Final Rule Positive Train Control Full Presentation

1. Final RulePositive Train ControlFull Presentation Implementation of the Mandate Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 January 2010

2. Text Color Codes • Red is as required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act • Black is as previously briefed and published in the NPRM. • Green includes the comments, responses, and final rule decisions.

3. Overview • Background • PTC functions • PTC territory • PTC trains • Process • Other issues • Chronology

4. Background • On about 3-4% of route miles of railroad, cab signals and automatic speed control, or automatic train stop, provides some protection for single point human failure. • Since about 1971, the National Transportation Safety Board has been demanding better technology. • Since 1985, the railroad industry has been promising it.

5. Background • In 1994, FRA filed a required report with the Congress on Railroad Communications and Train Control. (Coined the term PTC.) • In 2000, FRA filed a required report with the Congress on Implementation of Positive Train Control Systems. (Based on RSAC report.) • In 2004, FRA filed a required report with the Appropriations Committees of the Congress on the Benefits and Costs of PTC. • On March 7, 2005, FRA published a final rule on Performance Standards for Signal and Train Control Systems designed to facilitate introduction of PTC

6. PTC Functions Chatsworth, CA September 12, 2008

7. PTC Functions-RSIA08 • Prevent train-to-train collisions • Existing architectures generally effective • NPRM Limitations: • Restricted speed scenarios (e.g., where permitted to pass red signal in TCS, joint authorities) NPRM: Display restricted speed and enforce upper limit of restricted speed in certain instances ◊ Comments: Generally supported limitation, but NTSB suggested FRA further develop technology to address. Final rule: As proposed, to save cost and promote early implementation.

8. PTC Functions-RSIA08 • Prevent train-to-train collisions • NPRM Limitations: • Side collisions at diamond crossings NPRM: Given limited build out, enforce as to non-PTC line where two lines cross and where risk is relatively high ◊ Comments: AAR asked for PTC enforcement on unequipped route (cost assumed to fall on Class II/III railroads). Response: Proposal was a reasonable application of the law and responsive to Regulatory Flexibility Act. Final rule: As proposed (significant savings, as nothing would be required at majority of crossings). Class Is can readily provide positive stop where their lines intersect.

9. PTC Functions-RSIA08

10. PTC Functions-RSIA08 • Prevent overspeed derailments • Enforce permanent and temporary speed restrictions based on class of train • Include restrictions associated with identified highway-rail grade crossing warning system malfunctions Comment (commuter railroads): • Not a core function; will introduce delays Response: • Merely enforces mandatory directives already required to be issued; no different than slow order at soft track location. • Significant public safety issue. • No intent to require remote health monitoring at conventional speeds. Final Rule: • Retains the requirement.

11. PTC Functions-RSIA08 • Prevent overspeed derailments • Protect movements at movable bridges • No requirement to enforce equipment-specific speed restrictions, but encouraged where system design permits ◊ Comments: Want flexibility on speed enforced (to avoid unnecessary enforcements). Response: This is customary in train control. Final rule: Railroad may propose and justify speed increments for warning and enforcement.

12. PTC Functions-RSIA08 • Prevent incursions into roadway work zones • Arrange system to prevent single point human failure • Employee in charge to maintain control over entry • For later implementation: portable roadway worker terminals ◊ Comments: Supportive. Final rule: No change.

13. PTC Functions-RSIA08 • Prevent movement of a train through a switch left in the “wrong position” • In dark territory, individual switches would be monitored with position detected and secured • Sidings with speeds above 20 mph considered main line • In signal territory, signal circuits may be used to verify route integrity (main line and controlled sidings) ◊--Saves $1.7 – 2.3B over 20 years (7%/3%) Comments: Supportive, but NTSB hedge. Response: Adopted as proposed (major savings). • FRA to consider other approaches

14. PTC Functions-Inherent to Technology • Warn and/or enforce for identified hazards ◊ • Hazard detectors tied into existing signal system would be given effect through the PTC system (typically route integrity detectors such as slide fences)—most likely to take warning followed by enforcement • Railroads could interface additional detectors and provide for responsive action in PTC Safety Plan—many may warrant warning only Adopted as proposed—minimalist implementation (holds down costs).

