[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15022-15028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05289]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0004-N-3]


Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment 
Request

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

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its 
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding 
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR 
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On 
December 30, 2019, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for 
public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 
April 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICR to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. 
Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address: 
oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory 
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC

[[Page 15023]]

20590 (telephone: (202) 493-0440); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, Federal 
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 
20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Comment Under the PRA

    The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 
CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking 
public comment on information collection activities before OMB may 
approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 
through 1320.12. On December 30, 2019, FRA published a 60-day notice in 
the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the ICR for which it 
is now seeking OMB approval. See 84 FR 72121.
    The 60-day comment period closed on February 28, 2020, and FRA 
received three sets of comments. First, on December 30, 2019, via 
email, J.P. Morgan's Equity Research Division (Airfreight & Surface 
Transportation) inquired about whether FRA will make railroads' 
Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) 
publicly available. The statutory mandate does not require FRA to 
publicly release the Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures 
(Form FRA F 6180.177) that railroads submit under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4). However, if FRA decides in the future to publicly release 
any failure-related information, FRA would be limited to a certain 
extent by any requests for confidentiality that railroads may submit 
pursuant to 49 CFR 209.11.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The statutory mandate specifically requires FRA to publicly 
release railroads' Annual PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 
6180.166). See 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(3). FRA also voluntarily publishes 
railroads' Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) on 
FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. In addition, each quarter, FRA posts 
detailed infographics depicting railroads' self-reported progress 
toward fully implementing FRA-certified and interoperable PTC 
systems at https://www.fra.dot.gov/ptc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, by email and letter dated February 28, 2020, on behalf of 
itself and its member railroads, the Association of American Railroads 
(AAR) submitted comments regarding FRA's proposed changes to the 
Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and the Annual PTC 
Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166), and FRA's new proposed form, the 
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), 
implementing the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4).
    Third, by two letters dated February 28, 2020, on behalf of itself 
and its member organizations, the American Public Transportation 
Association (APTA) submitted comments regarding FRA's new proposed 
form, the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 
6180.177).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FRA acknowledges that APTA submitted two separate letters, 
both dated February 28, 2020, to Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-20 on 
www.regulations.gov. The letters are mostly identical in substance, 
except one of the letters contains an additional section with four 
questions at the end of the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA notes that AAR's and APTA's written comments are generally 
similar in substance to several Class I railroads' and passenger 
railroads' verbal comments during FRA's most recent PTC collaboration 
session on February 5, 2020. In the respective sections regarding each 
form below, FRA summarizes and responds to AAR's and APTA's comments, 
including identifying the modifications FRA is amenable to making to 
each proposed form based on the industry's comments.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of 
information, it must provide 30-days' notice for public comment. 
Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages 
between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 
3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.10(b), 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983 
(Aug. 29, 1995). OMB believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated 
community to file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate 
time to digest public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR at 
44983. Therefore, respondents should submit any additional comments to 
OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full 
effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether 
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly 
execute its functions, including whether the information will have 
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of 
the information collection activities, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways 
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information 
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

II. Proposed Revisions to the Quarterly and Annual PTC Progress Report 
Forms

    On September 24, 2018, OMB approved the Quarterly PTC Progress 
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and the Annual PTC Progress Report (Form 
FRA F 6180.166) for a period of 18 months, expiring on March 31, 2020. 
The current Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form and Annual PTC Progress 
Report Form, as approved through March 31, 2020, can be accessed and 
downloaded in FRA's eLibrary at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17365 and https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17366, 
respectively.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current, OMB-approved versions of the forms considered 
prior comments from AAR on behalf of itself and its member 
railroads; APTA on behalf of the Northeast Illinois Commuter Rail 
System (Metra), the Utah Transit Authority, the Tri-County 
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, and the Fort Worth 
Transportation Authority; and industry stakeholders during FRA's 
public meeting on April 19, 2016. FRA published minutes from the 
public meeting on www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FRA 2016-
0002-N-17. For a summary of past oral and written comments and FRA's 
responses to the comments, please see 81 FR 28140 (May 9, 2016); 81 
FR 65702 (Sept. 23, 2016); and 83 FR 39152 (Aug. 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Railroads' submission of Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 
6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.166)--
consistent with the reporting requirements under the Positive Train 
Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act)--enables 
FRA to effectively monitor railroads' progress toward fully 
implementing FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems on the 
approximately 57,709 route miles subject to the statutory mandate. 
Moreover, this reporting framework enables FRA to provide the public 
and Congress with data-driven status updates regularly, which will be 
especially important throughout 2020, as the statutory deadline for 
most mandated railroads to fully implement PTC systems is December 31, 
2020. Please see Section II of FRA's 60-day notice for additional 
background about the mandatory Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA 
F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166), under 
49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1) and (2). 84 FR 72121-23 (Dec. 30, 2019).\4\ FRA 
will request OMB's re-approval of both forms, with the three types of 
changes described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As stated on the cover page of the Quarterly PTC Progress 
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165), ``A railroad must submit quarterly 
reports until a PTC system is fully implemented on all required main 
lines under 49 U.S.C. 20157 and 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, 
including a quarterly report for the quarter in which the railroad 
completes full PTC system implementation.'' See 49 U.S.C. 
20157(c)(2).

