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

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Notices Department of State, at 202–776–8442 or lermanjb@state.gov. Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505. Dated: April 15, 2014. Jonas Lerman, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State. Dated: April 30, 2014. Evan Ryan, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. 2014–10485 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2014–10490 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710–08–P BILLING CODE 4710–05–P DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 8722] [Public Notices: 8720] Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Spanish Drawings From the Kunsthalle of Hamburg, Germany’’ Certification Related to the Government of Haiti Under Section 7045(D)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, Pub. L. 113–76) Department of State. Notice, correction. AGENCY: ACTION: On April 8, 2014, notice was published on page 19409 of the Federal Register (volume 79, number 67) of determinations made by the Department of State pertaining to the exhibition ‘‘Spanish Drawings From the Kunsthalle of Hamburg, Germany.’’ The referenced notice is corrected here to include an additional object as part of the exhibition. Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the additional object to be included in the exhibition ‘‘Spanish Drawings From the Kunsthalle, Germany,’’ imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The additional object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the additional object at the Meadows Museum, Dallas, Texas, from on or about May 25, 2014, until on or about August 31, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a description of the additional object, contact Paul W. Manning, AttorneyAdviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including under section 7045(d)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, Pub. L. 113–76), I hereby certify that Haiti is taking steps to hold free and fair parliamentary elections and to seat a new Haitian Parliament; the Government of Haiti is respecting the independence of the judiciary; and the Government of Haiti is combating corruption and improving governance, including passage of the anticorruption law to enable prosecution of corrupt officials and implementing financial transparency and accountability requirements for government institutions. This Certification shall be published in the Federal Register, and copies shall be transmitted to the appropriate committees of Congress. John F. Kerry, Secretary of State. 26299 Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. Docket Number: DOT–OST–2014– 0063. Date Filed: April 24, 2014. Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: May 15, 2014. Description: Application of Dreamjet SAS requesting exemption authority and a foreign air carrier permit to engage in: a. Foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property and mail from any point or points behind any Member State(s) of the European Union, via any point or points in any Member State and via intermediate points, to any point(s) in the United States and beyond; b. foreign scheduled and charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any Member of the European Common Aviation Area; c. foreign scheduled and charter cargo air transportation between any point or points in the United States and any other point or points; d. other charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and e. scheduled and charter transportation consistent with any future, additional rights that may be granted to foreign air carriers of Member States of the European Union under the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement. Cheryl F. Collins, Dockets Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. 2014–10450 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2014–10484 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P BILLING CODE 4710–29–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Office of the Secretary [Docket No. FRA 2014–0011–N–9] Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending April 26, 2014 Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation’s Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 26300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Notices 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 overregulation, 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 tonmiles 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 E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Notices 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:11 May 06, 2014 Jkt 232001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26301 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 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [Docket No. FD 33744 (Sub-No. 1)] CSX Transportation, Inc.—Trackage Rights Exemption—Louisville & Indiana Railroad Company CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and Louisville & Indiana Railroad Company (LIRC), pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement dated January 1, 2014 (the 2014 Agreement), have agreed to modify the compensation pertaining to overhead trackage rights LIRC previously granted to CSXT 1 under a trackage rights agreement entered into in 2000 (the 2000 Agreement). The trackage rights are over LIRC’s line between milepost 110.56, at Louisville, Ky., and milepost 4.0, at Indianapolis, Ind., a distance of approximately 106.5 miles (including the ability to enter and exit the line at Seymour, Ind.).2 1 See CSX Transp., Inc.—Trackage Rights Exemption—Louisville & Ind. R.R., FD 33744 (STB served June 21, 2001). 2 Redacted versions of the 2000 Agreement and 2014 Agreement were filed with the notice of exemption. The full versions of the agreements, as required by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii), were concurrently filed under seal along with a motion for protective order. That motion will be addressed in a separate decision. E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1

Agencies

[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