Total
                          Year                            Total industry    government    Total industry  Total net cost     7-Percent       3-Percent
                                                           cost savings    cost savings        costs          savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................        $737,538      $2,138,885         $43,385      $2,833,038      $2,833,038      $2,833,038
2.......................................................         762,329       2,221,150          45,244       2,938,235       2,746,014       2,852,655
3.......................................................         774,725       2,262,282          47,103       2,989,904       2,611,498       2,818,271
4.......................................................         799,516       2,344,547          37,807       3,106,256       2,535,631       2,842,665
5.......................................................         811,912       2,385,679          39,046       3,158,545       2,409,639       2,806,326
6.......................................................         836,703       2,467,944          41,525       3,263,122       2,326,561       2,814,797
7.......................................................         849,099       2,509,076          42,145       3,316,030       2,209,611       2,777,123
8.......................................................         873,890       2,591,341          44,004       3,421,227       2,130,568       2,781,770
9.......................................................         886,285       2,632,474          44,934       3,473,825       2,021,798       2,742,269
10......................................................         911,077       2,714,738          46,793       3,579,022       1,946,751       2,743,022
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       8,243,074      24,268,116         431,987      32,079,203      23,771,107      28,011,938
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       3,384,471       3,283,854
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA requests comments on the assumptions and burden estimates that
are used within this analysis.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' (67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) require agency
review of proposed and final rules to assess their impacts on small
entities. An agency must prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies that a rule, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. FRA has not determined whether
this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, FRA seeks comment on
the potential small business impacts of the proposed requirements in
this NPRM. FRA prepared an IRFA, which is included below, to aid the
public in commenting on the potential small business impacts of the
proposed requirements in this NPRM.
1. Reasons for Considering Agency Action
    FRA is initiating the proposed rulemaking to enable railroads to
make technological advancements to their PTC systems more efficiently,
with FRA's continued oversight, by improving and streamlining the RFA
process under 49 CFR 236.1021. Without the proposed rule, each host
railroad would be required to submit independently an RFA, with the
information required under 49 CFR 236.1021(d)(1)-(7), several times per
year and wait for FRA to approve each RFA prior to implementing

enhancements or necessary changes to existing FRA-certified technology.
    In addition, FRA is proposing to improve the reporting requirement
under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) by, for example, increasing the reporting
frequency from annual to biannual, updating the provision to use
certain statutory terminology for consistency, and expanding the
reporting requirement to encompass positive performance-related
information, so FRA can oversee PTC systems' performance and
reliability more effectively. To reduce the burden on host railroads,
FRA has developed an Excel-based form (Form FRA F 6180.152) in which
all the information could be succinctly input and sent to FRA
electronically.
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and the Legal Basis for,
the Proposed Rule
    The objective of this proposed rule is to establish an improved
process to enable the industry to make technological advancements to
FRA-certified PTC systems more efficiently, and with FRA's continued
oversight. Instead of the existing approval process under Sec.
236.1021, FRA proposes to require host railroads to comply with a
streamlined process, which includes providing certain safety assurances
and analysis. This improved process is expected to result in cost
savings for both the host railroads and the government. Furthermore,
FRA proposes to permit host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC
system to submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, which would
benefit both the industry and FRA.
    FRA is also proposing to expand the reporting requirement under
Sec.  236.1029(h) to enable FRA to oversee PTC systems' performance and
reliability effectively. The expanded reporting requirement would
increase the costs to host railroads, but that minimal cost would be
offset by the cost savings associated with FRA's proposed changes to
Sec.  236.1021.
    The Secretary has broad statutory authority to ``prescribe
regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety'' under
49 U.S.C. 20103 and regarding PTC technology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(g).
This proposed rule will reduce the burden on railroads while not
adversely affecting railroad safety. In this proposed rule, FRA
proposes to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on
regulated entities by reducing the complexity and number of RFAs host
railroads must submit regarding certain enhancements and necessary
changes to their FRA-certified PTC systems under Sec.  236.1021 and
providing more clarity and precision regarding the reporting
requirement under Sec.  236.1029(h), using a form.
3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires a review of
proposed and final rules to assess their impact on small entities,
unless the Secretary certifies that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 as a small business concern
that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has
authority to regulate issues related to small businesses, and
stipulates in its size standards that a ``small entity'' in the
railroad industry is a for-profit ``line-haul railroad'' that has fewer
than 1,500 employees, a ``short line railroad'' with fewer than 500
employees, or a ``commuter rail system'' with annual receipts of less
than seven million dollars. See ``Size Eligibility Provisions and
Standards,'' 13 CFR part 121, subpart A.
    The proposed rule would directly apply to all host railroads
subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157, including, in relevant part, 5 Class II or
III, short line, or terminal railroads, and 23 intercity passenger
railroads or commuter railroads, some of which may be small entities.
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the Class
of Small Entities That Will be Subject to the Requirements and the Type
of Professional Skill Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record
    The proposed RFA process would allow railroads to make enhancements
and necessary changes to their PTC systems more efficiently. FRA
understands that only 5 of the current PTC-mandated host railroads are
small entities; however, because this proposed rule would reduce the
regulatory costs and hourly burdens on these railroads, the proposed
changes would result in a positive impact on those railroads.
    FRA is also proposing to amend the reporting requirement under
Sec.  236.1029(h) 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.\50\ Though this expanded reporting
requirement would double the number of submissions and increase the
hourly burden, the proposed changes are necessary to enable FRA to
oversee the performance and reliability of railroads' PTC systems
effectively. FRA estimates that the additional costs associated with
the increased reporting requirement will be more than offset by the
proposed changes to Sec.  236.1021. Furthermore, FRA assumes that as
host railroads become more familiar with the reporting requirements
proposed under Sec.  236.1029(h), the hourly burden per submission will
be reduced from 12 hours to 10 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ In addition, with respect to tenant railroads, FRA's
proposed changes to Sec.  236.1029(h) are generally consistent with
the existing regulatory requirement specifying that a tenant
railroad must report a PTC system failure or cut out to ``a
designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and
practicable.'' See Sec.  236.1029(b)(4) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA expects that the proposed reporting requirement tasks will be
completed by one Professional and Administrative employee per host
railroad and require a basic understanding of Microsoft Excel.
    To calculate the individual costs for small entities, FRA divided
the total cost for each year by the number of estimated host railroads.
FRA assumes that the hourly burden to submit an RFA is independent of
an entity's size because the RFA depends upon the PTC system and not
the individual railroad making the submission. The total cost for all
host railroads in year one would be $43,385. FRA estimates that the
individual cost to each host railroad would be approximately $1,240.
The estimated ten-year cost per host railroad that FRA considers a
small entity would be approximately $7,997, discounted at 7 percent, or
$9,247, discounted at 3 percent. Though the proposed rule would impose
costs on those host railroads that are small entities, it would also
result in cost savings.
    To calculate the individual cost savings for small entities, FRA
divided the total cost savings for each year by the number of estimated
host railroads. The total annual cost savings in the first year would
be $737,538. FRA estimates that the individual cost savings for each
host railroad would be $21,073. The estimated ten-year cost savings per
host railroad that FRA considers a small entity would be $149,476,
discounted at 7 percent, or $173,984, discounted at 3 percent. FRA
requests comments on the burden that small entities would face under
this proposed rule.

5. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
    FRA is not aware of any relevant Federal rule that duplicates,
overlaps with, or conflicts with the proposed rule. As described in
this NPRM, the existing and proposed 49 CFR 236.1029(h) (proposed
Biannual Report of PTC System Performance, Form FRA F 6180.152)
constitutes a permanent reporting requirement, whereas the Statutory
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control
No. 2130-0553) under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) is a temporary reporting
requirement and expires on approximately December 31, 2021. FRA invites
all interested parties to submit comments, data, and information
demonstrating the potential economic impact on small entities that will
result from the adoption of this proposed rule. FRA particularly
encourages small entities potentially impacted by the proposed
amendments to participate in the public comment process. FRA will
consider all comments received during the public comment period for
this NPRM when making a final determination of the rule's economic
impact on small entities.
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    FRA is proposing this rulemaking to alleviate burdens on industry
and improve the process associated with changes and upgrades to FRA-
certified PTC systems and the associated PTCSPs. FRA's proposed changes
to Sec.  236.1021 are expected to result in cost savings for both the
host railroads and the government. Furthermore, FRA proposes to permit
host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system to submit joint
RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, which will benefit both the industry
and FRA. The main alternative to this rulemaking would be to maintain
the status quo.
    In the absence of this proposed rule, railroads would continue to
submit information under Sec.  236.1029(h) that may not be sufficient
for FRA to oversee PTC systems' performance and reliability
effectively. FRA notes the NPRM proposes to establish a new form \51\
to report the required information under Sec.  236.1029(h), which will
help clarify and facilitate this reporting requirement for the
industry. The alternative of not issuing the proposed rule would also
forgo the more efficient process of allowing host railroads to submit
joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, and to implement certain changes
to their PTC systems under the proposed streamlined process under Sec.
236.1021(l) and (m), which would reduce the overall burden of FRA's PTC
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Biannual Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F
6180.152).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are
being submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Please note that any new or revised
requirements, as proposed in this NPRM, are marked by asterisks (*) in
the table below. The sections that contain the proposed and current
information collection requirements under OMB Control No. 2130-0553
\52\ and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See also 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 2019) (60-day ICR notice);
85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020) (30-day ICR notice). On June 5, 2020,
OMB approved the revised ICR, entitled ``PTC and Other Signal
Systems'' under OMB Control No. 2130-0553, for a period of three
years, expiring on June 30, 2023.
    \53\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2019 STB
Full Year Wage A&B data series using the appropriate employee group
hourly wage rate that includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For
Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost amounts to
$120 per hour. For Professional/Administrative staff, this cost
amounts to $77 per hour.
    \54\ A railroad's final Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA
F 6180.165) will be due on January 31, 2021, assuming the railroad
fully implements an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system by
the statutory deadline of December 31, 2020.
    \55\ A railroad's final Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F
6180.166) will be due on March 31, 2021, assuming it fully
implements an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system by the
statutory deadline of December 31, 2020.
    \56\ The temporary Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures
(Form FRA F 6180.177) expires on approximately December 31, 2021 per
49 U.S.C. 20157(j).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
       CFR section/subject              Respondent universe         Total annual responses         Average time per       Total annual     dollar cost
                                                                                response           burden hours   equivalent \53\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
235.6(c)--Expedited application    42 railroads................  10 expedited applications...  5 hours.................              50           $3,850
 for approval of certain changes
 described in this section.
--Copy of expedited application    42 railroads................  10 copies...................  30 minutes..............               5              385
 to labor union.
--Railroad letter rescinding its   42 railroads................  1 letter....................  6 hours.................               6              462
 request for expedited
 application of certain signal
 system changes.
--Revised application for certain  42 railroads................  1 application...............  5 hours.................               5              385
 signal system changes.
--Copy of railroad revised         42 railroads................  1 copy......................  30 minutes..............              .5               39
 application to labor union.
236.1--Railroad maintained signal  700 railroads...............  25 plan changes.............  15 minutes..............             6.3              485
 plans at all interlockings,
 automatic signal locations, and
 controlled points, and updates
 to ensure accuracy.
236.15--Designation of automatic   700 railroads...............  10 timetable instructions...  30 minutes..............               5              385
 block, traffic control, train
 stop, train control, cab signal,
 and PTC territory in timetable
 instructions.
236.18--Software management        2 railroads.................  2 plans.....................  160 hours...............             320           24,640
 control plan--New railroads.
236.23(e)--The names,              700 railroads...............  2 modifications.............  1 hour..................               2              154
 indications, and aspects of
 roadway and cab signals shall be
 defined in the carrier's
 Operating Rule Book or Special
 Instructions. Modifications
 shall be filed with FRA within
 30 days after such modifications
 become effective.
236.587(d)--Certification and      742 railroads...............  4,562,500 train departures..  5 seconds...............           6,337          487,949
 departure test results.
236.905(a)--Railroad Safety        2 railroads.................  2 RSPPs.....................  40 hours................              80            6,160
 Program Plan (RSPP)--New
 railroads.
236.913(a)--Filing and approval    742 railroads...............  1 joint plan................  2,000 hours.............           2,000          240,000
 of a joint Product Safety Plan
 (PSP).
(c)(1)--Informational filing/      742 railroads...............  0.5 filings/approval          50 hours................              25            1,925
 petition for special approval.                                   petitions.
(c)(2)--Response to FRA's request  742 railroads...............  0.25 data calls/documents...  5 hours.................               1               77
 for further data after
 informational filing.