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

[[Page 15024]]

A. Changes To Simplify Both Progress-Related Reporting Forms

    Per the industry's and OMB's previous recommendations, FRA has 
considered ways in which it can phase out certain requirements of the 
Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC 
Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166), while railroads continue to 
fully implement their PTC systems on the required main lines. Although 
many of the specific reporting requirements are statutorily required 
under 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1)(A)-(G), FRA is amenable to making certain 
sections of both forms optional for most railroads, at this stage.
    In the 60-day Federal Register notice, FRA initially proposed to 
make the following three sections of both the Quarterly PTC Progress 
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and the Annual PTC Progress Report (Form 
FRA F 6180.166) optional for most railroads: Section 2 (``Update on 
Spectrum''); Section 3.1 (``Locomotive Status''), except the software-
related narrative section; and Section 3.3 (``Infrastructure/Wayside 
Status''). 84 FR at 72123. In AAR's comments, dated February 28, 2020, 
AAR requested that FRA also make the following additional sections 
optional: Section 3.2 (``Infrastructure/Back Office Status''); Section 
4 (``Installation/Track Segment Progress''); Section 5 (``Update on 
Employee Training''); and multiple rows in Section 1 (``Summary'') to 
the extent the information in those rows ``will not significantly 
change.''
    Based on AAR's comments, in addition to the sections FRA initially 
identified in the 60-day notice, FRA also agrees to make the following 
sections optional for certain railroads, for the reasons set forth 
below: Section 3.2 (``Infrastructure/Back Office Status''); Section 4 
(``Installation/Track Segment Progress''); and Section 5 (``Update on 
Employee Training''). In addition, FRA agrees to remove the row labeled 
``Radio Towers Fully Installed and Equipped'' from Section 1 
(``Summary'') of both progress-related reporting forms.
    However, contrary to AAR's comments, the high-level information 
railroads provide in Section 1 (``Summary'') is not limited to 
hardware-specific information, as that section also encompasses 
railroads' progress with respect to programming PTC system software and 
taking other steps necessary to ensure the PTC system is operable. 
Also, AAR comments that it should be optional to provide spectrum-
specific information in Section 1 (``Summary''); however, there are no 
fields related to spectrum in the summary section of either the 
Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) or the Annual PTC 
Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166).
    FRA believes that the revised Section 1 (``Summary'') \5\ is 
necessary for FRA to understand railroads' high-level progress and 
accurately convey railroads' status in FRA's quarterly updates on its 
website and during FRA's regular briefings to the pertinent 
Congressional committees. FRA believes that it has sufficiently 
balanced the industry's request to phase out progress-related reporting 
requirements, where possible, and FRA's need to closely monitor 
railroads' progress toward fully implementing FRA-certified and 
interoperable PTC systems on all required main lines, especially during 
this period leading up to the statutory December 31, 2020, deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Removing only the row labeled, ``Radio Towers Fully 
Installed and Equipped.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, based on the industry's comments and feedback, FRA now 
proposes making the following sections of the Quarterly PTC Progress 
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 
6180.166) optional for most railroads: Section 2 (``Update on 
Spectrum''); Section 3.1 (``Locomotive Status''), except the software-
related narrative section; Section 3.2 (``Infrastructure/Back Office 
Status''); Section 3.3 (``Infrastructure/Wayside Status''); and Section 
5 (``Update on Employee Training''). Specifically, FRA proposes that 
those sections would be optional for any railroad that previously 
demonstrated to FRA it had finished acquiring all necessary spectrum, 
installing all PTC system hardware for the implementation of its PTC 
system, and/or training the employees required to receive PTC training 
under 49 CFR 236.1041 through 236.1049, consistent with the governing 
FRA-approved PTCIP. This would encompass nearly all railroads subject 
to the statutory mandate that are still in the process of fully 
implementing their PTC systems--including the railroads currently field 
testing their PTC systems, conducting revenue service demonstration 
(RSD) or extending RSD to additional main lines, and conducting 
interoperability testing with their PTC-required tenant railroads--
given that railroads generally needed to finish acquiring spectrum, 
installing all PTC system hardware, and training necessary employees by 
December 31, 2018, to qualify for and obtain FRA's approval of an 
alternative schedule and sequence by law. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B).
    The only railroads for which the above sections--Sections 2, 3.1, 
3.2, 3.3, and 5--would remain mandatory are those railroads that are 
still in the spectrum acquisition, hardware installation, or employee 
training phases, which is the case for certain railroads that, for 
example: (A) Commenced regularly scheduled intercity passenger or 
commuter rail service after December 31, 2018, and therefore did not 
need to qualify for or obtain FRA's approval of an alternative 
schedule; (B) are in the process of constructing new main lines subject 
to the statutory mandate; or (C) have one or more lines that are 
subject to a temporary main line track exception and must still 
implement a PTC system. In those three cases, FRA would still need to 
obtain updates regarding such railroads' progress toward acquiring all 
necessary spectrum, installing all necessary PTC system hardware, and 
training its applicable employees as required under 49 CFR 236.1041 to 
236.1049.
    In addition, based on AAR's comments, FRA also now proposes to make 
Section 4 (``Installation/Track Segment Progress'') optional but only 
for a railroad that reports in Section 1 (``Summary'') of the 
applicable Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) or 
Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166) that its PTC system is 
governing operations, including RSD, on all PTC-mandated route miles as 
of that reporting period. Section 4 (``Installation/Track Segment 
Progress'') remains mandatory for all other railroads subject to the 
statutory mandate.

