 6, 2019,
FRA noted it was considering simplifying the formal process for
railroads to modify their PTCSPs and PTC systems under Sec.  236.1021,
after FRA certifies a railroad's PTC system as required under the
statutory mandate. FRA raised questions for the industry to consider,
including how host railroads plan to maintain their PTCSPs, as
required, acknowledging that PTC technology will continue evolving
given, for example, ongoing software modifications necessary for safe
operations and voluntary enhancements to improve further the
reliability or operability of PTC systems.\13\ FRA understands that,
over time, new software releases may become necessary to: Fix certain
bugs or defects; eliminate newly discovered hazards; or add new
functionality to continue to improve rail safety, or the reliability
and operability of the technology. In addition, FRA acknowledged that
certain changes to PTC systems will likely impact multiple PTCSPs, as
the industry is currently implementing five main types of PTC
systems.\14\ During the Collaboration Session on June 10, 2020, FRA
discussed its intention to issue this NPRM and described the high-level
objectives of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1009(d) (requiring a PTC system to be
implemented in accordance with the host railroad's PTCSP).
    \14\ Currently, railroads are primarily implementing the
following PTC systems in the United States: (1) The Interoperable
Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS), which Class I railroads
and many commuter railroads are implementing; (2) the Advanced Civil
Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II) or the Advanced Speed
Enforcement System II (ASES II), which most railroads operating on
the Northeast Corridor (NEC) are implementing; (3) Enhanced
Automatic Train Control (E-ATC), which five host railroads are
implementing; (4) the Incremental Train Control System, which the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is implementing in
parts of Michigan; and (5) the Communication Based Train Control
(CBTC) system, which one commuter railroad has fully implemented on
its PTC-mandated main lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, on October 2, 2019, during FRA's PTC Collaboration
Session hosted at the National Housing Center in Washington, DC, one
Class I railroad suggested that FRA should consider amending the
permanent reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) to make it
consistent with the temporary statutory reporting requirement under 49
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), because existing paragraph (h) of Sec.  236.1029
uses different terminology to describe PTC-related failures. In
addition, during this meeting, one commuter railroad requested that FRA
create a standardized form for railroads to utilize under Sec.
236.1029(h). FRA made no commitments at any of its PTC Collaboration
Sessions, but FRA internally considered this industry input as it
developed this proposed rule. Please note that all presentations from
FRA's PTC Symposia and Collaboration Sessions are available in FRA's
eLibrary, including direct links on FRA's PTC website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-train-control-ptc.
    As information, representatives from all 35 host railroads
currently subject to the statutory mandate attended at least two of the
three above PTC Collaboration Sessions, and 89 percent of the PTC-
mandated host railroads attended all three of the PTC Collaboration
Sessions where FRA discussed either 49 CFR 236.1021 or 236.1029(h).\15\
Specifically, 97 percent of the 35 applicable host railroads attended
the PTC Collaboration Sessions on February 6, 2019 and October 2, 2019,
and 94 percent attended the session on June 10, 2020. Furthermore,
representatives from the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA), the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) participated
in all three of these pertinent PTC Collaboration Sessions. In
addition, a representative from the Commuter Rail Coalition attended
the PTC Collaboration Sessions on October 2, 2019 and June 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In addition to the 35 host railroads subject to the
statutory mandate, representatives from multiple other railroads
attended these PTC Collaboration Sessions, including eight tenant-
only passenger railroads that operate on PTC-mandated main lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, on the following dates, FRA met with AAR and several
of its member railroads to discuss various PTC-related issues and
topics, including FRA's previously stated intention to propose
modifications to the RFA process under Sec.  236.1021, specifically as
it applies to FRA-certified PTC systems: September 6, 2019; March 3,
2020; April 2, 2020; June 11, 2020; June 25, 2020; July 9, 2020; and
August 27, 2020. During the meetings on September 6, 2019 and July 9,
2020, representatives from AAR and its member railroads indicated that
FRA should consider amending other provisions under FRA's PTC
regulations, in addition to Sec.  236.1021, but those provisions are
not the focus of this proposed rule. As noted above, at this time, FRA
considers it necessary to amend Sec. Sec.  236.1021 and 236.1029(h)
because those provisions, if not revised, could impede the industry's
ability to enhance PTC technology and FRA's ability to oversee the
performance and reliability of PTC systems effectively. If FRA finds
that any other amendments to 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, are necessary
or justified in the future, FRA will address them in a separate NPRM.
    Representatives from the following Class I railroads and passenger
railroads, listed alphabetically, attended

the AAR meetings referenced immediately above: Amtrak, BNSF Railway,
Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX
Transportation, Inc., Kansas City Southern Railway, Norfolk Southern
Railway, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
(Metra), the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink),
and Union Pacific Railroad. The railroads' main comments during these
meetings involved their concerns that the existing process under Sec.
236.1021 would stifle innovation and create significant delays in
deploying improvements to PTC technology. In general, they supported
revising the existing RFA process under Sec.  236.1021 to help enable
technological advancements and ensure FRA is not an impediment to the
industry's ability to enhance PTC technology. FRA's statements during
these meetings were consistent with FRA's statements to all PTC-
mandated host railroads at multiple PTC Collaboration Sessions. The
proposals in this NPRM are based on FRA's own review and analysis and,
in part, on industry's feedback during the meetings in 2019 and 2020,
specified above. FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.

C. Proposal To Establish a New Process for Modifying FRA-Certified PTC
Systems and the Associated PTCSPs

    FRA's PTC regulations have always acknowledged that after
``implementation of a train control system, the subject railroad may
have legitimate reasons for making changes in the system design,''
among other changes, including to a PTC system's functionality.\16\
Accordingly, under 49 CFR 236.1015(d)(7), FRA requires host railroads'
PTCSPs to include, among other relevant information, a ``complete
description of the specific procedures and test equipment necessary to
ensure the safe and proper . . . operation, maintenance, repair,
inspection, testing, and modification of the PTC system on the
railroad.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Recognizing that PTC technology must be actively maintained
throughout its lifecycle and beyond, FRA's regulations also require
each railroad to ``catalog and maintain all documents as specified in
the PTCDP and PTCSP for . . . maintenance, repair, modification,
inspection, and testing of the PTC system.'' \17\ Specifically, 49 CFR
236.1039(a) requires railroads to retain these documents in a PTC
Operations and Maintenance Manual, which must be ``readily available to
persons required to perform such tasks and for inspection by FRA and
FRA-certified state inspectors.'' For example, a railroad's Operations
and Maintenance Manual must document all ``[h]ardware, software, and
firmware revisions . . . according to the railroad's configuration
management control plan and any additional configuration/revision
control measures specified in the [host railroad's] PTCSP.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 49 CFR 236.1039(a).
    \18\ 49 CFR 236.1039(c). See also Federal Railroad
Administration, Revised PTC Guidance Regarding Interoperability
Testing, Operations and Maintenance Manuals, and Certification
Responsibilities (July 24, 2018), available at https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L19583#p1_z5_gD_lPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA is aware that host railroads will need to deploy new PTC
software releases, among other changes, to ensure their PTC systems are
performing properly--for example, to fix certain bugs or defects or
eliminate newly discovered hazards. In addition to incremental changes
to PTC systems that are necessary for the continued safe and proper
functioning of the technology, FRA understands that several railroads
and PTC system vendors and suppliers have chosen to design and develop
their PTC systems to perform safety-related functions in addition to
the minimum, performance-based functions specified under the statutory
mandate and FRA's regulations.
    Currently, FRA's PTC regulations, in relevant part, prohibit a
railroad from making certain changes to its FRA-approved PTCSP or FRA-
certified PTC system unless the railroad files an RFA to its PTCSP and
obtains approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for Railroad
Safety. 49 CFR 236.1021. This proposed rule does not envision revising
the types of changes that currently require a host railroad to file an
RFA under Sec.  236.1021(h)(1)-(4) (often referred to as ``material
modifications'') or the exceptions currently set forth under Sec.
236.1021(i)-(k).
    For example, FRA's regulations require a railroad to submit, for
FRA review and approval, an RFA to the railroad's PTCSP for any
proposed modification of a safety-critical element of a PTC system or
any proposed modification of a PTC system that affects the safety-
critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it
interoperates. See 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)-(4). Though FRA's existing
regulations specify that FRA will, to the extent practicable, review
and issue a decision regarding a host railroad's initially filed PTCSP
within 180 days of the date it was filed, FRA's regulations do not
currently specify an estimated timeline for reviewing and approving or
denying railroads' subsequent RFAs to their PTCSPs.\19\ In practice, as
of September 2020, it has taken FRA 127 days, on average, to review and
approve recent RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems, which is,
in part, due to the complex content requirements currently under
paragraphs (d)(1) to (7) of Sec.  236.1021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 49 CFR 236.1009(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of the existing RFA approval process with an indefinite
decision timeline, FRA proposes to: (1) Require railroads to comply
with a streamlined RFA process, including providing certain
documentation, analysis, and safety assurances; and (2) establish a 45-
day deadline for FRA's review and issuance of a decision. In new
proposed paragraph (m) of Sec.  236.1021, FRA outlines the proposed
content requirements for RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems--
focusing on the core information and analysis FRA would need to review
to ensure the PTC system, including any proposed changes, will provide
an equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system.
The improved process would enable the industry to implement
technological enhancements more efficiently, and the clear timeline
would help ensure a more predictable and transparent FRA review process
going forward.
    In addition, this proposed rule envisions permitting host railroads
utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their
PTCSPs and PTCDPs--an option which, if exercised, will efficiently
leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination among railroads
operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of
similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for
review. As noted above, currently, the 35 PTC-mandated host railroads
are implementing five types of PTC systems, though FRA acknowledges
that, in several cases, railroads are implementing PTC systems of the
same type in different manners (e.g., variances in design,
functionality, and operation), requiring railroads to conduct
additional testing and gap analyses to achieve and sustain
interoperability, including configuration management.
    Appreciating that changes to safety-critical elements, including
software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system will likely
impact multiple, if not most, railroads implementing that same type of
PTC system, FRA's proposed rule outlines a path for such

host railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific
instructions under new proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec.
236.1021. The proposed rule would specify that while most types of
information required under proposed paragraph (m) of Sec.  236.1021 may
be submitted jointly in the RFA, the joint RFA would need to include
certain written confirmations or statements \20\ from each host
railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA. In addition, FRA's
proposed rule specifies that only host railroads with the same PTC
System Certification classification under paragraph (e) of Sec.
236.1015 may jointly file an RFA to their PTCSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, confirmation that: (1) Each host railroad
notified any applicable tenant railroads of the proposed changes,
any associated effect on the tenant railroads' operations, and any
actions the tenant railroads must take in accordance with the
configuration control measures set forth in the host railroad's
PTCSP; and (2) the PTC system, if modified, would meet all technical
requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an equivalent
or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and not
adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though this proposed rule would generally authorize host railroads
utilizing the same type of PTC system to file RFAs to their PTCSPs
jointly, FRA expects this aspect of the proposal, in the short term,
primarily to impact host railroads implementing I-ETMS and E-ATC
because each respective I-ETMS and E-ATC system is similar to others of
the same type, with a baseline functionality. Conversely, there is not
a uniform standard or specification currently underlying the ACSES II
or ASES II PTC systems that host railroads are implementing on the NEC.
In addition, there is an array of ACSES II suppliers, including for the
onboard, wayside, and communications subsystems. In the future,
however, as the ACSES II railroads finish establishing the
Interoperable Change Management Plan they are currently developing, it
is possible that at least some of the host railroads utilizing ACSES II
or ASES II will elect to submit joint RFAs to their respective PTCSPs
for certain system-wide changes, consistent with the option under
proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec.  236.1021.
    FRA recognizes that modifying and simplifying the process for host
railroads to submit RFAs to PTCSPs for FRA-certified PTC systems is
necessary to facilitate required maintenance and upgrades to PTC
technology and encourage railroads to enhance their PTC systems to
continue to improve rail safety.

D. Proposal To Expand the Performance-Related Reporting Requirements

    Following the applicable deadline for full PTC system
implementation under 49 U.S.C. 20157, FRA's regulations currently
require a railroad to submit an annual report by April 16th each year
regarding the number of PTC system failures, ``including but not
limited to locomotive, wayside, communications, and back office system
failures,'' that occurred during the previous calendar year. See 49 CFR
236.1029(h). The first failure-related annual reports pursuant to Sec.
236.1029(h) were due on April 16, 2019 from the four host railroads
whose statutory deadline was December 31, 2018 for the full
implementation of a PTC system on their required main lines. FRA has
found that all annual reports railroads submitted to date have been
brief (e.g., as short as half of a page) and included minimal
information, but still technically satisfied the existing content
requirements under Sec.  236.1029(h).
    Because the minimal information currently required under Sec.
236.1029(h) does not permit FRA to monitor adequately the rate at which
PTC system failures occur or evaluate improvements over time, FRA is
proposing to revise Sec.  236.1029(h) to enable FRA to perform its
oversight functions effectively. Specifically, FRA proposes to increase
the frequency of this reporting requirement from annual to biannual,
with proposed filing deadlines on July 31 (covering the period from
January 1 to June 30) and January 31 (covering the period from July 1
to December 31 of the prior calendar year), instead of an annual filing
deadline on April 16, as Sec.  236.1029(h) currently provides. Under
the existing framework, pursuant to Sec.  236.1029(h), FRA must wait
until April 16th each year to receive railroads' failure-related data
from the prior calendar year--data which is quite outdated by the time
it is filed. FRA's proposed biannual frequency would enable FRA to
monitor closely trends in PTC system reliability with more up-to-date
data, covering two intervals per year. In addition, FRA notes that the
proposed biannual frequency is reasonable, given that railroads must
currently submit certain failure-related data quarterly or monthly,
pursuant to a temporary reporting requirement under the statutory
mandate, as discussed below.
    In addition, to ensure the data railroads submit under Sec.
236.1029(h) are uniform, comparable, and objective, FRA proposes to
revise this existing reporting requirement by specifying the exact
types of statistics and information the reports must include;
broadening the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information; and
requiring host railroads to utilize a new, standardized Biannual Report
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to enable more
effective FRA oversight.
    Furthermore, FRA proposes to amend Sec.  236.1029(h) to make it
consistent with the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4) because the existing statutory and regulatory provisions
use different terminology to describe PTC-related failures. As
background, the PTCEI Act established a reporting requirement that
applies only temporarily--from October 29, 2015, to approximately
December 31, 2021 \21\--and only to PTC systems that FRA has certified
and have been implemented, including on a subset of a railroad's main
lines.\22\ 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). As a default, the reporting
requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) specifies that when an FRA-
certified PTC system ``fails to initialize, cuts out, or
malfunctions,'' the railroad must submit a notification to the
appropriate FRA regional office within 7 days of the failure, and the
notification must include a description of the safety measures the
railroad has in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ By law, the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4) sunsets on approximately December 31, 2021--or more
specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad obtains PTC
System Certification from FRA and finishes fully implementing an
FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all its required main
lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
    \22\ For example, acknowledging the incremental nature of
implementation, the PTCEI Act required Class I railroads and Amtrak
to demonstrate they ``implemented a [PTC] system or initiated
revenue service demonstration on the majority of [PTC-mandated]
territories . . . or route miles that are owned or controlled by
such carrier[s],'' to qualify for an alternative schedule and
sequence by law. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as the PTCEI Act authorized, FRA established an
alternative reporting deadline (instead of within 7 days of each
occurrence) and an alternative reporting location (instead of
submitting the notifications to the appropriate FRA region).\23\
Specifically, on December 30, 2019 and March 16, 2020, FRA published a
proposed framework for host railroads operating FRA-certified PTC
systems to submit a Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form
FRA F 6180.177) to fulfill this temporary reporting requirement under
the PTCEI Act.\24\ On June 5, 2020, following the required