(d)(1)(ii)--Response to FRA's      742 railroads...............  0.25 data calls/documents...  1 hour..................            0.25               19
 request for further information
 within 15 days after receipt of
 the Notice of Product
 Development (NOPD).
(d)(1)(iii)--Technical             742 railroads...............  0.25 technical consultations  5 hours.................             1.3              100
 consultation by FRA with the
 railroad on the design and
 planned development of the
 product.
(d)(1)(v)--Railroad petition to    742 railroads...............  0.25 petitions..............  1 hour..................            0.25               19
 FRA for final approval of NOPD.
(d)(2)(ii)--Response to FRA's      742 railroads...............  1 request...................  50 hours................              50            3,850
 request for additional
 information associated with a
 petition for approval of PSP or
 PSP amendment.
(e)--Comments to FRA on railroad   742 railroads...............  0.5 comments/letters........  10 hours................               5              385
 informational filing or special
 approval petition.
(h)(3)(i)--Railroad amendment to   742 railroads...............  2 amendments................  20 hours................              40            3,080
 PSP.
(j)--Railroad field testing/       742 railroads...............  1 field test document.......  100 hours...............             100            7,700
 information filing document.
236.917(a)--Railroad retention of  13 railroads with PSP.......  13 PSP safety results.......  160 hours...............           2,080          160,160
 records: results of tests and
 inspections specified in the PSP.
(b)--Railroad report that          13 railroads................  1 report....................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 frequency of safety-relevant
 hazards exceeds threshold set
 forth in PSP.
(b)(3)--Railroad final report to   13 railroads................  1 report....................  10 hours................              10              770
 FRA on the results of the
 analysis and countermeasures
 taken to reduce the frequency of
 safety-relevant hazards.
236.919(a)--Railroad Operations    13 railroads................  1 OMM update................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 and Maintenance Manual (OMM).
(b)--Plans for proper              13 railroads................  1 plan update...............  40 hours................              40            3,080
 maintenance, repair, inspection,
 and testing of safety-critical
 products.
(c)--Documented hardware,          13 railroads................  1 revision..................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 software, and firmware revisions
 in OMM.
236.921 and 923(a)--Railroad       13 railroads................  1 program...................  40 hours................              40            3,080
 Training and Qualification
 Program.
236.923(b)--Training records       13 railroads................  350 records.................  10 minutes..............              58            4,466
 retained in a designated
 location and available to FRA
 upon request.
Form FRA F 6180.165--Quarterly     35 railroads................  11.7 reports/forms..........  23.22 hours.............             271           20,867
 PTC Progress Report (49 U.S.C.
 20157(c)(2)) \54\.
Form FRA F 6180.166--Annual PTC    35 railroads................  11.7 reports/forms..........  40.12 hours.............             468           36,036
 Progress Report (49 U.S.C.
 20157(c)(1) and 49 CFR
 236.1009(a)(5)) \55\.
Form FRA F 6180.177--Statutory     38 railroads................  144 reports/forms...........  1 hour..................             144           11,088
 Notification of PTC System
 Failures (Under 49 U.S.C.
 20157(j)(4)) \56\.
236.1001(b)--A railroad's          38 railroads................  1 rule or instruction.......  40 hours................              40            4,800
 additional or more stringent
 rules than prescribed under 49
 CFR part 236, subpart I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1005(b)(4)(i)-(ii)--A          The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
 railroad's submission of
 estimated traffic projections
 for the next 5 years, to support
 a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA,
 not to implement a PTC system
 based on reductions in rail
 traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(4)(iii)--A railroad's request  7 Class I railroads.........  1 exception request.........  40 hours................              40            3,080
 for a de minimis exception, in a
 PTCIP or an RFA, based on a
 minimal quantity of PIH
 materials traffic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(5)--A railroad's request to    The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021.
 remove a line from its PTCIP
 based on the sale of the line to
 another railroad and any related
 request for FRA review from the
 acquiring railroad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)(1)(i)--A railroad's request    38 railroads................  45 rerouting extension        8 hours.................             360           27,720
 to temporarily reroute trains                                    requests.
 not equipped with a PTC system
 onto PTC-equipped tracks and
 vice versa during certain
 emergencies.
(g)(1)(ii)--A railroad's written   38 railroads................  45 written or telephonic      2 hours.................              90            6,930
 or telephonic notice of the                                      notices.
 conditions necessitating
 emergency rerouting and other
 required information under
 236.1005(i).
(g)(2)--A railroad's temporary     38 railroads................  720 requests................  8 hours.................           5,760          443,520
 rerouting request due to planned
 maintenance not exceeding 30
 days.
(h)(1)--A response to any request  38 railroads................  10 requests.................  2 hours.................              20            1,540
 for additional information from
 FRA, prior to commencing
 rerouting due to planned
 maintenance.
(h)(2)--A railroad's request to    38 railroads................  160 requests................  8 hours.................           1,280           98,560
 temporarily reroute trains due
 to planned maintenance exceeding
 30 days.
236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)--A          262 railroads...............  5 reports...................  16 hours................              80            6,160
 progress report due by December
 31, 2020, and by December 31,
 2022, from any Class II or III
 railroad utilizing a temporary
 exception under this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(5)(vii)--A railroad's request  The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 to utilize different yard
 movement procedures, as part of
 a freight yard movements
 exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

