Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request, 26299-26301 [2014-10483]

Agencies

• Federal Railroad Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26299-26301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2014-0011-N-9]


Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment 
Request

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its 
implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 
hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently

[[Page 26300]]

approved information collection activities. Before submitting these 
information collection requirements for clearance by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on 
specific aspects of the activities identified below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than July 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the following 
proposed activities by mail to either: Ms. Janet Wylie, Office of 
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. 
Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal 
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, 
Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt 
of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped 
postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB control number 2130-0578.'' 
Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493-
6170, or via email to Ms. Wylie at janet.wylie@dot.gov, or to Ms. Toone 
at kim.toone@dot.gov. Please refer to the assigned OMB control number 
in any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received 
in response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in 
its information collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janet Wylie, Office of Information 
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-
6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, 
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 
35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone 
numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13, 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 provide 60-days notice to the public for 
comment on information collection activities before seeking approval 
for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 
1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites 
interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed 
information collection activities regarding (i) whether the information 
collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its 
functions, including whether the activities will have practical 
utility; (ii) 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; (iii) ways 
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of 
information collection activities on the public by automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)(I)-(iv); 5 CFR 
1320.8(d)(1)(I)-(iv). FRA believes that soliciting public comment will 
promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens 
associated with the collection of information mandated by Federal 
regulations. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will 
advance three objectives: (i) Reduce reporting burdens; (ii) ensure 
that it organizes information collection requirements in a ``user 
friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and (iii) 
accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce 
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below is a brief summary of the information collection activities 
that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
    Title: Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation and Improvement 
Projects.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0578.
    Status: Regular Review.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a previously approved 
collection.
    Abstract: Much of the economic growth of the United States can be 
linked directly to the expansion of rail service. As the nation moved 
westward, railroads expanded to provide transportation services to 
growing communities. No event better illustrates this point than 
``golden spike'' ceremonies at Promontory Point, Utah, in 1869 that 
ushered in transcontinental rail service. Travel times between the 
Atlantic and Pacific coasts were dramatically reduced, opening numerous 
new markets for both passenger and freight operations. Municipalities 
throughout the country knew that their economic success rested on being 
served by the railroad, and many offered incentives for the chance to 
be served. As a result, many communities' land use patterns developed 
around the railroad lines that became an economic artery as important 
as ``Main Street.'' By 1916, rail expansion peaked as miles of road 
owned reached 254,251. Soon after the end of the Second World War, the 
railroads' competitors--the auto, truck, air plane, pipeline, and 
modern barge--proved technologically superior to the railroads in 
responding to the growing demands for speed, convenience, and service 
quality that characterized the evolving economy of the 20th century. 
Mired in stifling economic over-regulation, railroads were unable to 
respond effectively to the challenges facing them. These changes had a 
dramatic effect on rail's market share. From nearly 80 percent of the 
intercity freight market in the early 1920s, rail share fell to less 
than 37 percent in 1975. The decline was even more dramatic with regard 
to passenger service. The industry responded by cutting excess 
capacity. By 1975, miles of road owned had fallen to 199,126--a 22 
percent decline from 1916. The most current data (2004) shows a further 
decline to 140,806--45 percent fewer miles than was available in 1916.
    By the early years of the 21st century, the rail industry had made 
a significant turn around. Beginning with rate deregulation ushered in 
by the Stagger's Act of 1980 and including a number of other favorable 
changes, railroads have introduced innovative services, incorporated 
modern pricing practices, become profitable, and recaptured market 
share. Between 1985 and 2004, revenue ton-miles nearly doubled from 
876.9 billion to 1.7 trillion. Rail's market share of intercity revenue 
freight is approaching 45 percent. This growth is being accommodated on 
a system that shrunk in response to conditions noted above. The smaller 
physical plant is handling greater and greater freight volumes. The 
clearest evidence of more intense use of the industry's plant is found 
in ``traffic density.'' ``Traffic density'' is the millions of revenue 
ton-miles per owned mile of road. In 1985, this indicia stood at 6.02. 
By 2004, this figure had nearly tripled to 17.02 millions of revenue 
ton-miles per mile of road owned. This more intense use of rail 
infrastructure is especially challenging in communities that developed 
adjacent to or around rail lines, most built over a century ago on 
alignments appropriate to the times.
    As a result, in many places throughout the country, the rail 
infrastructure that was once so critical to communities now presents 
problems as well as benefits. For example, the tracks that run down the 
middle of towns separate the communities on either side. Rail yard and 
tracks occupy

