[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3755-3758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities

AGENCY:  Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION:  Notice, and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information 
Collection Requirement (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR 
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected 
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period 
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was 
published on May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25952)

DATES:  Comments must be submitted on or before February 23, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety 
Analysis, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA), 1120 Vermont Ave., NW, Mail Stop 17, Washington, 
DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Dian Deal, Office of 
Information Technology and Productivity Improvement, RAD-20, FRA, 1120 
Vermont Ave., NW, Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 
493-6133). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Pub. L. No. 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as 
revised at 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. 44 U.S.C. 3506; 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 
1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On May 13, 1999, FRA published a 60-day notice 
in the Federal Register soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was 
seeking OMB approval. 64 FR 25952. FRA received several comments after 
issuing this notice. FRA has carefully evaluated these comments and has 
responded to them fully in the information collection submission which 
it is presently forwarding to OMB. A summary of the comments and FRA 
responses are given below. Accordingly, DOT announces that these 
information collection activities have been re-evaluated and certified 
under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for review and approval 
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c). Interested members of the public may 
obtain a free copy of this information collection submission by 
contacting Mr. Robert Brogan or Ms. Dian Deal at the telephone numbers 
listed above.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of 
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 
3607(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). 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 1320.12(d); see also 
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summaries below describe the nature of the ICRs and the 
expected burden. The revised requirements are being submitted for 
clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0017.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: 675 railroads and 50 States.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.71.
    Abstract: Form FRA 6180.71 is a voluntary form and is being revised 
to include additional data elements at the request of states and 
railroads. The form is also being revised to fulfill National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and to take 
advantage of recent advances in information technology. The form is 
used by states and railroads to periodically update certain cite 
specific highway-rail crossing information which is then transmitted to 
FRA for input into the National Inventory File. This information has 
been collected on the U.S. DOT (formerly U.S. DOT-AAR) Crossing 
Inventory Form since 1974 and maintained in the National Inventory File 
database since 1975. The primary purpose of the National Inventory is 
to provide for the existence of a uniform database which can be merged 
with accident data and used to analyze information for planning and 
implementation of crossing safety improvement programs by public, 
private, and governmental agencies responsible for highway-rail 
crossing safety. Following the official establishment of the National 
Inventory

[[Page 3756]]

in 1975, FRA assumed the principal responsibility as custodian for the 
maintenance and continued development of the U.S. DOT/AAR National 
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory Program. The major goal of the Program 
is to provide federal, state, and local governments, as well as the 
railroad industry, information for the improvement of safety at 
highway-rail crossings. Good management practices necessitate 
maintaining the database with current information. The data will 
continue to be useful only if maintained and updated as inventory 
changes occur. FRA previously cleared the reporting and recordkeeping 
burden for this form under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
clearance number 2130-0017. OMB approved the burden in the original 
form through March 31, 2000. Based on the most recent information 
available, FRA estimates approximately 65,000 updates per year. This is 
a substantial reduction in updates from the previous estimate of 
responses and represents a corresponding reduction of 1,538 hours in 
the reporting and recordkeeping burden. The reduction in responses is 
due to a lower response rate from states and railroads over the past 
few years and the expected continuation of this trend. FRA is 
requesting a three-year approval from OMB for this information 
collection.
    Summary of Comments: FRA received a total of five written sets of 
comments in response to its earlier notice. Most of the comments 
pertained to the data elements and layout of the form. Michigan 
Department of Transportation (MDOT) submitted a number of comments. It 
stated that the reasonable time for filling out the DOT Crossing 
Inventory Form should be longer. MDOT noted that it has one person to 
perform many data conversions to provide data to FRA in the format the 
agency needs. After careful review, FRA believes its estimate of the 
amount of time required to gather the necessary information and 
complete the form is accurate. Thus, FRA is not changing the burden 
time for this form. FRA's estimate is based on the types of updates 
currently being provided and on the average-time estimate provided by 
one state which recently completed a massive state-wide update of all 
their crossings. MDOT requested a clearer description of what 
constitutes a crossing, especially in multiple crossing situations and 
the appropriate way to assign U.S. DOT-AAR numbers to the crossings. 