15. PTC Functions-Supporting HSR Higher speeds and auxiliary functions • Above 59 mph passenger and 49 mph freight, functionality of block signal system, including fouling circuits and broken rail detection (tracks current regulations) • Above 90 mph, technology must be vital, perimeter protection must prevent unauthorized entry and rollouts • Above 125, must demonstrate performance equivalent to high speed rail of same class internationally • Above 150, must be integrated into system safety plan approved by FRA Comments: Supportive, including AAHSTO. Final rule: Adopted as proposed.

16. PTC Functions-Supporting HSR Higher speeds and auxiliary functions • Note: Synergy with High-Speed Passenger Rail under ARRA and Administration policy. • See: FRA HSPR Safety Strategy (nudge for integration of crossing warning systems).

17. PTC Territory • For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic • Proposed 2008 base year • Could request removal of line if “consistent with safety and in the public interest” • NPRM Rationale: • Congress set criteria to capture core rail system • Closer to normal year • TSA rule producing consolidation • Rail Route Analysis process still in infancy, not a guide here • Evidence of attempt to shift burden to public • Designed to stabilize build out at level Congress intended, staunch damage to PIH transportation

18. PTC Territory—Freight • For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic • Proposed 2008 base year • Comments: • Chemical shippers: support or want wider built out • Class I Railroads: • 2009/2015 traffic levels should govern • FRA approach will drive up cost • FRA lacks authority • Test for removing line vague

19. PTC Territory—Freight • For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic • Proposed 2008 base year • Response: • In general, agree that wider deployment not supported • However, not practical to use 2015 traffic; and 2009 is atypical • FRA approach provides basis for review of plans and starts with scale intended by Congress • FRA has ample authority under three separate statutes, including RSIA • However, revised from proposed in response to comments.

20. PTC Territory—Freight • For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic • Final Rule: • Start with 2008 base year (year mandate enacted; same period used for initial Rail Route Analysis) • Presumptive removal of lines that fall below 5 mgt for two consecutive years • For any line no longer carrying PIH— • Provide risk assessment supporting re-routing that assumes PTC on all lines under consideration. • If re-routing is supported, ask whether remaining risk on the line is greater than the average risk on lines carrying PIH. “Remaining risk” includes risk to train crews, roadway workers, and communities affected by rail accidents (including release of other hazmat). • If yes, install PTC. • If no, remove line from the plan.

21. PTC Territory—Freight • For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic • Final Rule: • Line sale review provision made explicit. • Likely case for review is sale to Class III railroad under conditions such as the following: • Class I retains right to repurchase • Class I retains overhead trackage rights • Overall mix of traffic will not change appreciably • Purchaser is commercial alter ego of seller • Plan subject to revision at any time through 2015 under these rules, so railroads may ask for review as traffic patterns change.

22. PTC Territory—Freight • For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic • Comment: • AAR—FRA must adopt de minimis exception (<100 PIH cars per year) • Response: • ~100 PIH cars on any line is not insignificant (~10,000 miles of railroad out of 70,000 to be equipped) • Would potentially include some high speed main lines with heavy traffic. • Fails legal test for de minimis authority: “when the burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.” • Congress already provided an exception with 5 mgt threshold • Inherent legal authority to provide de minimis exception does not permit FRA to rewrite the law for cost/benefit purposes • Should not ignore other PTC-avoidable risk in doing so. • However, approach does create potential to avoid large expenditures for trivial benefits.

23. PTC Territory—Freight • For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic • Final Rule: • Relatively narrow de minimis exception is provided as presumptive basis for relief from PTC installation: • Consisting exclusively of Class 1 or 2 track; • That carries less than 15 million gross tons annually; • Has a ruling grade of less than 1 percent; and • On which any train transporting a car containing PIH materials (including a residue car) is operated under conditions of temporal separation • Broader de minimis exception where railroad offers mitigations that reduce risk to negligible levels. Based on FRA review of the specific operating conditions and alternative safety systems. Also limited to lines with 15 mgt traffic. • Major portion of risk reduction from PTC has to do with prevention of train-to-train collisions. Can be accomplished with limited expenditure on the wayside. • AAR did not request, and the final rule does not provide, any exceptions under this provision for lines carrying intercity/commuter passenger traffic.