notice-and-comment periods, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approved the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F
6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553),\25\ as revised based on feedback
from AAR and APTA. Host railroads must utilize that mandatory form and
adhere to its instructions, including the two-tiered reporting
frequency \26\ and the centralized reporting location, to comply with
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) until that temporary reporting requirement
expires on approximately December 31, 2021.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4); 49 CFR 1.89.
    \24\ See 84 FR 72121, 72123-26 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022,
15025-27 (Mar. 16, 2020).
    \25\ Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/PTCSystemFailuresFRAForm177/.
    \26\ A host railroad must submit monthly failure-related
notifications if it has fully implemented a PTC system on all
required main lines. However, if a host railroad is operating an
FRA-certified PTC system but is still in the process of fully
implementing the PTC system, the railroad must submit failure-
related notifications on a quarterly basis. Host railroads must
transition from submitting Form FRA F 6180.177 quarterly to monthly,
when they finish fully implementing their FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC systems on their required main lines. For
simplicity, in general, this two-tiered framework means that most
host railroads that have obtained PTC System Certification must
submit quarterly Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures
throughout 2020, and monthly notifications throughout 2021 until the
reporting requirement expires. For additional detail, please see 85
FR 15022, 15025-27 (Mar. 16, 2020).
    \27\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and (e)(1) (authorizing DOT to
assess civil penalties for any violation of the statutory mandate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this NPRM, FRA proposes to revise the permanent reporting
requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h) to utilize the statutory failure-
related terms under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)--initialization failures, cut
outs, and malfunctions--instead of the broad, imprecise term currently
used in Sec.  236.1029(h) (``failures''). Also, to ensure uniform
interpretation of these terms, FRA proposes to add definitions of these
three terms to the definitions section of FRA's PTC regulations, 49 CFR
236.1003, retaining the definitions that FRA adopted during its
development of the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form
FRA F 6180.177), based on industry's feedback.
    FRA's proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA
F 6180.152) under proposed Sec.  236.1029(h) will incorporate both: (1)
The information currently required under Sec.  236.1029(h); and (2) the
corresponding types of data railroads must submit until approximately
December 31, 2021 in their Statutory Notifications of PTC System
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). For example, the proposed Biannual
Report of PTC System Performance would require certain geographical
information and contextual data to help demonstrate how the occurrences
of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions
compare to all operations on that host railroad's PTC-governed main
lines.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Several railroads previously commented that, without such a
percentage or context, the frequency of PTC system failures might
otherwise seem high, and additional data would help convey the
actual rate of such failures. In addition, in AAR's comments, dated
February 28, 2020, associated with Form FRA F 6180.177 (under Docket
Nos. FRA 2019-0004-N-20 and FRA 2020-0004-N-3), AAR specifically
suggested that to ``keep the report of PTC system initialization
failures, cut outs, and malfunctions in perspective, particularly if
comparing individual railroads, it would be useful to normalize
results between railroads.'' Similarly, in APTA's letter dated
February 28, 2020, APTA requested that FRA identify the applicable
denominator(s) to utilize when calculating the rate of PTC system
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions. See also 85 FR
15022, 15026 (Mar. 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, railroads have previously observed that, under
existing Sec.  236.1029(h), it is unclear whether a host railroad, a
tenant railroad, or both must submit the required reports to FRA. In
this proposed rule, FRA proposes to resolve this ambiguity by
specifying that only host railroads must directly submit these reports
to FRA. This approach is consistent with the existing regulatory
requirement directing a tenant railroad to report any PTC system
failures or cut outs to ``a designated railroad officer of the host
railroad as soon as safe and practicable.'' See 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4)
(emphasis added). To ensure that host railroads receive the necessary
information from their tenant railroads to compile the proposed
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) under
Sec.  236.1029(h), FRA proposes to require explicitly tenant railroads
to provide the necessary data to their applicable host railroads by a
specific date before the biannual filing deadlines, as set forth under
new proposed paragraph (h)(4) of Sec.  236.1029.
    FRA considers its proposed changes to Sec.  236.1029(h), as
described below, necessary to enable FRA to monitor the performance and
reliability of railroads' PTC systems effectively throughout the
country.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 236.1003 Definitions

    FRA proposes to add three definitions to paragraph (b) of this
section to help ensure that FRA and the railroad industry consistently
interpret the statutory failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)--initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions--as FRA
now proposes to use these corresponding terms in Sec.  236.1029(h) and
the associated Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152). Specifically, FRA proposes to adopt the definitions of these
three terms that FRA currently utilizes in the Statutory Notification
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), which were, in part,
revised and refined based on industry's feedback during the development
of that corresponding form and the definitions therein.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 15022, 15025-
26 (Mar. 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, Material Modifications, and
Amendments

    The purpose of existing paragraphs (a) through (d) is to prohibit a
railroad from making ``changes, as defined by this section, to a PTC
system, PTCIP, PTCDP, or PTCSP,'' unless the railroad submits an RFA,
with the content requirements under existing paragraphs (d)(1) through
(7), and obtains approval from FRA's Associate Administrator for
Railroad Safety.
    To be clear, this proposed rule will not revise the types of
changes that currently require a host railroad to file an RFA under
Sec.  236.1021(h)(1)-(4) (often referred to as ``material
modifications'') or the exceptions currently set forth under Sec.
236.1021(i)-(k). For example, FRA's regulations currently require a
railroad to submit an RFA, subject to FRA's review and approval, before
making the following types of changes listed under existing paragraphs
(h)(1) through (4): (1) A discontinuance of a PTC system; (2) a
decrease of the PTC system's limits; (3) a modification of a safety-
critical element of a PTC system; or (4) a modification of a PTC system
that affects the safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system
with which it interoperates. For context, existing Sec.
236.1009(a)(2)(ii) additionally requires a railroad to submit an RFA--
specifically to its FRA-approved PTCIP--if the railroad intends to
initiate a new category of service (i.e., passenger or freight) or
``[a]dd, subtract, or otherwise materially modify one or more lines of
railroad for which installation of a PTC system is required.''
    In general, FRA's proposed revisions to Sec.  236.1021 are
primarily intended to streamline the process by which host railroads
must submit RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRA-certified
systems, based on FRA's recognition that the railroad industry intends
to update and enhance FRA-certified PTC systems to advance rail