FRA believes the term is clear and notes in its response that a 
crossing inventory number shall be assigned to a crossing which is 
defined as ``the tracks between a pair of the same type of warning 
devices.'' See sections 1.5 and 2.3 of the 1996 Highway-Rail Crossing 
Inventory Instructions and Procedures Manual. While this may seem 
inconsistent at times in multiple track territory, it is required to 
properly define the warning devices and the character of the crossing. 
MDOT also requested that FRA make the Crossing Inventory Form available 
on its Website along with the ability to fill-in the form and transmit 
it to FRA. Upon approval by OMB, FRA will make available a blank form 
on its Website. The ability to fill-in the form and transmit it to FRA 
will not be available because the edit checks to insure data accuracy 
and quality would not be in place. The ``GX 32'' software is provided 
for this purpose. MDOT further requested that the railroad codes be 
made available on the FRA Website and also that the States and railroad 
be given the ability to download updated data from the Internet. FRA's 
response is that the railroad codes are already on the FRA Website 
under ``View or Download FRA Auxiliary Tables.'' With regard to the 
second matter, the capability to download the current data in the File 
is already available on the FRA Website under ``Download Database 
Files.'' Arrangements can also be made with FRA's data processing 
contractor to obtain and download updated files for the ``GX 32'' 
software. MDOT commented that a mechanism is needed to submit data that 
still has missing fields of information, and that some data is better 
than no data. FRA's response is that, if the agency allowed partial 
data submittal, there would be gaps in information, data accuracy and 
quality would suffer, and the probability would be high that missing 
data would not be submitted to complete the update or the addition to 
the new crossing. What is suggested can already be performed. The 
Crossing Inventory Form can be submitted with temporary or estimated 
information (for example, an estimate of highway traffic volume) and 
then it can be corrected or updated later. MDOT wanted to know exactly 
how latitude and longitude are determined and from what point in the 
crossings. In response, the new Instructions will define that actual 
recording of latitude and longitude be taken at the center of the 
crossing, that is, the midpoint of a diagonal line across the crossing 
between the primary warning devices facing the approach lanes of 
traffic. MDOT thought that a glossary of terms should be provided and 
that Item 5 of Part III: ``Is highway paved?'' should have the added 
designation of one-side only. In response, FRA does not believe a 
glossary of terms is needed. FRA recognizes that some states have 
specific and/or different procedures which they follow. However, for 
the National Inventory, the original Committee of States and Railroads 
established definitions that reflected the majority of users. Regarding 
Item 5, the instructions will indicate that if one side of the roadway 
is paved and the other is unpaved, it should be indicated as unpaved. 
MDOT observed that the states do not have the time/resources nor do the 
railroads to go out and specifically collect a special piece of data 
just because FRA has it on this form. In reply, FRA notes that the 
required information and data elements were defined by the states and 
railroads in 1973. In order to insure accuracy, consistency, and 
quality, FRA can not be flexible on allowing blank data fields. Lastly, 
MDOT had comments on system security and the integrity of data. FRA's 
response is to note that it accepts Inventory update information only 
from one designated contact person in each state and on each railroad. 
In order to insure the integrity and accuracy of the data, FRA requires 
all data elements be completed for new crossings before the record is 
inputted into the National File. The PCAPS (Personal Computer Accident 
Prediction System) program produces lists of the riskiest crossings for 
a specifically defined entity (state, county, city, railroad, or any 
combination thereof). If the data is not accurate, it is the 
responsibility of the state and/or railroad to provide updated 
information. It should be noted that the PCAPS program is only updated, 
produced, and distributed once per year.