24. PTC Territory—Passenger • Intercity and commuter railroad lines • About 69,000 route miles total, of which 24,000 are passenger lines and 18,000 miles qualify in both categories • FRA has authority to make exceptions from “main line” where there are “limited freight operations” • Proposed rule offered four RSAC exceptions: (terminal exception, restricted speed, temporal separation, risk case showing low exposure) Comments: Supported four RSAC exceptions. Amtrak sought additional exceptions. • Limited passenger service on some intercity segments. • Questionable commitment of States sponsoring service. • Limited technical abilities of host railroads (Class II and III railroads that otherwise would not be required to install PTC)

25. PTC Territory—Passenger • Intercity and commuter railroad lines • FRA has authority to make exceptions from “main line” where there are “limited freight operations” • In response to Amtrak comments, RSAC recommended 4 trains in dark, 12 in signal territory with NTE 5 mgt freight (host could be Class I, II or III). Response: • Concur with Amtrak that preservation of passenger service is a valid public goal. • Lower density freight operations and infrequent passenger service present limited risk that can be further mitigated in many cases as lesser expense. • Recognize that some commuter branch lines may present similar circumstances (although in most cases commuter lines are characterized by more frequent service).

26. PTC Territory—Passenger • Intercity and commuter railroad lines • FRA has authority to make exceptions from “main line” where there are “limited freight operations” Final rule (in addition to NPRM exceptions): ◊ • Freight cap of 15 mgt (vs. 5 mgt in RSAC) • On a line segment of a railroad that is not a Class I railroad – 4 trains per day in dark, 12 in signal • These are lines that would not otherwise get PTC. • On a Class I segment, 4 trains a day maximum. • These are lines of a railroad whose locomotives and back office are already equipped / wayside cost only. • Make clear that FRA will review each requested exception and may require mitigations.

27. PTC Territory—Gaps • Gaps in statutory route structure • Other major hazmat lines; • Class I captives over which they operate, such as switching and terminal railroads • NPRM—no further requirements, but file plans and bridge to Risk Reduction Program ◊ Comments: • AAR – no authority to require filings Response: • FRA has ample authority under at least three statutes, and integrating PTC planning with the new Risk Reduction Program is very consistent with RSIA.

28. PTC Territory—Gaps • Gaps in statutory route structure • Other major hazmat lines; • Class I captives over which they operate, such as switching and terminal railroads • NPRM—no further requirements, but file plans and bridge to Risk Reduction Program ◊ Final rule: • As proposed • Does not require further build out, per se, but does require response to other RSIA provisions (Risk Reduction Program, Technology for Dark Territory)

29. PTC Trains • Typical application in train control is that all trains must be equipped (§ 236.566) • But freight locomotive fleet is used throughout the Nation in order to provide efficient service and good asset utilization. • Requirement would become fully effective 12/31/2015, when PTC must be in place on all statutory lines

30. PTC Trains • NPRM would have required equipped trains to have system operative when installed on lead locomotive and when on PTC line • FRA-initiated proposal to run some trains failed at initialization during early period ◊ Comments from AAR: • No authority to require before 12/31/2015 • Will create disincentive to equip lines/power early Response: • FRA enjoys ample authority, and the statute cannot be read to defer all PTC benefits until the end of 2015. • Locomotives should be utiliized in PTC mode where equipped.