B. Improvement to the Drop-Down Menu in Sections 4 and 6 of Both 
Progress-related Reporting Forms

    In Section 4 (entitled ``Installation/Track Segment Progress'') of 
both the quarterly form and the annual form, FRA proposes adding a new 
option to the drop-down menus. Currently, the options include only: 
``Not Started,'' ``Installing,'' ``Field Testing,'' ``Revenue Service 
Demonstration,'' and ``Operational/Complete.'' Given that some 
railroads are beyond the installation phase, but not yet at the field 
testing phase on multiple track segments, FRA proposes to add a new 
option to the drop-down menu, specifically labeled, ``Pre-field 
Testing.'' That way, such railroads will not need to select 
``Installing'' or ``Field Testing,'' neither of which would accurately 
represent the actual status of a railroad's specific track segment. 
This minor revision to the forms will help ensure clearer and more 
accurate reporting, without imposing an additional

[[Page 15025]]

reporting burden. For consistency with Section 4, FRA also proposes to 
update the corresponding drop-down menu in Section 6 (entitled ``Update 
on Interoperability Progress'') of both forms to include the same 
options: ``Not Started,'' ``Installing,'' ``Pre-field Testing,'' 
``Field Testing,'' ``Revenue Service Demonstration,'' \6\ and 
``Operational/Complete.'' FRA received no comments on this proposed 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Previously, the relevant part of the drop-down menu allowed 
a host railroad to indicate only that a tenant railroad was 
generally conducting ``testing,'' without specifying the stage of 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Clarification in Section 6 of Both Progress-Related Reporting Forms

    In Section 6 (entitled ``Update on Interoperability Progress'') of 
both the quarterly form and the annual form, FRA proposes revising the 
heading of the last column in the table to state, ``Current Tenant 
Interoperability Status,'' instead of ``Current Tenant Implementation 
Status,'' to help ensure proper interpretation. For example, at least 
one commuter railroad has improperly listed the status of a Class I 
tenant railroad's progress toward fully implementing a PTC system on 
the Class I railroad's own main lines (so as a host railroad), instead 
of the Class I railroad's status specifically as a tenant railroad on 
that commuter railroad's required main lines. FRA expects that this 
minor revision might make this heading clearer. FRA received no 
comments on this proposed change.