    A second set of comments was submitted by the Association of 
American Railroads (AAR). AAR recommended that the Crossing Inventory 
Form clearly identify the data elements which should be completed by 
the railroad industry and those elements which should be completed by 
the highway authority. FRA agrees, and has done this on the form (where 
possible), and in the instructions and additional materials which 
accompany the form instructions. AAR had several comments about the 
form itself. It requested that AAR's name be removed from the title of 
the form. FRA agrees. After consultation with the major Class I 
railroads which indicated their agreement, FRA has changed the title to 
``DOT Crossing Inventory Form.'' AAR suggested that time could be saved 
by eliminating the second box in data items

[[Page 3757]]

which require a yes or no answer. FRA agrees in principle. However, it 
was determined that, in order to be consistent with a choice for a 
response, a ``yes'' and ``no'' box be provided for all elements for 
questions where such a response was appropriate. This also assures that 
the respondent addresses the questions. Thus, two boxes remain for 
these questions. AAR observed that Part I of the form (May draft) 
contained several categories which should be included and identified 
under Part IV ``Highway Department Information.'' In particular, he 
thought, data items 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 24 should be placed 
under Part IV. In response, FRA has clearly identified which data 
elements are to be completed by the railroad and which elements are to 
be completed by the highway authority in the Instructions and on the 
Form (again where possible). Part I ``Location and Classification'' of 
the revised form provides the critical information that is required for 
all crossings, whether public, private, or pedestrian, at-grade or 
grade separated. Parts II, III, and IV are only required to be 
completed if the crossing is public, although information in these 
parts will now be accepted and inputted into the File if it is supplied 
for private crossings. AAR suggested that instructions for Item 3 
should be changed for crossings located on county lines to reflect the 
county responsible for maintenance at that crossing, and that High 
Speed Rail (HSR) codes be included in the instructions for Item 12. FRA 
agrees, and has added words to the instructions that the State/County 
that is responsible for maintenance at the crossing shall determine the 
location of the crossing, or an agreement/decision must be made between 
the jurisdictions as to the location of the crossing. The instructions 
will also reflect that HSR codes will be supplied by FRA as specific 
corridors are identified and that this field will normally be 
maintained by FRA's data processing contractor. AAR commented that 
Items 35, 36, and 37 of Part I, which FRA will have posted on its 
Website under Inventory History which identify contacts, do not add any 
significant value to the inventory data. FRA disagrees and notes that 
only telephone numbers and not names are required by these data 
elements. However, consideration will be given to not displaying this 
information on the FRA Website. AAR suggested that Items 1A through 1D 
of Part II ``Detailed Railroad Information'' need not be included on 
the form. FRA has revised and simplified these data elements in light 
of this observation. AAR requested that Item 1E of Part II which 
inquires ``whether typical number of daily train movements are actual 
or estimated'' be deleted. FRA agrees and has deleted this data 
element. AAR remarked that Part II Item 2B ``Typical Speed Range Over 
Crossing'' should identify maximum table speed (mph). FRA disagrees and 
feels that this information is necessary to identify if there are slow 
movements over the crossing. This information also helps planners to 
determine if Constant Warning Time (CWT) for the warning devices is 
needed. AAR stated that the instructions for Part I Item 11 ``Train 
Detection'' should only be provided for crossings with active warning 
devices. FRA agrees and has made the default ``None'' in the 
instructions. AAR noted that Part II Item 14 ``Whistle Bans'' does not 
make sense since FRA's anticipated proposed rule implementing the Swift 
Rail Act of 1994 would prohibit whistle bans. FRA agrees and has 
changed the title of Item 14 from ``Whistle Ban'' to ``Quiet Zone'' 
(now Part I Item 16). AAR observed that Item 16 of Part II should be in 
Part IV ``Highway Department Information.'' FRA agrees with this 
categorization. FRA has moved this item to Part III ``Traffic Control 
Information'' (Item 5) and has also re-named it ``Channelization 
Devices with Gates'' for clarity. AAR suggested that Items 5 and 10 of 
Part III (``Physical Data'') should be more appropriately categorized 
as roadway instead of highway. FRA does not agree. While it is true 
that several states use ``highway'' as a term to identify specific 
classifications of roadways, FRA desires that terminology on the form 
should be consistent such as the usage of ``highway-rail crossings.'' 
This term is used to refer to all crossings whether they are on an 
actual highway, road, or street. AAR commented that the draft 
instructions should identify the appropriate authority. FRA agrees and 
the final instructions will have a table identifying the primary 
authority responsible for providing each data element and, if 
appropriate, the secondary authority as well. Lastly, AAR suggested the 
current method of forwarding changes to FRA increases administration 
duties for submitting parties and for FRA. In response, FRA notes that 
a facilitation process is already available which allows a railroad or 
States to use the ``GX 32'' program software to submit changes and 
updates.