[[Page 26301]]

valuable real estate. Trains parked in sidings may present attractive 
nuisances to children and vandals, and, in the case of tank cars 
containing hazardous materials, may present serious security or health 
risks. Grade crossings may present safety risks to the cars and 
pedestrians that must cross the tracks. These same crossings create 
inconveniences when long trains block crossings for extended periods of 
time and sound horns as they operate through crossings in 
neighborhoods. In some cases, trains operate over lines at speeds that 
are suited for the type of track but often present safety concerns to 
those in the surrounding community. In some cases, rail lines have 
become so congested that communities experience what they perceive as 
almost continuous train traffic. In short, rail lines, which once 
brought economic prosperity and social cohesion, are now sometimes 
viewed as factors in the decline of both.
    In many cases, however, these same communities rely heavily on rail 
traffic. Local industries must be served and passengers, both long 
distance riders and daily commuters, need convenient access to 
population and employment centers. Thus, the presence of the railroad 
is not the problem. Instead, the physical location of the tracks 
creates tension between the need for the railroad and the problems the 
physical infrastructure of the railroad creates.
    In an effort to satisfy all constituents, State and local 
governments are looking for ways to eliminate the problems created by 
the increased demand on the infrastructure while still maintaining the 
benefits the railroad provides. Many times, the solution is merely to 
relocate the track in question to an area that is better suited for it. 
For example, a recently completed relocation project in Greenwood, 
Mississippi, eliminated twelve at-grade highway-rail crossings, which 
greatly improved safety for motorists and eliminated blocked crossings. 
With that success in mind, Mississippi is currently looking to relocate 
two main lines that run through the heart of the Central Business 
District in Tupelo. Combined, these two lines cross 26 highways in the 
city, and all but one are at-grade crossings. One of the options the 
State is considering is laterally relocating the lines outside of the 
business district.
    In some situations, vertical relocation may be the best solution. 
For example, Nevada has undertaken the Reno Transportation Rail Access 
Project (ReTRAC), the purpose of which is to ``sink'' 33 feet below the 
ground in a trench the approximately 2.25 mile segment of track that 
runs through Reno. Both the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and 
Amtrak operate over this line. The project will allow for the closing 
of 11 grade crossings, and will generally improve both highway 
efficiency and highway safety, as well as the safety and efficiency of 
the trains that operate through Reno. Many of these relocation 
projects, like the ReTRAC project, are expensive, and State and local 
governments lack the resources to undertake them.
    In addition to relocation projects, many communities are eager to 
improve existing rail infrastructure in an effort to mitigate the 
negative effects of rail traffic on safety in general, motor vehicle 
traffic flow, economic development, or the overall quality of life of 
the community. For example, in an effort to improve train speed and 
reduce the risk of derailments, rail lines that were built a century 
ago with sharp curves can be straightened. Furthermore, significant 
efficiencies can be gained and safety enhanced by, as examples, 
extending passing tracks and yard lead tracks, and adding track 
circuits and signal spacing changes. On August 10, 2005, President 
George W. Bush signed SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59) into law. Section 
9002 of SAFETEA-LU amended chapter 201 of Title 49 of the United States 
Code by adding new section 20154, which establishes the basic elements 
of a funding program for capital grants for rail relocation and 
improvement projects. Subsection (b) of the new section 20154 mandates 
that the Secretary of Transportation issue ``temporary regulations'' to 
implement the capital grants program and then issue final regulations 
by October 1, 2006.
    In FY 2008, Congress appropriated $20,145,000 for the Program, 
reduced by rescission to $20,040,200. Of this sum, $14,905,000 was 
available for discretionary (competitive) grants. After evaluating and 
scoring 37 applications, FRA awarded $14,315,300 to seven different 
projects, leaving $589,700. In FY 2009, Congress appropriated 
$25,000,000 and directed that $17,100,000 be awarded to 23 specific 
projects, with $7,900,000 left over for discretionary grants. 
Subsequently, in FY 2010, Congress appropriated $34,532,000 for the 
Program, and directed that $24,519,200 go to 27 specifically enumerated 
projects. FRA combined the remaining $10,012,800 with the $589,700 that 
was not awarded from the FY 2008 competition, $2,000,000 that was 
awarded to one of the FY 2008 projects but which the project sponsors 
ultimately turned down, and the $7,900,000 in FY 2009 discretionary 
funding for a total of $20,502,500. These funds were the subject of a 
Notice of Funding Availability that FRA published in the Federal 
Register on September 10, 2010. The application period closed on 
October 29, 2010.
    Form Number(s): Progress Report, Federally-owned Property Report, 
SF-269, SF-271, SF-270, DOT F 200.1.
    Affected Public: State and local governments, government sponsored 
authorities and corporations, railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion; record keeping.
    Total Estimated Responses: 121.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 26,083 hours.
    Pursuant to 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.

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

Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-10483 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P