III. Proposal for a New Mandatory Form--Statutory Notification of PTC 
System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177)

    Please see FRA's 60-day Federal Register notice about the default 
reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) requiring railroads 
to notify FRA any time a railroad operating an FRA-certified PTC system 
``fails to initialize, cuts out, or malfunctions,'' and FRA's authority 
to establish an alternative reporting deadline (instead of within 7 
days of each occurrence) and an alternative reporting location (instead 
of submitting the notifications to the appropriate FRA region).\7\ See 
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4); 49 CFR 1.89; see also 84 FR 72121, 72123-26 
(Dec. 30, 2019). On February 28, 2020, AAR submitted written comments 
stating, ``AAR appreciates and supports FRA's proposal to modify, as 
permitted under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), the frequency and location of 
reporting in order to simplify and ease the burdens of carriers during 
the applicable Early Adopter period.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ By law, this temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4) sunsets on approximately December 31, 2021--or more 
specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad obtains PTC 
System Certification from FRA and finishes fully implementing an 
FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all its required main 
lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA did not receive any comments requesting changes to its proposed 
two-tiered or bifurcated reporting frequency for this temporary 
reporting requirement, where the reporting frequency depends on whether 
or not the host railroad has fully implemented an FRA-certified and 
interoperable PTC system on all its required route miles.\8\ For 
detailed information regarding the applicable reporting frequency and 
deadlines, please see Section IV of FRA's 60-day notice. 84 FR at 
72124-26. AAR's comments, dated February 28, 2020, also generally 
express support for the fact that FRA's web-based form for the 
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) 
will enable railroads to upload bulk data using a comma-separated 
values (CSV) file (e.g., FRA's template Excel spreadsheet saved as a 
CSV file). AAR states that it ``supports this flexibility, which would 
reduce the railroads' reporting burden by avoiding the necessity of 
having to copy the data from a spreadsheet onto FRA's form.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ One of AAR's comments, however, asserts that 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4) ``only addresses reporting by carriers operating a fully 
certified and implemented PTC system.'' That interpretation is not 
supported by the plain language of the statute. See 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4); see also 84 FR 72121, 72124 (Dec. 30, 2019). Consistent 
with the statutory canons of construction, FRA interprets the word 
``implemented'' consistently throughout the provisions in the 
statutory mandate, including 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) and 49 
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). For example, acknowledging the incremental 
nature of implementation, the PTCEI Act required Class I railroads 
and Amtrak to demonstrate they ``implemented a [PTC] system or 
initiated revenue service demonstration on the majority of [its PTC-
mandated] territories'' by December 31, 2018, to qualify for an 
alternative schedule and sequence with a final deadline not later 
than December 31, 2020. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) (emphasis 
added).
    \9\ With respect to the reporting burden of Form FRA F 6180.177, 
AAR comments, ``Eventually it might take only one hour, but 
undoubtedly it will take a railroad more than one hour to develop a 
reporting system.'' However, FRA notes that the default statutory 
reporting requirement has generally been in effect since October 29, 
2015. In addition, many Class I railroads and passenger railroads 
have demonstrated they already have a reporting system in place and 
are actively tracking PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, 
and malfunctions to understand the reliability and performance of 
their PTC systems and/or generally ensure compliance with 49 CFR 
part 236, subpart I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), FRA's proposed Statutory 
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) would require 
the host railroad to identify the number of times each type of PTC 
system failure identified in the statutory mandate occurred during the 
reporting period: Any failure to initialize, any cut out, and any 
malfunction, as defined below. During FRA's industry meetings to date, 
railroads have requested clarification regarding the meaning and scope 
of these statutory terms.
    Given that the statutory mandate requires railroads to notify FRA 
any time an FRA-certified PTC system ``fails to initialize, cuts out, 
or malfunctions,'' FRA interprets these terms reasonably broadly and in 
accordance with their plain language meaning, to encompass the 
following, for purposes of this temporary reporting requirement:
     Failure to Initialize: 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 territory. For the types of PTC systems that do 
not ``initialize'' by design, a failed departure test is considered a 
``failure to initialize'' for purposes of this reporting requirement, 
unless the PTC system successfully passes the departure test during a 
subsequent attempt in the same location or before entering PTC 
territory.
     Cut Out: Any cut out 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.
     Malfunction: Any instance when a PTC system, subsystem, or 
component fails to perform the functions mandated under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(i)(5), 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, or the applicable host 
railroad's PTC Safety Plan.
    FRA revised its proposed definitions to incorporate AAR's and 
APTA's feedback in their respective letters, dated February 28, 2020, 
about the definitions FRA initially proposed in the 60-day notice. See 
84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019). AAR generally stated that certain 
definitions were ambiguous, so FRA refined its proposed definitions to 
be more precise yet still sufficiently broad to apply to all types of 
PTC systems and align with the plain language and scope identified in 
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4).
    For example, consistent with AAR's and APTA's comments, FRA 
eliminated the reference to ``initial terminal'' from its proposed 
definition of ``failure to initialize,'' given AAR's comment that 
``there is only one initial terminal but there could be multiple crew 
changes and multiple initialization opportunities,'' and APTA's comment 
that ``an initial terminal may be different for freight, intercity or 
commuter operations.'' See 84 FR at 72125. Also, FRA's proposed 
definition