    A third set of comments was submitted by the Burlington Northern-
Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). BNSF had a number of comments 
regarding the data elements of the form. He suggested that data items 
12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 24 of Part I ``Location and Classification of 
All Crossings'' be moved to Part III (which should contain items 
provided by the highway authority). In response, FRA has revised the 
form and also the instructions to more clearly identify which data 
elements are to be completed by the railroad and which elements are to 
be completed by the highway authority. BNSF suggested removing Part I 
Item 25B ``Public Access'' since he believed the answer to this item is 
always ``no.'' FRA disagrees and has retained this item in the form. 
This field was specifically requested by a Class I railroad and is 
designed to cover those situations where the general public would use 
the crossing and not be aware that it was a private crossing. BNSF 
remarked that it did not wish to provide the information requested 
regarding the ``Railroad Contact'' in Item 35 of Part I. Again, this 
data element does not request names of individuals but only telephone 
numbers and is retained in the form. BNSF remarked that Part II 
``Detailed Railroad Information'' should contain only data items that 
apply to railroads. FRA agrees and has taken steps in the revised form 
to separate Part II into two parts by creating a fifth part for the 
warning device information. BNSF further remarked that Item 1 ``Typical 
Number of Daily Train Movements'' of Part II should be dropped since it 
has never been able to determine the train movements by day or night. 
FRA disagrees and believes that this information is useful, 
particularly in the DOT Accident Prediction Formulas. However, changes 
have been effected in the revised form to simplify the information to 
be provided. BNSF advocated that Part II Item 2B ``Typical Speed Range 
Over Crossing'' be eliminated since determining what is typical for 
each crossing is not possible and can change over time. FRA disagrees 
and has retained this data element. In thru territory, the normal 
typical speed over the crossing would be constant, most probably the 
timetable speed. BNSF recommended that Part II Item 6E ``Hump Crossing 
Sign W 10-5'' be moved to Part III since this is information that the 
highway is responsible for providing. FRA agrees. FRA has created a new 
Part for Items 6 through 16 titled ``Traffic Control Device 
Information'' and has specified in the instructions that Item 6E is the 
responsibility of the highway authority. BNSF suggested that the part 
for ``Other Colored'' in Part II Item 7A ``Gates'' be removed. FRA has 
changed this data element (now Part III Item 3A) so that it will just 
count the number of gates

[[Page 3758]]

present at the crossing without distinction to the type or color. BNSF 
observed that the check box for ``None'' in Part II Item 11 ``Train 
Detection'' is not necessary and should be removed. The revised form 
retains this box since Item 11 provides a category ``None'' which would 
be checked or indicated if the crossing was not an active crossing. The 
default category would be ``None'' if no other box is checked. BNSF 
also advocated that Part II Item 14 ``Whistle Ban'' be removed from the 
inventory. As mentioned earlier, the revised form changes the title of 
Item14 from ``Whistle Ban'' to ``Quiet Zone'' (now Part I Item 16). 
BNSF commented that Part II Item 16 ``Median Barriers with Gates'' 
should be moved to Part III and be a part of the highway authority 
supplied data. Again, FRA notes that the highway authority will have 
the primary responsibility for supplying this data so it is retaining 
this data element. Like some other data elements, it is not difficult 
for railroads to observe that median barriers are present. Railroads 
would have secondary responsibility for submittal of this information. 
BNSF observed that most of the items in Part III ``Physical Data'' are 
data items known by the road authority and should be supplied by the 
road authority. In response, FRA has revised the form and instructions 
to clearly identify which data elements should be completed by the 
railroad and which data elements should be completed by the highway 
authority, and which can be completed by either. Lastly, regarding the 
typical number of daily train movements (Part II Item 1E), BNSF 
commented that it was not sure how indicating whether the typical 
number of daily train movements is an ``actual'' or ``estimated'' count 
will provide meaningful information to anyone. FRA agrees and Item 1E 
has been eliminated.