236.1007(b)(1)--For any high-      The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 speed service over 90 miles per
 hour (mph), a railroad's PTC
 Safety Plan (PTCSP) must
 additionally establish that the
 PTC system was designed and will
 be operated to meet the fail-
 safe operation criteria in
 Appendix C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)--An HSR-125 document           38 railroads................  1 HSR-125 document..........  3,200 hours.............           3,200          384,000
 accompanying a host railroad's
 PTCSP, for operations over 125
 mph.
(c)(1)--A railroad's request for   38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  8,000 hours.............           2,667          205,359
 approval to use foreign service
 data, prior to submission of a
 PTCSP.
(d)--A railroad's request in a     38 railroads................  1 request...................  1,000 hours.............           1,000          120,000
 PTCSP that FRA excuse compliance
 with one or more of this
 section's requirements.
236.1009(a)(2)--A PTCIP if a       264 railroads...............  1 PTCIP.....................  535 hours...............             535           64,200
 railroad becomes a host railroad
 of a main line requiring the
 implementation of a PTC system,
 including the information under
 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR
 236.1011.
(a)(3)--Any new PTCIPs jointly     264 railroads...............  1 joint PTCIP...............  267 hours...............             267           32,040
 filed by a host railroad and a
 tenant railroad.
(b)(1)--A host railroad's          264 railroads...............  1 document..................  8 hours.................               8              616
 submission, individually or
 jointly with a tenant railroad
 or PTC system supplier, of an
 unmodified Type Approval.
(b)(2)--A host railroad's          264 railroads...............  1 PTCDP.....................  2,000 hours.............           2,000          154,000
 submission of a PTCDP with the
 information required under 49
 CFR 236.1013, requesting a Type
 Approval for a PTC system that
 either does not have a Type
 Approval or has a Type Approval
 that requires one or more
 variances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--A host railroad's submission  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015.
 of a PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)(3)--Any request for full or    38 railroads................  10 confidentiality requests.  8 hours.................              80            6,160
 partial confidentiality of a
 PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent
 (NPI), PTCDP, or PTCSP.
(h)--Any responses or documents    38 railroads................  36 interviews and documents.  4 hours.................             144           11,088
 submitted in connection with
 FRA's use of its authority to
 monitor, test, and inspect
 processes, procedures,
 facilities, documents, records,
 design and testing materials,
 artifacts, training materials
 and programs, and any other
 information used in the design,
 development, manufacture, test,
 implementation, and operation of
 the PTC system, including
 interviews with railroad
 personnel.
(j)(2)(iii)--Any additional        38 railroads................  1 set of additional           400 hours...............             400           30,800
 information provided in response                                 information.
 to FRA's consultations or
 inquiries about a PTCDP or PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1011(a)-(b)--PTCIP content     The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021.
 requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any public comment on         38 railroads................  2 public comments...........  8 hours.................              16            1,232
 PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1013, PTCDP and NPI content    The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021.
 requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1015--Any new host railroad's  264 railroads...............  1 PTCSP.....................  8,000 hours.............           8,000          616,000
 PTCSP meeting all content
 requirements under 49 CFR
 236.1015.
(g)--A PTCSP for a PTC system      38 railroads................  0.3 PTCSPs..................  3,200 hours.............           1,067           82,159
 replacing an existing certified
 PTC system.
(h)--A quantitative risk           38 railroads................  0.3 assessments.............  800 hours...............             267           20,559
 assessment, if FRA requires one
 to be submitted.
236.1017(a)--An independent third- 38 railroads................  0.3 assessments.............  1,600 hours.............             533           63,960
 party assessment, if FRA
 requires one to be conducted and
 submitted.
(b)--A railroad's written request  38 railroads................  0.3 written requests........  8 hours.................               3              231
 to confirm whether a specific
 entity qualifies as an
 independent third party.
--Further information provided to  38 railroads................  0.3 sets of additional        20 hours................               7              539
 FRA upon request.                                                information.
(d)--A request not to provide      38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  20 hours................               7              539
 certain documents otherwise
 required under Appendix F for an
 independent, third-party
 assessment.
(e)--A request for FRA to accept   38 railroads................  0.3 requests................  32 hours................              11              847
 information certified by a
 foreign regulatory entity for
 purposes of 49 CFR 236.1017 and/
 or 236.1009(i).
236.1019(b)--A request for a       38 railroads................  1 MTEA......................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 passenger terminal main line
 track exception (MTEA).
(c)(1)--A request for a limited    38 railroads................  1 request and/or plan.......  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 operations exception (based on
 restricted speed, temporal
 separation, or a risk mitigation
 plan).
(c)(2)--A request for a limited    10 railroads................  1 request...................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 operations exception for a non-
 Class I, freight railroad's
 track.
(c)(3)--A request for a limited    7 railroads.................  1 request...................  160 hours...............             160           12,320
 operations exception for a Class
 I railroad's track.

(d)--A railroad's collision        38 railroads................  0.3 collision hazard          50 hours................              17            1,309
 hazard analysis in support of an                                 analysis.
 MTEA, if FRA requires one to be
 conducted and submitted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)--Any temporal separation       The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1).
 procedures utilized under the 49
 CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1021(a)-(d)--Any RFA to a      38 railroads................  10 RFAs.....................  160 hours...............           1,600          123,200
 railroad's PTCIP or PTCDP.
(e)--Any public comments, if an    5 interested parties........  10 RFA public comments......  16 hours................             160           12,320
 RFA includes a request for
 approval of a discontinuance or
 material modification of a
 signal or train control system
 and a Federal Register notice is
 published.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(l)--Any jointly filed RFA to a    The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)-(d) and (m).
 PTCDP or PTCSP (* Note: This is
 a new proposed paragraph to
 authorize host railroads to file
 joint RFAs in certain cases, but
 such RFAs are already required
 under FRA's existing regulations
 *).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(m)--Any RFA to a railroad's       38 railroads................  15 RFAs.....................  80 hours................           1,200           92,400
 PTCSP (* Note: Revised
 requirement. This is a new
 proposed paragraph with a
 simplified process governing
 RFAs to PTCSPs *).
236.1023(a)--A railroad's PTC      38 railroads................  2 updated lists.............  8 hours.................              16            1,232
 Product Vendor List, which must
 be continually updated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(1)--All contractual            The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 arrangements between a railroad
 and its hardware and software
 suppliers or vendors for certain
 immediate notifications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)(2)-(3)--A vendor's or          10 vendors or suppliers.....  10 notifications............  8 hours.................              80            6,160
 supplier's notification, upon
 receipt of a report of any
 safety-critical failure of its
 product, to any railroads using
 the product.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)(1)-(2)--A railroad's process   The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021.
 and procedures for taking action
 upon being notified of a safety-
 critical failure or a safety-
 critical upgrade, patch,
 revision, repair, replacement,
 or modification, and a
 railroad's configuration/
 revision control measures, set
 forth in its PTCSP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)--A railroad's submission, to   38 railroads................  2.5 notifications...........  16 hours................              40            3,080
 the applicable vendor or
 supplier, of the railroad's
 procedures for action upon
 notification of a safety-
 critical failure, upgrade,
 patch, or revision to the PTC
 system and actions to be taken
 until it is adjusted, repaired,
 or replaced.
(e)--A railroad's database of all  38 railroads................  38 database updates.........  16 hours................             608           46,816
 safety-relevant hazards, which
 must be maintained after the PTC
 system is placed in service.
(e)(1)--A railroad's notification  38 railroads................  8 notifications.............  8 hours.................              64            4,928
 to the vendor or supplier and
 FRA if the frequency of a safety-
 relevant hazard exceeds the
 threshold set forth in the PTCDP
 and PTCSP, and about the
 failure, malfunction, or
 defective condition that
 decreased or eliminated the
 safety functionality.
(e)(2)--Continual updates about    38 railroads................  1 update....................  8 hours.................               8              616
 any and all subsequent failures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f)--Any notifications that must   The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h).
 be submitted to FRA under 49 CFR
 236.1023.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)--A railroad's and vendor's or  38 railroads................  0.5 reports.................  40 hours................              20            1,540
 supplier's report, upon FRA
 request, about an investigation
 of an accident or service
 difficulty due to a
 manufacturing or design defect
 and their corrective actions.
(h)--A PTC system vendor's or      10 vendors or suppliers.....  20 reports..................  8 hours.................             160           12,320
 supplier's reports of any safety-
 relevant failures, defective
 conditions, previously
 unidentified hazards,
 recommended mitigation actions,
 and any affected railroads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k)--A report of a failure of a    The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233.
 PTC system resulting in a more
 favorable aspect than intended
 or other condition hazardous to
 the movement of a train,
 including the reports required
 under part 233.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1029(b)(4)--A report of an en  150 host and tenant           1,000 reports...............  30 minutes..............             500           38,500
 route failure, other failure, or   railroads.
 cut out to a designated railroad
 officer of the host railroad.
(h)--Form FRA F 6180.152--         38 railroads................  76 reports..................  12 hours................             912           70,224
 Biannual Report of PTC System
 Performance (*Revised
 requirement and new form*).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