safety.\30\ Accordingly, FRA's proposed revisions to the process under
existing paragraphs (a) through (d) are limited to removing any
references to PTCSPs from those paragraphs, as FRA is proposing in this
proposed rule to establish a new, streamlined process for RFAs
associated with PTCSPs under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). In
addition to FRA's proposal to remove references to PTCSPs from existing
paragraphs (a) through (d), FRA proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) in
its entirety, and to incorporate the general principle of paragraph
(d)(7) into a new proposed paragraph, (m)(2)(i), as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For additional detail and background, please see Section I
(Executive Summary) and Subsection II-C (Proposal to Establish a New
Process for Modifying FRA-certified PTC Systems and the Associated
PTCSPs) of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the existing requirements under Sec.  236.1021,
railroads would still need to submit, and obtain FRA's approval of,
RFAs for certain changes to their PTCIPs and PTCDPs, including the
types of changes enumerated above under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(1) through
(2) and 236.1009(a)(2)(ii)--e.g., a proposed discontinuance of a PTC
system or a proposed addition or removal of track segments from a
railroad's PTCIP.
    New proposed paragraph (l) would permit host railroads utilizing
the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and
PTCDPs, as those are system-based documents, albeit with some railroad-
specific variances. FRA expects that host railroads would utilize this
joint RFA option to the extent practicable, and it would efficiently
leverage industry's resources, help ensure coordination among railroads
operating the same types of PTC systems, and reduce the number of
similar or identical RFA filings host railroads submit to FRA for
review and approval. Because changes to safety-critical elements,
including software or system architecture, of a certain PTC system
would likely impact multiple, if not most, railroads implementing that
same type of PTC system, FRA proposes to outline a path for such host
railroads to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with specific
instructions under proposed paragraphs (l) and (m). FRA notes that it
would consider it acceptable for an association to submit a joint RFA
under proposed paragraph (l), but it would need to be explicitly on
behalf of two or more host railroads, and each host railroad would need
to sign the filing.
    Proposed paragraph (l) would also specify that only host railroads
with the same PTC System Certification classification under 49 CFR
236.1015(e) would be able to file a joint RFA to their PTCSPs. For
example, when an RFA is necessary under Sec.  236.1021 to account for
certain proposed changes to railroads' I-ETMS PTCSPs, or I-ETMS itself,
FRA would expect a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I-
ETMS is certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system under Sec.
236.1015(e)(1), and a joint RFA from the set of host railroads whose I-
ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC system under Sec.  236.1015(e)(4). Two
distinct RFAs would be necessary under these circumstances, as the
impact of the proposed change(s) would need to be analyzed in the
context of the underlying safety analysis in the FRA-approved PTCSPs--a
safety analysis that is structured differently based on whether FRA has
certified the PTC system as a non-vital, overlay system; a vital,
overlay system; a standalone system; or a mixed system.
    Furthermore, with respect to joint RFAs, paragraph (l) would
specify that, though most types of information required under proposed
paragraph (m)(2) may be submitted jointly in the RFA, a joint RFA would
need to include the written confirmation and statement specified under
proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv), as described below, from each
host railroad that is a signatory to the joint RFA.
    New proposed paragraph (m) would outline the mandatory, three-step
process a host railroad would need to follow to make changes to its
FRA-certified PTC system and the associated FRA-approved PTCSP. FRA
intends the process under proposed paragraph (m) to apply to all
changes necessitating an RFA under existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4)
of this section--i.e., proposed changes to safety-critical elements of
PTC systems and proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the
safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it
interoperates. For brevity, FRA will refer to these changes as changes
to safety-critical elements of PTC systems, as that is sufficiently
broad for purposes of paragraph (m).
    Proposed paragraph (m)(1) would require a host railroad to revise
its PTCSP to account for each proposed change to its PTC system, and
summarize such changes in a chronological table of revisions at the
beginning of its PTCSP. FRA retains its authority to request a copy of
a host railroad's governing PTCSP in accordance with 49 CFR
236.1009(h), FRA access, and 49 CFR 236.1037, Records retention.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(2) would specifically require a host
railroad to file an RFA pursuant to paragraph (m) electronically, which
could include electronic filing on FRA's Secure Information Repository
(https://sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads currently file other PTC-
related documents, or another designated location. If a host railroad
wishes to seek confidential treatment of any part of its RFA, the
railroad would need to comply with the existing process and
requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, Request for confidential treatment,
which include marking the document properly with the necessary labels
and redactions, and providing a statement justifying nondisclosure and
referring to the specific legal authority claimed. FRA would post a
host railroad's RFA (the public, redacted version, if applicable) and
FRA's final decision letter in the respective railroad's PTC docket on
http://www.regulations.gov.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Railroads' applicable PTC docket numbers are available on
FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (v), FRA outlines the
proposed content requirements for an RFA to an FRA-certified PTC system
and the associated PTCSP--focusing on the core information and analysis
FRA would need to review to ensure the PTC system, including any
proposed changes, would provide an equivalent or greater level of
safety than the existing PTC system. Importantly, proposed paragraph
(m)(2)(i) would require the RFA to include a summary of the proposed
changes to any safety-critical elements of a PTC system, including a
summary of how the changes to the PTC system would affect its safety-
critical functionality, how any new hazards have been addressed and
mitigated, whether each change is a planned change \32\ that was
previously included in all required analysis under Sec.  236.1015, or
an unplanned change, and the reason for the proposed changes, including
whether the changes are necessary to address or resolve an emergency or
urgent issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., 75 FR 2598, 2661 (Jan. 15, 2010) (stating that
planned changes ``are those that the system developer and the
railroad have included in the safety analysis associated with the
PTC system, but have not yet implemented. These changes provide
enhanced functionality to the system, and FRA strongly encourages
railroads to include PTC system improvements that further increase
safety.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA's existing paragraphs (d)(7)(i) through (v) of Sec.  236.1021
explain the distinction between an unplanned change and a planned
change and impose certain additional requirements, including conducting
suitable regression testing to FRA's satisfaction and filing a new
PTCDP and PTCSP, under certain circumstances. As noted

above, FRA proposes to remove paragraph (d)(7) and instead require a
host railroad to identify in its RFA under paragraph (m)(2)(i) only
whether the change is a planned change or an unplanned change. That
basic information would be valuable to include in the abbreviated RFA
under paragraph (m) because several railroads have already accounted
for long-term, planned changes to their PTC systems and proactively
integrated those assumptions into the corresponding analyses in their
PTCSPs.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(ii) would require the RFA to include a
copy of any associated software release notes, which would be critical
for FRA to review and evaluate before one or more railroads deploy the
upgraded software. A copy of the release notes would be integral in
conveying the actual changes to the PTC system, including any
corrections, enhancements, or new features or functionality.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iii) would require the RFA to contain a
confirmation that the host railroad has notified any applicable tenant
railroads of the proposed changes, any associated effect on the tenant
railroads' operations, and any actions the tenant railroads must take
in accordance with the configuration control measures set forth in the
host railroad's PTCSP. In addition, proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iv) would
require the RFA to include a statement from the host railroad's Chief
Engineer and Chief Operating Officer, or executive officers of similar
qualifications, verifying that the modified PTC system would meet all
technical requirements under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, provide an
equivalent or greater level of safety than the existing PTC system, and
not adversely impact interoperability with any tenant railroads. This
would be consistent with existing regulatory provisions that require
PTC systems to achieve and maintain a level of safety, for each system
modification, that is equal to or greater than the level of safety
provided by the previous PTC system.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1001(a), 236.1015(d)(11),
236.1015(e)(1)(iii), and 236.1015(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (m)(2)(v) would require a host railroad to
submit any other information that FRA requests on a case-by-case basis,
during FRA's review of the RFA. If FRA were to require a host railroad,
or a set of host railroads, to provide additional information in
support of the RFA, FRA's request would identify a deadline by which to
submit the information. Also, this would be generally consistent with
the existing provision under 49 CFR 236.1015(f), which provides that in
any case where a PTCSP, or an RFA in this scenario, ``lacks adequate
data regarding [the] safety impacts of the proposed changes, the
Associate Administrator may request the necessary data from the
applicant.''
    Proposed paragraph (m)(3) would outline a definite, predictable
timeline associated with FRA's review of an RFA to a host railroad's
PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC system under proposed paragraph (m).
Specifically, proposed paragraph (m)(3) would prohibit a host railroad
from making any changes, as defined under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3) or
(4),\34\ to its PTC system until the Director of FRA's Office of
Railroad Systems, Technology, and Automation approves the RFA. Under
proposed paragraph (m)(3)(i), FRA would review the RFA and issue a
decision--i.e., an approval, conditional approval, or denial of the
RFA--within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under
paragraph (m)(2). FRA's decision would be in the form of a letter from
the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and
Automation. As noted above, FRA would post each final decision letter
in the respective railroad's PTC docket on http://www.regulations.gov.
FRA, however, may send interim correspondence--including any notices
requiring a railroad to provide additional information under proposed
paragraph (m)(2)(v)--via email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ That is, proposed changes to safety-critical elements of
PTC systems or proposed changes to a PTC system that affect the
safety-critical functionality of any other PTC system with which it
interoperates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(ii) would explicitly acknowledge that FRA
reserves the right to notify a railroad that it may proceed with making
its proposed changes prior to the 45-day mark, including in an
emergency or under other circumstances necessitating a railroad's
immediate implementation of the proposed changes to its PTC system.
    Proposed paragraph (m)(3)(iii) would specify that FRA may require a
railroad to modify its RFA and/or its PTC system, but only to the
extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the requirements
under FRA's PTC regulations.
    If FRA denies an RFA under proposed paragraph (m), proposed
paragraph (m)(3)(iv) would specify that each applicable railroad would
be prohibited from making the proposed changes to its PTC system until
the railroad both sufficiently addresses FRA's questions, comments, and
concerns and obtains FRA's approval. Consistent with proposed paragraph
(l) of this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC
system, including the same certification classification under paragraph
(e) of Sec.  236.1015, would be permitted to submit information jointly
to address FRA's questions, comments, and concerns following any denial
of an RFA under this section.
    FRA expects that its proposed paragraphs (l) and (m) would help
establish an improved process that would entail a reasonable level of
predictability and transparency in FRA's review process and enable the
industry to make technological advancements more efficiently.