    A fourth set of comments was submitted by the Virginia Department 
of Transportation (VDOT). VDOT noted that there is no place on the 
Crossing Inventory Form for independent cities. It wanted to know if 
there is an edit list of acceptable Counties/Cities in the FRA 
database. In response, FRA has provided an explanation in the 
Instruction Manual to ensure that Federal Information Processing 
Standards (FIPS) Codes are used in the Inventory File. FRA is 
evaluating placing the FIPS Codes on its Website. VDOT suggested that, 
regarding the instructions to Part I Item 7, the RRID No. (Item 8) box 
be used to enter the alpha component. In response, FRA notes that an 
alpha character can be entered in the ``Milepost'' field. However, 
because of data retrieval and printout anomalies, FRA strongly 
recommends that alpha characters be avoided. Usually avoiding the alpha 
character will not present a serious identification problem. VDOT 
suggested that the instructions to Item 3 of Part II be improved to 
clarify what are the acceptable types of ``other'' tracks and how they 
are defined. In response, the Instruction Manual supplied by FRA will 
provide examples of what to specify.
    A fifth set of comments was submitted by unidentified individuals. 
One of these commenters requested an item for the ``number of signal 
heads'' be included in the form. FRA concurs that this is useful 
information and has added a data element for the ``number of flashing 
light pairs'' (now Part III item 3E). Another commenter suggested a 
change to both the Instructions and to Part II Item 6.C ``Other Stop 
Signs.'' This commenter stated that there should not be any other stop 
signs other than the Standard Highway Stop Sign. FRA agrees. It has 
deleted Item 6C and has specified in the instructions that non-standard 
stop signs should be reported as ``Other Signs,'' now Part III Item 2F. 
One commenter suggested that Part I Item 7 ``Mile Post'' should be one 
word. FRA agrees and has made the necessary change. Another commenter 
suggested that Part II Item 7A. ``Gates'' combine ``red and white 
reflectorized ``and ``other colored'' into one category. FRA concurs 
and Item 3A of Part III will just be a count of the number of gates 
present a the crossing without distinction to the type or color. There 
was also a suggestion that Part II Item 6A ``Crossbucks'' combine 
``reflectorized'' and ``non-reflectorized'' into one category. FRA 
agrees and Part III Item 2A will just be a count of the number of 
Crossbucks present at the crossing without distinction to the type.
    Another commenter requested that FRA create an additional Part on 
the form (there would be 5 Parts) and change Part II ``Detailed 
Railroad Information'' to ``Highway Warning Device Information.'' FRA 
agrees and has created a fifth Part (which becomes Part III ``Traffic 
Control Device Information''). One commenter recommended moving Part II 
Item 10 ``Is Commercial Power Available?'' to Part III ``Physical 
Data.'' FRA concurs and has moved this item to Part III ``Physical 
Data'(new Part IV). Two other form changes were requested by 
commenters. One was to change Part IV ``Highway Department 
Information'' (new Part V) to ``Highway Information.'' The other was to 
change Part III ``Physical Data'' to ``Physical Characteristics.'' FRA 
agrees and has made both changes. Several other suggestions were 
submitted. One concerned grouping Items 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 together 
and inserting the subtitle ``State Supplied Information'' for this 
group. Another regarded changing the title of Part II from ``Detailed 
Railroad Information'' to ``Detailed Information.'' FRA has implemented 
these last two suggestions in the revised form. Also recommended by 
commenters was to change the title of Part I ``Location and 
Classification of All Crossings'' to ``Location and Classification 
Information,'' and to move ``Whistle Ban'' (Part II Item 14) to Part I 
and change the Item name to ``Quiet Zone.'' FRA agrees with both 
suggestions and has revised the form accordingly. FRA has also moved 
Part III Item 6 ``Pavement Marking'' and Item 7 ``Are Advanced Warning 
Signs Present?'' to the section ``Traffic Control Device Information'' 
in response to comments.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 3,104 hours
    Addressee: Send comments regarding this ICR to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: FRA Desk 
Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed information 
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    A comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives 
it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, D.C.
Margaret B. Reid,
Acting Director, Office of Information Technology and Support Systems, 
Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-1506 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-U