[[Page 15026]]

of ``failure to initialize'' set forth above is consistent with AAR's 
understanding that ``a number of unsuccessful attempts to initialize a 
particular train by the crew would constitute one initialization 
failure.''
    In addition, AAR's comments acknowledged that unlike the 
Interoperable Electronic Train Management System, certain PTC systems, 
including the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System II and 
Incremental Train Control System, do not actually initialize, so FRA 
provided examples of how this statutory term may apply to other types 
of PTC systems in its revised definition, as listed above.
    In APTA's letter, dated February 28, 2020, APTA requests that the 
scope of the term ``cut out'' should include only instances when the 
onboard PTC apparatus is manually disabled. FRA disagrees and notes 
that the relevant statutory provision, 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), is not 
limited only to the onboard PTC subsystem or manual cut outs. FRA 
acknowledges that APTA's use of the word ``disabling'' in its comments 
is generally consistent with FRA's use of the phrase ``cut out,'' but 
FRA proposes to use the phrase ``cut out'' as it is a term of art.
    Also, in its February 28, 2020, letter, AAR ``urges FRA to delete 
the phrase `could prevent' '' from the definition of ``malfunction'' 
that FRA previously proposed in its 60-day notice, as AAR argues that 
such a phrase could cause confusion. See 84 FR at 72125. Similarly, 
APTA's February 28, 2020, comments request that FRA delete the phrase 
``or could prevent,'' on the basis that it could be considered 
subjective. Accordingly, FRA has eliminated that phrase and proposes 
the definition set forth above (i.e., any instance when a PTC system, 
subsystem, or component fails to perform the functions mandated under 
49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, or the applicable 
host railroad's PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP)), which FRA believes is clearer 
and consistent with the statutory provision. Also, for clarity and 
precision, FRA expanded its proposed definition of ``malfunction'' to 
refer to the applicable host railroad's PTCSP, in addition to 49 U.S.C. 
20157(i)(5) and 49 CFR part 236, subpart I. That approach is also 
consistent with APTA's observation, in its comments, that a PTC system 
must perform in accordance with the governing PTC Development Plan 
(PTCDP) and PTCSP.\10\ As railroads are aware, FRA's regulations 
generally require a PTC system to be ``fully operative and functioning 
in accordance with the applicable PTCSP,'' except in limited 
circumstances. See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1006(a)-(b), 236.1009(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FRA, however, disagrees with APTA's comments that suggest 
``an unintended enforcement'' or ``an unintended speed enforcement'' 
are not malfunctions, if the ``event is consistent with the 
railroad's PTCDP.'' Class I railroads have explained that an 
unintended braking event could lead to a derailment or another 
unsafe situation, and such unintended enforcement by the PTC system 
would indicate that the PTC system malfunctioned in some way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, in FRA's 60-day notice, FRA requested comments about 
its proposal to require host railroads to identify and categorize the 
number of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and 
malfunctions by state and subdivision.\11\ See 84 FR at 72125. AAR's 
comments, dated February 28, 2020, argue that ``[p]roviding data by 
state or region would be unduly burdensome and is not necessary to 
achieve FRA's objective. Railroads do not keep data by state or region. 
. . . Railroads should report failures by subdivision alone, consistent 
with other reporting requirements.'' Based on AAR's request and 
justification, FRA modified its proposed web-based form (Form FRA F 
6180.177) to require host railroads to identify the number of PTC 
system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions by 
subdivision \12\ only (and not by state), which FRA believes will still 
enable FRA to closely monitor trends in PTC system reliability 