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and Failures

    Currently, paragraph (h) of this section requires railroads to
report annually to FRA the number of PTC system failures that occurred
during the previous calendar year. FRA is proposing to revise this
existing paragraph to clarify and expand the reporting requirement and
require host railroads to submit the information in a Biannual Report
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). FRA's proposed Excel-
based \35\ Form FRA F 6180.152 has been placed in the docket for this
NPRM (Docket No. FRA-2019-0075) for reference and review. Proposed
paragraph (h)(1) would specify this reporting requirement applies to
each host railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or 49 CFR part 236,
subpart I, which would include any new host railroads that become
subject to the statutory mandate in the future and any host railroads
that voluntarily implement a PTC system under subpart I.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
All third-party trademarks belong to their respective owners.
    \36\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1011(d) (stating that a ``railroad
that elects to install a PTC system when not required to do so may
elect to proceed under this subpart [subpart I] or under subpart H
of this part,'' including the associated filing and reporting
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For clarification and simplicity, FRA is proposing to remove the
phrase ``following the date of required PTC system implementation
established by section 20157 of title 49 of the United States Code''
from paragraph (h) because that phrase would be unnecessary after the
final statutory deadline of December 31, 2020 and retaining that phrase
may cause confusion about the applicability of this reporting
requirement to new railroads that become subject to the statutory
mandate after 2020 or railroads

voluntarily implementing PTC systems on non-mandated lines.
    In addition, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require a host
railroad to file its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form
FRA F 6180.152) electronically, which could include electronic filing
on FRA's Secure Information Repository (https://sir.fra.dot.gov), where
railroads file other PTC-related documents, or another designated
location. To the extent a railroad would seek confidential treatment of
any part of its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152), the railroad would need to comply with the existing process
and requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, including proper labeling and
redacting and providing a statement justifying nondisclosure and
referring to the specific legal authority claimed. FRA's proposed Form
FRA F 6180.152 would contain fields for a host railroad to identify its
request for partial or full confidentiality and provide the required
statement under Sec.  209.11(c), if applicable.
    Also, proposed paragraph (h)(1) would require a host railroad to
include in its Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152) the figures itemized under proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
through (vii) for the host railroad, each of its applicable tenant
railroads (as explained in proposed paragraph (h)(4)), and each of its
PTC-governed track segments. In this proposed paragraph, FRA
acknowledges that a host railroad's PTCIP may identify or designate its
specific track segments as territories, subdivisions, districts, main
lines, branches, or corridors, based on a railroad's own naming
conventions. FRA expects that requiring this relatively high-level
geographical information (e.g., by subdivision, not by milepost
location) would still enable FRA to monitor closely trends in PTC
system reliability throughout the country and focus its resources, for
example, on any areas where PTC system failures are occurring at a high
rate.
    Consistent with existing paragraph (h), proposed paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (iii) would require a railroad's biannual report to
include the number of PTC-related failures that occurred during the
applicable reporting period, in addition to a numerical breakdown of
the ``failures by category, including but not limited to locomotive,
wayside, communications, and back office system failures,'' quoting
existing 49 CFR 236.1029(h). In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through
(iii), however, FRA acknowledges that the source or cause of a PTC
system failure might not necessarily involve, in every instance, the
PTC system itself, so FRA proposes to include an additional category
for railroads to select in the applicable drop-down menu in Form FRA F
6180.152--i.e., ``a non-PTC component.''
    Another difference between the existing paragraph (h) and FRA's
proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) is that FRA's proposed
language utilizes the statutory terminology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)
as referenced above--initialization failures, cut outs, and
malfunctions--which would be defined under paragraph (b) of Sec.
236.1003. FRA is aware that railroads track their PTC system failures
in this manner (by type of failure), given the existing temporary
reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and FRA's associated
mandatory form, the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form
FRA F 6180.177).
    In proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv), FRA is proposing to expand the
existing reporting requirement under paragraph (h) to encompass certain
positive, performance-related information, as otherwise the information
FRA receives would be about PTC system failures only. FRA proposes to
require railroads' Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance to
include data about PTC technology's positive impact on rail safety and
the extent to which PTC systems are functioning as designed--to prevent
train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into
established work zones, and movements of trains through switches left
in the wrong position.\37\ Specifically, proposed paragraph (h)(1)(iv)
would require a host railroad to identify the number of intended
enforcements by the PTC system and any other instances in which the PTC
system prevented an accident or incident on the host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines, during the applicable reporting period. This type
of statistic would be valuable and help demonstrate the extent to which
PTC systems are meeting their desired objectives. FRA would interpret
the term ``intended enforcement'' in this proposed paragraph
consistently with how the term ``enforce'' is applied in FRA's existing
PTC regulations, which include references to how a PTC system shall
enforce speeds, movement authorities, signal indications, and so forth.
See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1005, 236.1013, 236.1015, and 236.1047(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), FRA would require a
railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance to include certain
contextual data to help FRA understand how the occurrences of PTC
system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions compare to
all operations on that host railroad's PTC-governed main lines.\38\
Specifically, proposed paragraph (h)(1)(v) would require a railroad's
biannual report to include the number of scheduled attempts at
initialization of the PTC system during the applicable reporting
period, which would help FRA calculate the actual rate of that
railroad's PTC system initialization failures. Respectively, proposed
paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) would require the railroad to provide
the number of trains and the number of train miles governed by the PTC
system during the applicable reporting period. FRA's proposed
paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) would generally encompass the same
types of denominators currently set forth in the Statutory Notification
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) with one notable
difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ FRA's proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance
(Form FRA F 6180.152) would include fields for host railroads to
provide the raw denominators set forth under proposed paragraphs
(h)(1)(v) through (vii), and FRA would calculate the rate of
failures, utilizing those raw denominators. FRA has found that
providing fields for railroads to enter such raw denominators,
instead of percentages or rates, helps FRA accurately interpret
railroads' data, especially when comparing multiple railroads' data
or a single railroad's data to its own prior reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FRA's proposed paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii), unlike Form
FRA F 6180.177, FRA would be uniformly requiring those three data
points from a host railroad and its applicable tenant railroads. In
practice, FRA has found that host railroads providing certain
denominators for tenant railroads (i.e., PTC-governed trains) and other
denominators for the host railroad itself (i.e., scheduled attempts at
initialization and PTC-governed train miles) makes it difficult for FRA
to evaluate the rate at which failures are occurring system-wide. FRA
expects that requiring uniform figures would help the agency derive
more accurate, objective, and comparable statistics. Furthermore, FRA
understands that host railroads collect the type of data under proposed
paragraphs (h)(1)(v) through (vii) for their own operations and their
tenant railroads' operations because several host railroads have
provided those additional data points in their Statutory Notifications
of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) to date.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would require a host railroad's Biannual
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to include a
summary of