31. PTC Trains • NPRM would have required equipped trains to have system operative when installed on lead locomotive and when on PTC line • FRA-initiated proposal to run some trains failed at initialization during early period ◊ Final rule: • PTC Implementation Plan (PTCIP) must establish and justify annual goals subject to FRA approval (% of trains equipped/operative on lines with PTC) • Must adjust plan if goals not met

32. PTC Trains • Proposed rule would have permitted failed trains to move under restrictions similar to those now in effect for cab signals • Did not address interim period (before 12/31/2015) Comments: • Amtrak, others—Potential significant impact on operations to operate at lower speed or under absolute block • Labor—need even tighter restrictions Response: • Agree that mandate heightens concern over running failed, but disruption to service is also a concern. Final rule: • Exception from restrictions for interim period (until 12/31/2015) • Mid-range restrictions retained • Passenger railroad may request and justify less stringent restrictions

33. PTC Trains • Proposed rule provided permanent exception for Class II/III trains on Class I lines up to 4 trains per day and 20 miles; exclusion for other such movements over 20 miles until 12/31/2020. (Cited negligible safety gain.) Comments: • AAR—FRA lacks authority to made exceptions; Class Is deserve benefit of their investment in PTC • ASLRRA—Strongly support Response: FRA has authority to make limited exceptions, and they are warranted. Final rule: • Exceptions retained as proposed (significant savings) • Continue to maintain clarity that other considerations may apply as between the parties

34. PTC Trains • Proposed rule included tourist and excursion trains in the 20-mile or 2020 exception Comments (tourist/historic interests): • Want broad exception for trains led by historic locomotives. Response: • No safety justification provided for broader exception. Final rule: • As proposed.

35. Process • PTC Implementation Plan must be filed by April 16, 2010 • Interoperability • Deployment considers relative risk • NPRM proposed PTC Development Plan with PTCIP. Comments (mostly commuter RRs): • Can’t submit PTC Development Plan by then, account late delivery of interoperability standards. Final rule: • Option for Notice of Product Intent on April 16 (reduced level of detail) per RSAC agreement.

36. Process • PTC Implementation Plan must be filed by April 16, 2010 • Interoperability • Deployment considers relative risk • NPRM proposed that Class Is would need to file jointly with host/tenant freight railroads. Comments (Class Is): • Too burdensome to negotiate joint filings. Final rule: • Requirement is retained, account need to ensure coordination and interoperability. • Preamble makes clear that good faith efforts will be recognized.

37. Process • Grandfathering for systems in service (“short form” certification) ◊ • ACSES I, II • ITCS • BNSF’s ETMS, Configuration I • Others approved under subpart H? • Credits for showings made under subpart H until effective date of the new rule ◊ • Option to proceed under subpart H where PTC is not mandated

38. Process • Safety case showings • Non-vital overlay: demonstrate 80% reduction in PTC-relevant risk ◊ • Vital overlay: abbreviated risk assessment ◊ • Standalone: full risk assessment; introduce no new hazards that have not been mitigated • All systems • Show mitigations related to use of management information system sources not subject to prior verification, CAD inputs, but no quantitative risk assessment is required ◊ Final rule on process, as proposed.

39. Other issues (Access to display info) • Displays visible to each assigned crew member in cab • Avoid distraction of engineer Comments: • AAR—not warranted • Labor—support requirements

40. Other issues (Access to display info) • Displays visible to each assigned crew member in cab • Avoid distraction of engineer Response: • Crew resource management • Operations in and out of PTC territory • Switching operations • Initial system vulnerabilities • Facilitate conductor interaction with system (consistent with safety and efficiency) • Preservation of safeguards in existing method of operation (initial freight systems will be overlays) • 4% of system costs, yet major contribution to safety

41. Other issues (Access to display info) • Displays visible to each assigned crew member in cab • Avoid distraction of engineer Final rule: • Continues requirement in current regulations for visibility of display, but may be met in several ways • Continues language barring PTC-related duties that would distract engineer • Preamble is clear that merely viewing the default display supports situational awareness (not distraction)

42. Other issues • Supplier direct responsibility under the rule to report unsafe failures to FRA. Comments (RSI, GE, etc.): • FRA should regulate railroads, not suppliers. • Railroads will have first knowledge of unsafe failures. • Should not burden suppliers while not permitting suppliers to bring products directly to FRA for approval. Response: • FRA has enjoyed authority over suppliers since 1988, and an existing regulation (sec. 236.907(d)) already references supplier duties. • Agree that railroads should be first to report. • However, need to know that supplier has distributed information concerning unsafe failures to other railroads using the same product. Final rule: • Revised to make clear secondary role of supplier but retain requirement to share product notices with FRA.

43. Chronology

44. Chronology (2)