throughout the country and focus its resources, for example, on any 
areas where such failures are occurring at a high rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FRA's 60-day notice acknowledged that absent a breakdown by 
state and/or subdivision, FRA would require host railroads to 
identify the number of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, 
and malfunctions per FRA region, at a minimum. FRA explained that 
such an approach would retain the same minimum level of geographical 
information about where such PTC system failures are occurring, as 
explicitly required under the default reporting requirement under 49 
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4).
    \12\ Or any other categorization a host railroad uses in its 
timetables, including district, territory, main line, branch, or 
corridor. FRA recognizes that this specific type of information 
(i.e., a breakdown by subdivision) is not required under 49 U.S.C. 
20157(j)(4), and FRA would be collecting such information under its 
general authority under 49 CFR 236.1009(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, based on railroads' input at industry meetings, FRA proposed 
in its 60-day notice that a Statutory Notification of PTC System 
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) would additionally require a host 
railroad to list a percentage or rate, demonstrating how the 
occurrences of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and 
malfunctions compare to all operations on that host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines.\13\ See 84 FR at 72125. Several railroads 
previously commented that, without such a percentage or context, the 
frequency of these failures might otherwise seem high, and a percentage 
would help convey the actual rate of such failures. In its February 28, 
2020, comments, AAR specifically suggests that to ``keep the report of 
PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions in 
perspective, particularly if comparing individual railroads, it would 
be useful to normalize results between railroads.'' Similarly, in 
APTA's letter dated February 28, 2020, APTA requests that FRA identify 
the applicable denominator(s) to utilize when calculating the rate of 
PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FRA recognizes that this specific type of information is 
not required under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), and FRA would be 
collecting such information under its general authority under 49 CFR 
236.1009(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    APTA recommends that the quotient of mean-time/distance-between-
failure would be an appropriate measure, if the intent of the 
percentage field is to monitor a PTC system's reliability. While FRA 
agrees that this specific data point is valuable, FRA believes that 
more tailored denominators would be useful for purposes of the three 
types of PTC system failures referenced in 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)--i.e., 
failures to initialize, cut outs, and malfunctions. However, railroads 
can also provide any additional data or metrics, including the quotient 
of mean-time/distance-between-failure, in the narrative section of the 
web-based form.
    AAR's comments recommend two distinct denominators for the three 
types of PTC system failures identified in 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). FRA 
agrees with AAR that the appropriate denominator with respect to 
initialization failures would be ``the number of scheduled attempts at 
initialization.'' In the proposed Statutory Notification of PTC System 
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), FRA now provides a field for host 
railroads to provide the total number of scheduled attempts at PTC 
system initialization during the applicable reporting period. As AAR 
recommends, FRA will calculate the percentage or rate by dividing the 
host railroad's number of failures to initialize, as defined above, by 
the total number of scheduled attempts at PTC system initialization 
during the reporting period.
    With respect to PTC system cut outs and malfunctions, AAR 
recommends that the appropriate denominator would be ``the number of 
train miles operated with PTC active'' and, for arithmetic