any actions the host railroad and its tenant railroads are taking to
improve the performance and reliability of the PTC system continually.
This narrative section would provide railroads an opportunity to
explain briefly the steps they are taking to improve their PTC system's
performance, which could also help put the biannual statistics into
perspective. FRA did not propose including this content requirement
under proposed paragraph (h)(1) because that paragraph would be track
segment-specific, and FRA acknowledges that railroads generally take a
system-wide approach to improving their PTC systems. Accordingly, FRA
proposes to categorize this content requirement in the separate,
proposed paragraph (h)(2), and FRA's proposed, Excel-based Form FRA F
6180.152 would contain a field for railroads to enter this summary.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(3) outlines the dates by which host
railroads would submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance
(Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA--i.e., by July 31 (covering the period
from January 1 to June 30), and by January 31 (covering the period from
July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar year). FRA expects that
providing railroads one full month (from the end of the half-year
period) to complete Form FRA 6180.152 would be sufficient and
reasonable, given railroads' experience, since 2016, in submitting
their Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) one month
after the end of the quarter. Furthermore, under the temporary
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177),
the due date for any monthly notification is currently the 15th of the
following month--so, for example, the notification regarding
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions during November
2020 is due by December 15, 2020 for the subset of host railroads that
have fully implemented an FRA-certified PTC system. Accordingly, FRA
expects that allowing one full month for railroads to prepare and
submit their Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152) under proposed paragraph (h)(3) would be a reasonable
timeframe for this permanent reporting requirement.
    Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would explicitly require any applicable
tenant railroads that operate on a host railroad's PTC-governed main
line(s) to provide the necessary data to their applicable host
railroads by a specific date before the biannual filing deadlines--
i.e., by July 15 (for the biannual report covering the period from
January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for the biannual report
covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior calendar
year). The text in proposed paragraph (h)(4) clarifies, however, that a
host railroad would not need to include data in Form FRA F 6180.152
regarding a tenant railroad that is subject to an exception under 49
CFR 236.1006(b)(4) or (5) during the applicable reporting period
because such a tenant railroad's movements would not be governed by PTC
technology in that case and there would not be any pertinent,
performance-related data to submit.
    In general, FRA's proposed paragraph (h)(4) regarding tenant
railroad responsibilities is based, in part, on comments AAR and APTA
previously submitted during the comment period associated with the
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177).
Specifically, on February 28, 2020, AAR commented, ``[i]f FRA is going
to require hosts to report tenant data, the agency must impose a clear
and direct requirement on tenants to report the desired information to
their host railroad.'' \39\ In APTA's comments, also dated February 28,
2020, APTA observed that a host railroad would need to obtain ``all
necessary logs to complete the analyses'' from its tenant railroads to
complete Form FRA F 6180.177 accurately.\40\ FRA acknowledges that an
existing regulatory provision, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4), already requires
a tenant railroad to report a PTC system failure or cut out to ``a
designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and
practicable.'' In addition, FRA is aware that several host railroads,
including Class I railroads and passenger railroads, already regularly
monitor and track tenant railroads' PTC system initialization failures,
cut outs, and malfunctions via automatically generated reports and/or
via connected PTC system back offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Docket Nos. FRA 2019-0004-N-20 and FRA 2020-0004-N-3;
85 FR 15022, 15027 (Mar. 16, 2020).
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA expects that the language in proposed paragraph (h)(4) would
help clarify the existing obligation on tenant railroads to provide
certain data to their host railroads. Also, proposed paragraph (h)(4)
would help ensure that host railroads receive tenant railroads'
necessary data for purposes of the reporting requirement under
paragraph (h) in a timely manner. Specifically, in proposed paragraph
(h)(4), FRA proposes to require each applicable tenant railroad to
submit the information required under proposed paragraphs (h)(1) and
(2) to each applicable host railroad by July 15 (for the report
covering the period from January 1 to June 30) and by January 15 (for
the report covering the period from July 1 to December 31 of the prior
calendar year). FRA expects that adding proposed paragraph (h)(4) to
its regulations would offer more clarity and certainty about the
timeframe under which tenant railroads would provide host railroads the
information necessary to prepare and submit their Biannual Reports of
PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). In addition, this
proposed paragraph would help ensure that host railroads receive such
data at least 15 days before the biannual filing deadlines under
proposed paragraph (h)(3), i.e., July 31 and January 31.

IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This proposed rule is a nonsignificant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' \41\ and
DOT's Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures
in 49 CFR part 5. FRA made this determination by finding that the
economic effects of this proposed regulatory action would not exceed
the $100 million annual threshold defined by Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive
Order 13771.\42\ FRA estimates this proposed rule would result in cost
savings for the industry over a ten-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993).
    \42\ See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would reduce the burden on railroads while not
adversely affecting railroad safety. To enable FRA to oversee the
performance and reliability of railroads' PTC systems effectively, FRA
is proposing to change the reporting requirement under 49 CFR
236.1029(h). FRA's proposed changes include, but are not limited to,
increasing the reporting frequency from annual to biannual, clarifying
the types of statistics and information the reports must include, and
expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-
related information, not just failure-related information. The amended
provision would require host railroads to submit additional
information. Accordingly, FRA estimates that the number of hours it
would take a host railroad to report the required information under

Sec.  236.1029(h) would increase under the proposed rule. To provide
clarity and precision regarding the reporting requirement under Sec.
236.1029(h), FRA has developed a proposed, Excel-based Biannual Report
of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) that railroads would
utilize to satisfy this reporting requirement.
    While FRA is proposing to expand this existing reporting
requirement, the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads
would be reduced under Sec.  236.1021. Specifically, FRA is proposing
to establish a streamlined process to enable the railroad industry to
make technological advancements to FRA-certified PTC systems more
efficiently and with FRA's continued oversight. Instead of the existing
RFA approval process under Sec.  236.1021, FRA proposes to: (1) Require
host railroads to comply with a streamlined process, which would
include providing certain safety assurances and analysis in a concise
RFA; and (2) establish a 45-day FRA decision deadline. This more
efficient process is expected to result in cost savings for both the
host railroads and the government. FRA's proposed simplification of the
content requirements associated with an RFA to a PTCSP under Sec.
236.1021 would reduce the number of burden hours per RFA. In addition,
FRA is proposing to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of
PTC system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus
reducing the number of RFAs railroads would need to submit in the
future.
    Currently, 35 host railroads are required to submit RFAs before
making certain changes to their PTCSPs under Sec.  236.1021, with many
host railroads projected to submit one RFA to a PTCSP per year. Over
the next ten years, FRA expects there will be an average increase of
1.5 new PTC-governed host railroads per year, beginning in the second
year, for a total of approximately 14 additional host railroads. Table
A summarizes the types of PTC systems the 35 host railroads currently
subject to the statutory mandate are implementing as of 2020 and the
approximate number of RFAs host railroads would file to their PTCSPs
under existing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Several host railroads are implementing multiple types of
PTC systems.

                   Table A--Estimated Number of Required RFAs to PTCSPs by Type of PTC System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              PTC systems being
                                                             implemented by host   Annual Number   Total number
                     Type of PTC system                        railroads (as of     of RFAs per       of RFAs
                                                                  2020) \43\        PTC system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES II...................................................                    8               1               8
CBTC.......................................................                    1               1               1
E-ATC......................................................                    5               1               5
ITCS.......................................................                    1               1               1
I-ETMS.....................................................                   26               2              52
                                                            ----------------------------------------------------
    Total..................................................                   41  ..............              67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, without the proposed rule, FRA estimates the 35 host
railroads would need to submit approximately 67 RFAs annually given the
types of changes the industry intends to make to their PTC systems each
year under 49 CFR 236.1021(h)(3)-(4) in the future.\44\ FRA has
estimated that the current hourly burden is 160 hours per RFA, based on
previously approved PTC Information Collection Requests (ICRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Previously, FRA estimated it would receive, on average,
approximately 10 RFAs to railroads' PTCIPs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs each
year. However, from discussions with PTC-mandated railroads, FRA
found the estimate did not account adequately for the number of RFAs
host railroads intend to submit to their PTCSPs annually under Sec.
236.1021(h)(3)-(4) without the proposed rule. Tables A, B, and F in
this proposed rule estimate more accurately the approximate average
number of RFAs host railroads would submit to their PTCSPs each year
under the existing regulations and under the proposed rule. See 84
FR 72121, 72127 (Dec. 30, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table B below provides the current hourly burden and costs that
host railroads face when submitting RFAs to their PTCSPs under the
existing Sec.  236.1021.