236.1033--Communications and       The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
 security requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1035(a)-(b)--A railroad's      38 railroads................  10 requests.................  40 hours................             400           30,800
 request for authorization to
 field test an uncertified PTC
 system and any responses to
 FRA's testing conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236.1037(a)(1)-(2)--Records        The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015.
 retention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)(3)-(4)--Records retention....  The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)--Results of inspections and    38 railroads................  800 records.................  1 hour..................             800           61,600
 tests specified in a railroad's
 PTCSP and PTCDP.
(c)--A contractor's records        20 contractors..............  1,600 records...............  10 minutes..............             267           20,559
 related to the testing,
 maintenance, or operation of a
 PTC system maintained at a
 designated office.
(d)(3)--A railroad's final report  38 railroads................  8 final reports.............  160 hours...............           1,280           98,560
 of the results of the analysis
 and countermeasures taken to
 reduce the frequency of safety-
 related hazards below the
 threshold set forth in the PTCSP.
236.1039(a)-(c), (e)--A            38 railroads................  2 OMM updates...............  10 hours................              20            1,540
 railroad's PTC Operations and
 Maintenance Manual (OMM), which
 must be maintained and available
 to FRA upon request.
(d)--A railroad's identification   38 railroads................  1 identified new component..  1 hour..................               1               77
 of a PTC system's safety-
 critical components, including
 spare equipment.
236.1041(a)-(b) and 236.1043(a)--  38 railroads................  2 programs..................  10 hours................              20            1,540
 A railroad's PTC Training and
 Qualification Program (i.e., a
 written plan).
236.1043(b)--Training records      150 host and tenant           150 PTC training record       1 hour..................             150           11,550
 retained in a designated           railroads.                    databases.
 location and available to FRA
 upon request.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  N/A.........................  4,567,923 responses.........  N/A.....................          49,116        4,107,626
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions;
searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether these
information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information
has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, may be minimized.
    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to Ms. Hodan
Wells, Information Clearance Officer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
D. Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' requires FRA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations having ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Id. Under Executive Order 13132, the
agency may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments
or the agency consults with State and local government officials early
in the process of developing the regulation. Where a regulation has
federalism implications and preempts State law, the agency seeks to
consult with State and local officials in the process of developing the
regulation.
    FRA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. FRA has determined this
proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States
or their political subdivisions; on the relationship between the
Federal government and the States or their political subdivisions; or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. In addition, FRA has determined this proposed
rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
    This proposed rule could have preemptive effect by the operation of
law under a provision of the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of
1970, repealed and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section 20106
provides that States may not adopt or continue in effect any law,
regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security that covers
the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the
Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters)
or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad
security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order
qualifies under the ``essentially local safety or security hazard''
exception to section 20106.
    FRA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. As
explained above, FRA has determined that this proposed rule has no
federalism implications, other than the possible preemption of State
laws under Federal railroad safety statutes, specifically 49 U.S.C.
20106. Accordingly, FRA has determined that preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement for this proposed rule is not required.

E. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. This proposed rule is purely domestic in nature and is not
expected to affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business
overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

F. Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed rule consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council
of Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508, and FRA's NEPA implementing regulations at 23 CFR part
771, and determined that it is categorically excluded from
environmental review and therefore does not require the preparation of
an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement
(EIS). Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions identified in an
agency's NEPA implementing regulations that do not normally have a
significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require
either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 1508.4. Specifically, FRA has
determined that this proposed rule is categorically excluded from
detailed environmental review pursuant to 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15),
``Promulgation of rules, the issuance of policy statements, the waiver
or modification of existing regulatory requirements, or discretionary
approvals that do not result in significantly increased emissions of
air or water pollutants or noise.''
    This proposed rule does not directly or indirectly impact any
environmental resources and would not result in significantly increased
emissions of air or water pollutants or noise. Instead, the proposed
rule is likely to result in safety benefits. In analyzing the
applicability of a CE, FRA must also consider whether unusual
circumstances are present that would warrant a more detailed
environmental review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has concluded that no
such unusual circumstances exist with respect to this proposed rule and
the proposal meets the requirements for categorical exclusion under 23
CFR 771.116(c)(15).
    Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and its implementing regulations, FRA has determined this undertaking
has no potential to affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA
has also determined that this rulemaking does not approve a project
resulting in a use of a resource protected by Section 4(f). See
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89-670,
80 Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303.

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' and DOT
Order 5610.2B, dated November 18, 2020, require DOT agencies to
consider environmental justice principles by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The DOT
Order instructs DOT agencies to address compliance with Executive Order
12898, Executive Order 13771, and requirements within the DOT Order in
rulemaking activities, as appropriate. FRA has evaluated this proposed
rule and has determined it would not cause disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations
or low-income populations.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements
specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C.
1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general notice of
proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any
rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually
for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule
for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the
agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the effect on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This
proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of
$100,000,000 or more (as adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year, and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

I. Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any
``significant energy action.'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has
evaluated this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 and determined
that this proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' within
the meaning of Executive Order 13211.
    Executive Order 13783, ``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth,'' requires Federal agencies to review regulations to determine
whether they potentially burden the development or use of domestically
produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural
gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. 82 FR 16093 (Mar. 31, 2017).
FRA has evaluated this proposed rule under Executive Order 13783 and
determined that this rule would not burden the development or use of
domestically produced energy resources.

J. Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. To facilitate comment tracking and
response, DOT encourages commenters to provide their name, or the name
of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely
comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments
containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the
agency for alternate submission instructions.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236

    Penalties, Positive train control, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 236, as follows:

PART 236--RULES, STANDARDS, AND INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE
INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF SIGNAL AND
TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND APPLIANCES

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20157,
20301-20303, 20306, 20501-20505, 20701-20703, 21301-21302, 21304; 28
U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.89.
0
2. Amend Sec.  236.1003 in paragraph (b) by adding the definitions of
``Cut out'', ``Initialization failure'', and ``Malfunction'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  236.1003   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Cut out means any disabling of a PTC system, subsystem, or
component en route, including when the PTC system cuts out on its own
or a person cuts out the system, unless the cut out was necessary to
exit PTC-governed territory and enter non-PTC territory.
* * * * *
    Initialization failure means any instance when a PTC system fails
to activate on a locomotive or train, unless the PTC system
successfully activates during a subsequent attempt in the same location
or before entering PTC-governed territory. For the types of PTC systems
that do not initialize by design, a failed departure test is considered
an initialization failure for purposes of the reporting requirement
under Sec.  236.1029(h), unless the PTC system successfully passes the
departure test during a subsequent attempt in the same location or
before entering PTC-governed territory.
* * * * *
    Malfunction means any instance when a PTC system, subsystem, or
component fails to perform the functions mandated under 49 U.S.C.
20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the applicable host railroad's PTCSP.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  236.1021 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) introductory text, and (d)(4);
0
b. Removing paragraph (d)(7); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (l) and (m).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  236.1021  Discontinuances, material modifications, and
amendments.

    (a) No changes, as defined by this section, to a PTCIP or PTCDP may
be made unless:
    (1) The railroad files a request for amendment (RFA) to the
applicable PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator; and
    (2) The Associate Administrator approves the RFA.
* * * * *
    (c) In lieu of a separate filing under part 235 of this chapter, a
railroad may request approval of a discontinuance or material
modification of a signal or train control system by filing an RFA to
its PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate Administrator.
    (d) FRA will not approve an RFA to a PTCIP or PTCDP unless the
request includes:
* * * * *
    (4) The changes to the PTCIP or PTCDP, as applicable;
* * * * *
    (l) Any RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP pursuant to this section may be
submitted jointly with other host railroads utilizing the same type of
PTC system. However, only host railroads with the same PTC System
Certification classification under Sec.  236.1015(e) may jointly file
an RFA to their PTCSPs. Any joint RFA to multiple host railroads'
PTCSPs must include the information required under paragraph (m) of
this section. The joint RFA must also include the written confirmation
and statement specified under paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this
section from each host railroad jointly filing the RFA.
    (m) No changes, as specified under paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this
section, may be made to an FRA-certified PTC system or an FRA-approved
PTCSP unless the host railroad first complies with the following
process:
    (1) The host railroad revises its PTCSP to account for each
proposed change to its PTC system and summarizes such changes in a
chronological table of revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP;
    (2) The host railroad electronically submits the following
information in an RFA to the Director of FRA's Office of Railroad
Systems, Technology, and Automation:
    (i) 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 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;
    (ii) Any associated software release notes;
    (iii) 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;
    (iv) 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 this subpart, provide an equivalent or greater level
of safety than the existing PTC system, and not adversely impact
interoperability with any tenant railroads; and
    (v) Any other information that FRA requests; and
    (3) A host railroad shall not make any changes, as specified under
paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, to its PTC system until the
Director of FRA's Office of Railroad Systems, Technology, and
Automation approves the RFA.
    (i) FRA will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the RFA
within 45 days of the date on which the RFA was filed under paragraph
(m)(2) of this section.
    (ii) FRA reserves the right to notify a railroad that changes may
proceed 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.
    (iii) FRA may require a railroad to modify its RFA or its PTC
system to the extent necessary to ensure safety or compliance with the
requirements of this part.
    (iv) Following any FRA denial of an RFA, each applicable railroad
is 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 paragraph (l) of
this section, any host railroads utilizing the same type of PTC system,
including the same certification classification under Sec.
236.1015(e), may jointly submit information to address FRA's questions,
comments, and concerns following any denial of an RFA under this
section.
0
4. Amend Sec.  236.1029 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  236.1029   PTC system use and failures.

* * * * *
    (h) Biannual Report of PTC System Performance. (1) Each host
railroad

subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or this subpart shall electronically submit
a Biannual Report of PTC System Performance on Form FRA F 6180.152,
containing the following information for the applicable reporting
period, separated by the host railroad, each applicable tenant
railroad, and each PTC-governed track segment (e.g., territory,
subdivision, district, main line, branch, or corridor), consistent with
the railroad's PTC Implementation Plan:
    (i) The total number of PTC system initialization failures, and
subtotals identifying the number of initialization failures where the
source or cause was the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem,
communications subsystem, back office subsystem, or a non-PTC
component;
    (ii) The total number of PTC system cut outs, and subtotals
identifying the number of cut outs where the source or cause was the
onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem, back
office subsystem, or a non-PTC component;
    (iii) The total number of PTC system malfunctions, and subtotals
identifying the number of malfunctions where the source or cause was
the onboard subsystem, wayside subsystem, communications subsystem,
back office subsystem, or a non-PTC component;
    (iv) The number of intended enforcements by the PTC system and any
other instances in which the PTC system prevented an accident or
incident;
    (v) The number of scheduled attempts at initialization of the PTC
system;
    (vi) The number of trains governed by the PTC system; and
    (vii) The number of train miles governed by the PTC system.
    (2) A host railroad's Biannual Report of PTC System Performance
(Form FRA F 6180.152) shall also include a summary of any actions the
host railroad and its tenant railroads are continually taking to
improve the performance and reliability of the PTC system.
    (3) Each host railroad shall electronically submit a Biannual
Report of PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to FRA by the
following due dates: 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).
    (4) Each tenant railroad that operates on a host railroad's PTC-
governed main line(s), unless the tenant railroad is currently subject
to an exception under Sec.  236.1006(b)(4) or (5), shall submit the
information required under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section 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).

