Notice and Request for Comments
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501- 3519 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of an extension of the information collectionNotifications of Trails Act Agreement and Substitute Sponsorshipfurther described below. The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the Federal Register (80 FR 11262, March 2, 2015). That notice allowed for a 60-day public review and comment period. No comments were received. Under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and the Board's regulations, the STB will issue a Certificate of Interim Trail Use (CITU) or Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) to a prospective trail sponsor who offers to assume managerial, tax, and legal responsibility for a right-of-way that a rail carrier would otherwise abandon. The CITU/NITU permits parties, for 180 days, to negotiate for a railbanking agreement. If parties reach an agreement, the CITU/NITU automatically authorizes railbanking/ interim trail use. If no agreement is reached, then upon expiration of the negotiation period, the CITU/NITU authorizes the railroad to exercise its option to fully abandon the line without further action by the Board. Pursuant to 49 CFR 1152.29, parties must jointly notify the Board when a trail use agreement has been reached, and must identify the exact location of the right-of-way subject to the agreement, including a map and milepost marker information. The rules also require parties to file a petition to modify or vacate the CITU/NITU if the trail use agreement applies to less of the right-of-way than covered by the CITU/ NITU. Finally, the rules require that a substitute trail sponsor must acknowledge that interim trail use is subject to restoration and reactivation at any time. Comments may now be submitted to OMB concerning: (1) The accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology when appropriate; and (4) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility. Submitted comments will be summarized and included in the Board's request for OMB approval.