                    Table B--Current Host Railroad Hourly Burden and Cost for RFAs to PTCSPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Hour burden per     Total annual
            Year                Submissions       submission           cost          7-Percent       3-Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................              67                160         $830,505        $830,505        $830,505
2...........................              69                160          855,296         799,342         830,385
3...........................              70                160          867,692         757,876         817,883
4...........................              72                160          892,483         728,532         816,749
5...........................              73                160          904,879         690,328         803,973
6...........................              75                160          929,670         662,842         801,942
7...........................              76                160          942,066         627,738         788,965
8...........................              78                160          966,857         602,110         786,143
9...........................              79                160          979,252         569,934         773,031
10..........................              81                160        1,004,044         546,133         769,516
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................             740  .................        9,172,744       6,815,340       8,019,091
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    As described above, FRA is also proposing to amend a reporting
requirement by increasing the frequency from annual to biannual,
clarifying the types of statistics and information the reports must
include, and expanding the reporting requirement to encompass positive
performance-related

information. Though FRA's proposed rule will increase the number of
required submissions, as well as the hourly burden per submission, FRA
estimates any new costs will be minimal and offset by the cost savings
derived from the proposed changes as presented in the Cost Savings
section below.
    To clarify the information FRA is requesting from host railroads,
FRA created an Excel-based form for the Biannual Report of PTC System
Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). This form will incorporate the
information currently required under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) and the
additional types of information specified in this NPRM.\45\ Host
railroads with FRA-certified PTC systems are experienced in compiling
this type of information, given the corresponding reporting
requirements under the temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control No. 2130-0553).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The proposed Biannual Report of PTC System Performance
(Form FRA F 6180.152) will be placed in the docket (Docket No. FRA-
2019-0075) for review when this NPRM is published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hourly burden associated with submitting the required
information will increase initially from 8 hours to 12 hours per report
on average. FRA estimates that, over time, railroads will develop
procedures that decrease the reporting burden from 12 hours per
submission to 10 hours per submission. FRA assumes this decrease will
begin in the fourth year of the analysis as host railroads become
familiar with the Excel-based form and as they develop processes to
improve their data collection and reporting.
    In addition to the increase in hourly burden, FRA estimates an
increased burden will result from the additional annual report this
proposed rule will require. Consistent with the previously stated
estimates, FRA assumes that 35 host railroads will submit these
biannual reports, and the number of applicable host railroads will
increase by 1.5 on average each year.
    This analysis accounts for the marginal increase of four hours for
the first three years of a host railroad reporting and two hours for
each subsequent year. Table C below shows the marginal hourly burden
increase associated with railroads' reporting under the proposed rule.

                            Table C--Ten-Year Host Railroad Marginal Burden Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of host    Number of host
                                                                railroad          railroad
                           Year                             submissions with  submissions with   Total marginal
                                                             marginal 4-hour   marginal 2-hour    hourly burden
                                                                 burden            burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................                35                 0               140
2.........................................................                37                 0               146
3.........................................................                38                 0               152
4.........................................................                 2                38                84
5.........................................................                 3                38                88
6.........................................................                 5                38                96
7.........................................................                 4                40                96
8.........................................................                 4                42               100
9.........................................................                 4                43               102
10........................................................                 4                45               106
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................               136               284             1,110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the marginal increase, host railroads will face an
additional reporting burden due to the proposed change from annual to
biannual reporting. This analysis accounts for the new burden of 12
hours for the first three years of a host railroad's reporting and 10
hours for each subsequent year to account for the proposed change from
annual to biannual reporting. Table D below shows the new hourly burden
under this proposed rule for the ten-year period of this analysis.

                                 Table D--Ten-Year Host Railroad New Submissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of host    Number of host
                                                                railroad          railroad
                           Year                             submissions with     submissions    Total new hourly
                                                               new 12-hour    with new 10-hour       burden
                                                                 burden            burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................                35                 0               420
2.........................................................                37                 0               438
3.........................................................                38                 0               456
4.........................................................                 2                38               404
5.........................................................                 3                38               416
6.........................................................                 5                38               440
7.........................................................                 4                40               448
8.........................................................                 4                42               468
9.........................................................                 4                43               478
10........................................................                 4                45               498
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................               136               284             4,466
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA calculated the total additional burden hours for submissions by
multiplying the respective number of submissions with their associated
annual burden for each individual year. The summation of the hourly
burden is multiplied by the fully burdened wage rate of a Professional
and Administrative employee. For purposes of this analysis, FRA uses
the fully burdened rate of $77.47 to calculate both the costs and cost
savings throughout this analysis.\46\ Table E provides the ten-year
cost to the railroad industry associated with the expanded reporting
requirement, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 2019 Composite Surface Transportation Board (STB)
Professional and Administrative hourly wage rate of $44.27 burdened
by 75-percent ($44.27 x 1.75 = $77.47).
    \47\ Total Annual Host Railroad Submissions Cost = Total New
Complete Hour Burden x $77.47.

                                                              Table E--Ten-Year Total Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                                        Total marginal     Total new       Total new      host railroad
                         Year                             hour burden     submission     complete hour  submissions cost     7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                          hour burden       burden            \47\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................................             140             420             560           $43,385         $43,385         $43,385
2.....................................................             146             438             584            45,244          42,284          43,926
3.....................................................             152             456             608            47,103          41,142          44,399
4.....................................................              84             404             488            37,807          30,861          34,598
5.....................................................              88             416             504            39,046          29,788          34,692
6.....................................................              96             440             536            41,525          29,607          35,820
7.....................................................              96             448             544            42,145          28,083          35,296
8.....................................................             100             468             568            44,004          27,404          35,780
9.....................................................             102             478             580            44,934          26,152          35,471
10....................................................             106             498             604            46,793          25,453          35,863
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................................           1,110           4,466           5,576           431,987         324,158         379,231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Table may not sum due to rounding.

    FRA estimates that the total cost to the railroad industry will be
$324,158, discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, discounted at 3
percent. In terms of governmental costs associated with the expanded
reporting requirement, including the proposed increase from annual to
biannual reporting, FRA expects it will cost approximately $10,000,
over the ten-year period, to review the additional data railroads will
submit in the proposed Biannual Reports of PTC System Performance (Form
FRA F 6180.152). As FRA considers these additional governmental costs
to be de minimis, they are not included in the economic analysis.
Cost Savings
    There are currently 35 host railroads that are required to submit
an RFA before changing safety-critical elements of their PTC systems
and their PTCSPs. FRA estimates that over the next ten years, the
number of PTC-governed host railroads will increase by approximately
14, for a total of 49 host railroads. For purposes of this analysis,
FRA estimates that approximately 1.5 new host railroads are added each
year, beginning in year two.
    Currently, under FRA's existing regulations, FRA estimates that
host railroads will submit 67 annual RFAs to their PTCSPs that FRA must
review and approve before those host railroads change and improve their
PTC systems. Under this proposed rule, FRA is proposing to permit host
railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs to
their PTCDPs and PTCSPs.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ FRA expects its proposal to allow host railroads to submit
joint RFAs to impact primarily host railroads implementing I-ETMS
and E-ATC because each I-ETMS system is relatively similar and
manufactured by the same set of suppliers, and each E-ATC system is
relatively similar and manufactured by the same set of suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table F below shows the number of RFAs to PTCSPs that would be
submitted under the existing regulation and the proposed rule. Over a
ten-year period, FRA estimates that the changes described in this
proposed rule will result in railroads submitting approximately 590
fewer RFAs.

                                   Table F--Estimated Number of RFAs to PTCSPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Approximate
                                                                number of RFAs    Approximate
                                                                to PTCSPs per    number of RFAs  Total number of
                 Current types of PTC systems                     year under     to PTCSPs per     reduction of
                                                                   existing        year under     RFAs to PTCSPs
                                                                 regulations        proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACSES II.....................................................                8                8                0
CBTC.........................................................                1                1                0
E-ATC........................................................                5                1                4
ITCS.........................................................                1                1                0
I-ETMS.......................................................               52           \49\ 4               48
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal in Year 1.......................................               67               15               52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates the current burden is 160 hours per RFA to a PTCSP
based on the existing RFA content requirements. FRA's proposed
simplification of the content requirements would reduce the burden
hours by 50 percent, resulting in 80 burden hours per RFA. Table G
provides the estimated ten-year cost to host railroads based on FRA's
proposal to simplify the RFA process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ For I-ETMS systems, FRA estimates the total number of
annual RFAs to PTCSPs would be reduced from 52 (under the existing
regulation) to 4 (under the proposed rule)--i.e., 2 RFAs per year
from the set of railroads whose I-ETMS is certified as a mixed PTC
system and 2 RFAs per year from the set of railroads whose I-ETMS is
certified as a non-vital, overlay PTC system.