    Issued in Washington, DC
Quintin C. Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27097 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75200-75203]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29494]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73816; File No. SR-NYSE-2014-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Proposes To Establish an Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote & Trades
Data Feed, Operative on December 1, 2014

December 11, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 26, 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to establish an access fee for the NYSE Best
Quote & Trades (``NYSE BQT'') data feed, operative on December 1, 2014.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish an access fee for the NYSE BQT
data feed, effective December 1, 2014. The proposed fee for NYSE BQT
would be $1,000 a month, provided that the market data recipient
separately subscribes to and pays for the six existing market data
products underlying the NYSE BQT data feed, consistent with the
existing fee structures for those market data products.
    The NYSE BQT data feed provides best bid and offer (``BBO'') and
last sale information for the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'').\3\
Specifically, the NYSE BQT data feed consists of certain data elements
from six market data feeds--NYSE Trades, NYSE BBO, NYSE Arca Trades,
NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE MKT Trades, and NYSE MKT BBO.\4\ The NYSE BQT data
feed has three channels: one channel for the last sale data (the ``last
sale channel''), another channel for the BBO data (the ``best quotes
channel''), and a third channel for consolidated volume data (the
``consolidated volume channel'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-73553 (Nov. 6,
2014), 79 FR 67491 (Nov. 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-40) (``NYSE BQT
Approval Order'').
    \4\ These data feeds are offered pursuant to preexisting and
effective rules and fees filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''). This filing does not affect those rules
or the fees associated with these underlying data feeds or the
ability for the Exchange, NYSE Arca, or NYSE MKT to amend the data
feeds or fees associated with those data feeds pursuant to a
separate rule filing. For NYSE Trades, see Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 59290 (Jan. 23, 2009), 74 FR 5707 (Jan. 30, 2009) (SR-
NYSE-2009-05) and 59606 (Mar. 19, 2009), 74 FR 13293 (Mar. 26, 2009)
(SR-NYSE-2009-04). For NYSE BBO, see Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 62181 (May 26, 2010), 75 FR 31488 (June 3, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-
30). For NYSE Arca Trades, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
59289 (Jan. 23, 2009), 74 FR 5711 (Jan. 30, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-
06) and 59598 (Mar. 18, 2009), 74 FR 12919 (Mar. 25, 2009) (SR-
NYSEArca-2009-05). For NYSE Arca BBO, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62188 (May 27, 2010), 75 FR 31484 (June 3, 2010) (SR-
NYSEArca-2010-23). For NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT BBO, see
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62187 (May 27, 2010), 75 FR
31500 (June 3, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, NYSE Arca, and NYSE MKT are the exclusive
distributors of the six BBO and Trades feeds from which certain data
elements are taken to create the NYSE BQT. By contrast, the Exchange
would not be the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and
consolidated information that comprises the NYSE BQT data feed. Any
entity that receives, or elects to receive, the six underlying data
feeds would be able, if it so chooses, to create a data feed with the
same information included in NYSE BQT and sell and distribute it to its
clients so that it could be received by

those clients as quickly as the NYSE BQT data feed would be received by
those same clients.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE BQT Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the Exchange would charge a $1,000/month access fee
for NYSE BQT, which reflects the value of the aggregation and
consolidation function that the Exchange performs in creating NYSE BQT.
To obtain NYSE BQT, the market data recipient would need to subscribe
to and pay for the six data feeds underlying NYSE BQT consistent with
the existing fee schedules for those market date products as previously
filed with the Commission and which may be amended from time to time,
including any applicable Access, Redistribution, Professional User,
Non-Professional User, or Enterprise fees.\6\ When subscribing to NYSE
BQT, the underlying data feeds would be delivered in the NYSE BQT
consolidated format, as described above, but charged for as if the
recipient were receiving the underlying feeds directly. The Exchange
notes that if a User chooses to receive the six underlying feeds both
separately and in the NYSE BQT format, such User may be subject to
additional Professional User or Non-Professional User fees to reflect
the distribution of both NYSE BQT (which incorporates the six
underlying data feeds) and any separate dissemination of the underlying
data feeds. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for NYSE BQT
would not be lower than the cost to a vendor of creating a comparable
product, including the cost of receiving the underlying data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that another market participant seeking to
distribute a competing product to NYSE BQT might engage in a different
analysis of assessing the cost of a competing product, which may
incorporate passing through fees associated with co-location at the
Mahwah, New Jersey data center. However, the incremental co-location
cost to a particular vendor might be inconsequential if such vendor is
already co-located and is able to allocate its co-location costs over
numerous product and customer relationships. The Exchange therefore
believes that a vendor could create and offer a product similar to NYSE
BQT on a cost-competitive basis.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that member organizations or others would have in
complying with the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among its members,
issuers, and other persons using its facilities and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act \9\ in that it is consistent
with (i) fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange
markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange
markets; and (ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with
Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,\10\ which provides that any national
securities exchange that distributes information with respect to
quotations for or transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are
not unreasonably discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ See 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed $1,000/month access fee for
NYSE BQT is reasonable because it represents the value for the data
aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed $1,000/month access fee is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination because all market data
recipients that would subscribe to NYSE BQT would be charged the same
access fee.
    The Exchange further believes that requiring market data recipients
to separately subscribe to and pay for the six underlying data feeds to
NYSE BQT is reasonable because by design, NYSE BQT represents an
aggregated and consolidated version of those existing six data feeds.
The Exchange notes that it is not seeking with this filing to establish
fees relating to the underlying six BBO and Trades data feeds, as those
fees have already been established consistent with Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder, and which may be
amended from time to time. However, the Exchange believes it would be
unfair if it did not require NYSE BQT data feed recipients to
separately subscribe to and pay for those six feeds because otherwise,
NYSE BQT data feed recipients would be receiving a data product that
includes such underlying data at a lower cost than separately
subscribing to the underlying data feeds. Similarly, the Exchange
believes that it would be reasonable to charge separate Professional
User or Non-Professional User fees if a market data recipient chooses
to receive both NYSE BQT and a separate dissemination of the six
underlying data feeds in a non-consolidated form. The Exchange believes
that such delivery would constitute two separate uses of the underlying
data feeds and thus should be charged accordingly, consistent with the
existing fee schedule for those market data products. The Exchange
therefore believes that the proposed fee structure for NYSE BQT would
not be lower than the cost to another party to create a comparable
product, including the cost of receiving the underlying data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its proposed fee structure is similar to
the fee structure for NLS Plus. NLS Plus is a data product that is
offered by an affiliate of The NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. (``NASDAQ'')
that is not a self-regulatory organization. NLS Plus provides access to
all NASDAQ OMX U.S. markets' last sale data as well as consolidated
volume, including all trade data from NASDAQ, the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade
Reporting Facility (``TRF''), NASDAQ OMX BX, and NASDAQ OMX PSX. NLS
Plus also provides consolidated volume information as part of each
trade message. To receive NLS Plus, the recipient must pay the fees for
one or more NASDAQ underlying data feeds, plus an annual administrative
fees attributable to each affiliated exchange.\13\ In addition, BATS
Global Markets (``BATS'') has announced that it intends to offer a
market data product that provides a unified view of the aggregated best
bid and offer, last sale, and optional depth information (five levels),
including size, for all four equity exchanges operated by BATS.\14\ The