[[Page 15027]]

purposes, suggests expressing the number in thousands of train miles. 
In its comments, AAR also notes that ``AAR's members would be amenable 
to including in the report data on PTC train miles.'' FRA will include 
a field in the web-based form for host railroads to provide that raw 
denominator (i.e., the total number of PTC-required train miles), and 
FRA will calculate the rate of cut outs and malfunctions, utilizing 
that raw denominator. FRA believes that providing fields for railroads 
to enter such raw denominators, instead of percentages or rates, will 
help ensure FRA accurately interprets railroads' data, especially when 
comparing multiple railroads' data or a single railroad's data to its 
own prior notifications of PTC system initialization failures, cut 
outs, and malfunctions.
    In addition, at industry meetings to date, multiple railroads 
expressed that FRA should not require tenant railroads to submit this 
failure-related information directly to FRA, but via their host 
railroads. Accordingly, FRA's 60-day notice proposed that only host 
railroads subject to the statutory mandate (currently 36 host 
railroads) would submit the Statutory Notification of PTC System 
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), and these notifications would encompass 
both a host railroad's and its tenant railroad(s)' PTC system 
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions. See 84 FR at 
72125-26.
    In AAR's comments, dated February 28, 2020, AAR generally expressed 
opposition to providing ``tenant data'' and noted that this requirement 
may be ``burdensome, likely requiring host railroads to devote 
significant employee time to getting that information from their 
tenants.'' Specifically, AAR commented, ``If FRA is going to require 
hosts to report tenant data, the agency must impose a clear and direct 
requirement on tenants to report the desired information to their host 
railroad.'' In its comments, APTA also acknowledges that a host 
railroad would need to obtain ``all necessary logs'' from its tenant 
railroads to accurately complete the Statutory Notification of PTC 
System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). FRA notes that an existing 
regulatory provision, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4), would already require a 
tenant railroad to report a PTC system failure or cut out to ``a 
designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and 
practicable.'' Also, FRA is aware that several host railroads, 
including Class I railroads and passenger railroads, already regularly 
monitor and track tenant railroads' PTC system initialization failures, 
cut outs, and malfunctions via automatically generated reports and/or 
via connected PTC system back offices.
    Furthermore, AAR specifically ``urges FRA to exclude tenant 
information when reporting percentages,'' as obtaining ``tenant 
information on the number of miles operated with PTC active would 
likely be a particularly burdensome and frustrating exercise for host 
railroads. Finally, any reporting of tenant data by host railroads 
should be on a subdivision basis.'' Based on AAR's feedback, FRA 
proposes to eliminate the percentage column from the section of the 
proposed Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 
6180.177) regarding tenant railroads' PTC system initialization 
failures, cut outs, and malfunctions. Acknowledging AAR's specific 
concern and APTA's general comments, FRA will instead provide a field 
for a host railroad to identify the total number of trains that each 
PTC-required tenant railroad operated on the host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines during the reporting period, instead of requiring a 
host railroad to provide a tenant railroad's PTC train miles. Several 
host railroads have previously acknowledged that they can readily 
access and compile such high-level data, including the number of train 
movements during the applicable reporting period, for each PTC-required 
tenant railroad.
    In APTA's letter, dated February 28, 2020, APTA also inquired about 
whether the web-based Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures 
(Form FRA F 6180.177) will be ``used for reporting post certification 
(Annual and Critical anomalies).'' The reporting requirement under 49 
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)--as implemented by FRA's proposed Statutory 
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177)--applies only 
to FRA-certified PTC systems and is effective only until approximately 
December 31, 2021.\14\ Furthermore, while FRA is open to considering 
developing a web-based form for purposes of 49 CFR 236.1029(h), Annual 
report of system failures, that permanent regulatory reporting 
requirement is separate and distinct from FRA's proposed Statutory 
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), which is 
intended to implement only the temporary reporting requirement under 49 
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As noted above, the temporary reporting requirement under 
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) sunsets on approximately December 31, 2021--or 
more specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad obtains 
PTC System Certification from FRA and finishes fully implementing an 
FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all its required main 
lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) explicitly requires a railroad to 
provide in the notification ``a description of the safety measures the 
affected railroad . . . has in place,'' so the web-based Statutory 
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) contains a 
field for a host railroad to enter such information. FRA received no 
comments on this aspect of the proposed form.

IV. Overview of Information Collection

    FRA will submit this ICR to OMB for regular clearance as required 
by the PRA.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information 
collection.
    Title: Positive Train Control and Other Signal Systems (including 
the Quarterly Positive Train Control Progress Report, the Annual 
Positive Train Control Progress Report, and the Statutory Notification 
of Positive Train Control System Failures).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FRA makes a technical correction to the title of OMB 
Control Number 2130-0553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 2130-0553.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.165, FRA F 6180.166, and FRA F 6180.177.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion (depending on the specific 
reporting requirement).
    Respondent Universe: 35 railroads \16\ (including 32 host railroads 
and 3 tenant-only commuter railroads) for the Quarterly PTC Progress 
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 
6180.166); 36 host railroads for the Statutory Notification of PTC 
System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177); and varies for other information 
collections under OMB Control No. 2130-0553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Currently, 42 railroads are directly subject to the 
statutory mandate to implement a PTC system. However, only 35 
railroads are currently subject to these progress-related reporting 
requirements, given that by law, such reporting requirements no 
longer apply to the 4 host railroads that fully implemented PTC 
systems as of December 31, 2018, and 3 other tenant-only commuter 
railroads that fully implemented their PTC systems to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 4,568,393.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 68,373 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: 
$5,533,356.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), 
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, 
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.


[[Page 15028]]


(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520; 49 U.S.C. 20157)

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-05289 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