                                                Table G--Ten-Year Cost of Joint RFAs and Simplified RFAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hour burden per     Total annual
                               Year                                   Submissions        submission        cost savings      7-Percent       3-Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                15                  80          $92,967         $92,967         $92,967
2................................................................                15                  80           92,967          86,885          90,259
3................................................................                15                  80           92,967          81,201          87,630
4................................................................                15                  80           92,967          75,889          85,078
5................................................................                15                  80           92,967          70,924          82,600
6................................................................                15                  80           92,967          66,284          80,194
7................................................................                15                  80           92,967          61,948          77,858
8................................................................                15                  80           92,967          57,895          75,591
9................................................................                15                  80           92,967          54,108          73,389
10...............................................................                15                  80           92,967          50,568          71,251
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               150  ..................          929,670         698,669         816,818
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, FRA expects that simplifying the content requirements for
RFAs to PTCSPs, as well as permitting host railroads utilizing the same
type of PTC system to submit joint RFAs, will result in a ten-year cost
savings of $6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 million,
discounted at 3 percent.

                                      Table H--Total Ten-Year Cost Savings Associated With Proposed Sec.   236.1021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Current host
                                                                    railroad costs   Cost of joint RFAs
                               Year                                    (without      and simplified RFA    Total annual      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                       proposed         process (with      cost savings
                                                                      regulation)      proposed rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................          $830,505             $92,967         $737,538        $737,538        $737,538
2................................................................           855,296              92,967          762,329         712,457         740,126
3................................................................           867,692              92,967          774,725         676,675         730,253
4................................................................           892,483              92,967          799,516         652,643         731,671
5................................................................           904,879              92,967          811,912         619,404         721,373
6................................................................           929,670              92,967          836,703         596,558         721,747
7................................................................           942,066              92,967          849,099         565,790         711,107
8................................................................           966,857              92,967          873,890         544,215         710,552
9................................................................           979,252              92,967          886,285         515,826         699,642
10...............................................................         1,004,044              92,967          911,077         495,565         698,264
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................         9,172,744             929,670        8,243,074       6,116,671       7,202,273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FRA's proposed changes to the RFA process will result
in cost savings for the government, through a reduction in time needed
to review an RFA with the existing contents under 49 CFR
236.1021(d)(1)-(7). Under the proposed rule, FRA will review a
streamlined RFA with the more focused information that new proposed
paragraph (m)(2) would require.
    Table I below outlines the assumptions that FRA used to calculate
the governmental cost savings. FRA's estimates assume there will be PTC
system changes that are complex and will require additional time to
review, as well as system changes that are less complex.

                                                   Table I--Government Administrative Cost Assumptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost savings
                           Staff level                             Average employee    Average hourly     Average hourly  Fully burdened     per staff
                                                                     count needed          burden             salary           rate            level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS-15............................................................                 1                  10           $77.75         $136.07          $1,315
GS-14............................................................                 2                 105            62.34          109.10          19,171
GS-13............................................................                 2                 119            49.71           86.99          20,646
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................                 5                 234           189.81          332.17          41,132
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without the proposed rule, FRA would be required to review and
approve or deny all 67 of the RFAs to PTCSPs that would be submitted
annually. FRA estimated that over the next ten years, the total cost to
the government would be $30.4 million. Table J provides an overview of
the ten-year government burden without the proposed rule.

                                                           Table J--Ten-Year Government Burden
                                                                 [Without proposed rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Government cost to
                               Year                                   Submissions        review each       Total annual      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                                submission            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                67             $41,132       $2,755,871      $2,755,871      $2,755,871
2................................................................                69              41,132        2,838,136       2,652,463       2,755,471
3................................................................                70              41,132        2,879,268       2,514,864       2,713,986
4................................................................                72              41,132        2,961,533       2,417,493       2,710,222
5................................................................                73              41,132        3,002,665       2,290,719       2,667,829
6................................................................                75              41,132        3,084,930       2,199,512       2,661,088
7................................................................                76              41,132        3,126,062       2,083,027       2,618,028
8................................................................                78              41,132        3,208,327       1,997,985       2,608,664
9................................................................                79              41,132        3,249,460       1,891,215       2,565,153
10...............................................................                81              41,132        3,331,724       1,812,237       2,553,489
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               740             411,324       30,437,976      22,615,387      26,609,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the proposed changes to Sec.  236.1021, the number of RFAs
that FRA would be required to review will decrease from 67 to 15 per
year, beginning in the first year. This reduction is the same as seen
in the cost savings above. The resulting reduction would mean that the
new government cost to review the RFAs would be reduced to $6.2 million
over the ten-year period. Table K below outlines the government costs
under the proposed rule.

                                                         Table K--Ten-Year New Government Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Government cost to
                               Year                                   Submissions        review each       Total annual      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                                submission        cost savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................................                15             $41,132         $616,986        $616,986        $616,986
2................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         576,622         599,016
3................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         538,899         581,568
4................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         503,644         564,630
5................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         470,696         548,184
6................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         439,902         532,218
7................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         411,124         516,716
8................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         384,228         501,666
9................................................................                15              41,132          616,986         359,091         487,054
10...............................................................                15              41,132          616,986         335,600         472,868
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................               150             411,324        6,169,860       4,636,793       5,420,906
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA estimates that its proposed changes will result in a ten-year
government cost savings of $18.0 million, discounted at 7 percent, or
$21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent.

                                                     Table L--Government Administrative Cost Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Current
                                                                   government cost   Government cost to
                                                                      to review      review submissions    Total annual
                              Year                                   submissions       (with proposed      cost savings      7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                                       (without             rule)
                                                                    proposed rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................         $2,755,871            $616,986       $2,138,885      $2,138,885      $2,138,885
2...............................................................          2,838,136             616,986        2,221,150       2,075,841       2,156,456
3...............................................................          2,879,268             616,986        2,262,282       1,975,965       2,132,418
4...............................................................          2,961,533             616,986        2,344,547       1,913,849       2,145,592
5...............................................................          3,002,665             616,986        2,385,679       1,820,023       2,119,645
6...............................................................          3,084,930             616,986        2,467,944       1,759,610       2,128,870
7...............................................................          3,126,062             616,986        2,509,076       1,671,904       2,101,312
8...............................................................          3,208,327             616,986        2,591,341       1,613,757       2,106,998

9...............................................................          3,249,460             616,986        2,632,474       1,532,124       2,078,099
10..............................................................          3,331,724             616,986        2,714,738       1,476,638       2,080,621
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         30,437,976           6,169,860       24,268,116      17,978,594      21,188,896
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results
    This proposed rule would reduce the burden on railroads while not
adversely affecting railroad safety. To oversee the performance and
reliability of railroads' PTC systems, FRA is proposing to expand the
reporting requirement under 49 CFR 236.1029(h), as described above. FRA
estimates that the total ten-year industry cost associated with the
expanded reporting requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h) will be
$324,158, discounted at 7 percent, or $379,231, discounted at 3
percent.
    Though FRA is proposing to expand certain reporting requirements,
the regulatory and administrative burden on host railroads will be
reduced overall. The proposed simplification of RFAs to PTCSPs will
reduce the number of burden hours per RFA. Also, FRA is proposing to
permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit
joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of
submissions railroads will need to submit in the future.
    FRA expects that its proposed changes will result in a ten-year
cost savings for the railroad industry of $6.1 million, discounted at 7
percent, or $7.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. In addition, during
the same period, FRA expects that the proposed changes will produce
government cost savings amounting to $18.0 million, discounted at 7
percent, or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent.
    FRA estimates that the total net cost savings for this proposed
rule will be $23.8 million, discounted at 7 percent, or $28.0 million,
discounted at 3 percent. The annualized cost savings will be $3.4
million, discounted at 7 percent, or $3.3 million, discounted at 3
percent.

                                                        Table M--Total Ten-Year Net Cost Savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------