Exchange believes that NYSE BQT will offer a competitive alternative to
the NASDAQ product and the proposed BATS product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The pricing for NLS Plus is available at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nlsplus. The applicable NASDAQ
underlying data feeds for which a firm are be liable could be NASDAQ
Last Sale (See NASDAQ Rule 7039) or NASDAQ Basic (see NASDAQ Rule
7047) market data products.
    \14\ See http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/press_releases/BATS-One-Announcement-FINAL.pdf. BATS has also submitted rule
filings to the Commission on behalf of its four exchanges to
establish its proposed unified feed as a proprietary market data
product. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 73594 (Nov.
14, 2014), 79 FR 69142 (Nov. 20, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-055); 73595
(Nov. 14, 2014), 79 FR 69160 (Nov. 20, 2014) (SR-BYX-2014-030);
73596 (Nov. 14, 2014), 79 FR 69148 (Nov. 20, 2014) (SR-EDGA-2014-
25); and 73597 (Nov. 14, 2014), 79 FR 69180 (Nov. 20, 2014) (SR-
EDGX-2014-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed NYSE BQT fee
structure is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
vendors and subscribers that elect to purchase NYSE BQT would be
charged the same fees. In addition, vendors and subscribers that do not
wish to purchase NYSE BQT may separately purchase the six individual
underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar
aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in
creating NYSE BQT. To enable such competition, the Exchange is offering
NYSE BQT on terms that a subscriber of those six feeds could offer a
competing product if it so chooses.
    The Exchange also notes that the use of NYSE BQT is entirely
optional. Firms have a wide variety of alternative market data products
from which to choose, including the exchanges' own underlying data
products, the NASDAQ and BATS proprietary data products described in
this filing, and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not
required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer
any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
these data products further ensures that the Exchange cannot set
unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when
vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the
Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that
provide similar ``best quote and trade'' market data products. If
another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to consolidate
and distribute its similar product than the Exchange charges to
consolidate and distribute NYSE BQT, prospective users likely would not
subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to, NYSE BQT. In addition, the
Exchange would compete with unaffiliated market data vendors who would
be in a position to consolidate and distribute the same data that
comprises the NYSE BQT feed into the vendor's own comparable market
data product. If the third-party vendor is able to provide the exact
same data for a lower cost, prospective users would avail themselves of
that lower cost and elect not to take NYSE BQT.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the NYSE BQT data feed
represents aggregated and consolidated information of six existing
market data feeds. Although the Exchange, NYSE Arca, and NYSE MKT are
the exclusive distributors of the six BBO and Trades feeds from which
certain data elements are taken to create the NYSE BQT, the Exchange
may not be the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and consolidated
information that comprises the NYSE BQT data feed. Any other market
data recipient of the six BBO and Trades feeds would be able, if they
chose, to create a data feed with the same information as the NYSE BQT
and distribute it to their clients on a level-playing field with
respect to latency and cost as compared to the Exchange's product.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 78 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \17\ See NYSE BQT Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed monthly access fee
the Exchange proposes to charge clients for NYSE BQT would be pro-
competitive because another market data recipient could perform a
similar aggregating and consolidating function and similarly charge for
such service. The Exchange notes that a competing vendor might engage
in a different analysis of assessing the cost of a competing product,
which may incorporate passing through fees associated with co-location
at the Mahwah, New Jersey data center. However, the incremental co-
location costs to a particular vendor may be inconsequential if such
vendor is already co-located and is able to allocate its co-location
costs over numerous product and customer relationships. The Exchange
therefore believes that a competing vendor could create and offer a
product similar to the NYSE BQT data feed at a similar cost. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes that vendors could readily offer a
product similar to NYSE BQT on a competitive basis.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that there is already actual
competition for products similar to NYSE BQT. NASDAQ already offers
NASDAQ Basic, a filed market data product, and through its affiliate,
offers NLS Plus, which provides a unified view of last trade
information similar to NYSE BQT. In addition, BATS has recently filed
to adopt a similar market data product.\18\ The existence of these
competing data products demonstrates that there is ample, existing
competition for products such as NYSE BQT and the fees associated with
such products are constrained by that competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, in establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered
the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the
implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of alternatives to NYSE BQT, including the six
underlying feeds, consolidated data, and proprietary data from other
sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or
fees that are

unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns
any particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\20\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2014-64 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-64. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2014-64 and should be
submitted on or before January 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29494 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67429-67430]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER11-4315-003; ER10-3110-002; ER10-3144-003.
    Applicants: Gila River Power LLC, Union Power Partners, L.P.,
Entegra Power Services LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Entegra
Public Utilities.
    Filed Date: 11/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141103-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-355-000.
    Applicants: Startrans IO, LLC.
    Description: eTariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141103-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-70-000.
    Applicants: Erie Power, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to October 9, 2014 Erie Power, LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 10/31/14.
    Accession Number: 20141031-5344.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-312-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): SWEPCO-
ETEC NTEC PSA Amendment to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141103-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-313-000.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Village
of Clinton Interconnection Agreement to be effective 11/28/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141103-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-314-000.
    Applicants: NaturEner Wind Watch, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revised
MBR Tariff to be effective 11/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141103-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-315-000.
    Applicants: Startrans IO, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015
Update to TRBAA in Appendix I to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/3/14.
    Accession Number: 20141103-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26756 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise

Chambers Works

Deepwater, NJ  08023

CERTIFIED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested

February 15, 2007

Document Control Office

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

US Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: 	EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012

	DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

	PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

	November 2006 Sample Data

Dear Document Control Office,

As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for samples taken during November 2006. We will continue to send you the reports each month.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3105.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Pinder

SET Environmental Coordinator

DuPont Chambers Works

Enclosures

Copies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

US Environmental Protection Agency

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only)

Principal Environmental Engineer

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Point Source Permitting – Region 2

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029