drfNPRMGRXngActPlans

INFORMATION COLLECTION

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SUPPORTING JUSTIFICATION

State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans

1. EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAKE THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION NECESSARY. IDENTIFY ANY LEGAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS THAT NECESSITATE THE COLLECTION. ATTACH A COPY OF THE APPROPRIATE SECTION OF EACH STATUTE AND REGULATION MANDATING OR AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

The proposed rule is intended to prevent collisions at highway-rail grade crossings in the ten identified States, and to comply with § 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), Public Law No. 110-432, Division A, which was signed into law on October 16, 2008. Section 202 requires the Secretary (delegated to the Federal Railroad Administrator by 49 CFR 1.49) to identify the ten States that have had the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the past three years, and to require those States to develop State highway-rail grade crossing action plans, within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Secretary. Section 202 further provides that these plans must identify specific solutions for improving safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations, and must focus on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or are at high risk for such accidents.

Section 202 also provides the following: the Secretary will provide assistance to the States in developing and carrying out such plans, as appropriate; the plans may be coordinated with other State or Federal planning requirements; the plans will cover a period of time determined to be appropriate by the Secretary; and the Secretary may condition the awarding of any grants under 49 USC §§ 20158, 20167, or 22501, to a State identified under this section, on the development of such State’s plan.

Lastly, § 202 provides a review and approval process under which, not later than 60 days after the Secretary receives such a State action plan, the Secretary must review and either approve or disapprove it. In the event that the proposed plan is disapproved, § 202 indicates that the Secretary shall notify the affected State as to the specific areas in which the proposed plan is deficient, and the State shall correct all deficiencies within 30 days following receipt of written notice from the Secretary.

As previously noted, Congress expressly directed the Secretary to identify the ten States that have had the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the past three years. FRA maintains a database of highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents occurring at public and private grade crossings, as such events must be reported to FRA pursuant to 49 CFR § 225.19. From this database, FRA has identified the ten States with the most reported highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents at public and private grade crossings during 2006, 2007, and 2008 to be as follows: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas. FRA will issue letters to these identified States and copies of such letters will be placed in the public docket of this proceeding.

Section 202 instructs the Secretary to determine the reasonable period of time within which the ten identified States must develop a State highway-rail grade crossing action plan and the period of time to be covered by such a plan. Based on previous experience working with States on highway-rail grade crossing action plans, FRA has determined that States can reasonably develop such plans within one year from the date this regulation goes into effect, and that such plans should cover a period of five years.

2. INDICATE HOW, BY WHOM, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE INFORMATION IS TO BE USED. EXCEPT FOR A NEW COLLECTION, INDICATE THE ACTUAL USE THE AGENCY HAS MADE OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CURRENT COLLECTION.

This is a new collection of information. The information will be used by FRA to carry out a Congressional mandate. It will be used to ensure that the ten States identified above (i.e., those with the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions nationwide) devise and implement plans to reduce/eliminate these troubling high numbers of collisions in their States. Specifically, FRA will review grade crossing action plans to verify that these plans include the following: (i) Identify specific solutions for improving safety at highway-rail grade crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations, (ii) Focus on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or are at high risk for such accidents, and (iii) Cover a five-year period of time.

Within 60-days of receipt of the required grade crossing action plans, FRA will conduct the necessary review and will communicate a decision regarding approval to all ten States that were identified above through FRA’s accident database. Grade crossing action plans not approved will need to be re-submitted. FRA will review these revised plans to make sure that specific areas found deficient in the plan are improved to meet agency safety standards so as to meet the Congressional goal of reducing highway-rail grade collisions and their accompanying injuries, fatalities, and property damage.

The information will also be used by States. Specifically, development of such plans will enhance each States’ ability to view its population of highway-rail grade crossings, interpret historical accident information, evaluate the overall state of highway-rail grade crossing safety, and identify particular areas in need of attention.  Collision patterns and causal factors will become more readily apparent as a result of this detailed study, assessment, and the status reporting involved in the development of the State action plan. In these plans, each State will identify specific solutions for improving safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations, with special focus on those crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or are at heightened risk for accidents.  Special emphasis corridors of high-risk crossings may also be identified as a result of the analysis component of the State action plan. Furthermore, as each State’s highway-rail grade crossing action plan may be coordinated with other State or Federal planning requirements, additional benefits may be obtained through closer integration of grade crossing safety issues into the overall State transportation safety planning efforts.

3. DESCRIBE WHETHER, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION INVOLVES THE USE OF AUTOMATED, ELECTRONIC, MECHANICAL, OR OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL COLLECTION TECHNIQUES OR OTHER FORMS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, E.G. PERMITTING ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF RESPONSES, AND THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION FOR ADOPTING THIS MEANS OF COLLECTION. ALSO DESCRIBE ANY CONSIDERATION OF USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE BURDEN.

FRA strongly supports and highly encourages the use of advanced information technology, wherever possible, to reduce burden on respondents. FRA has championed the use of advanced information technology, particularly electronic recordkeeping, for many years now. In compliance with both the requirements of the PRA and GPEA, FRA provides the option of electronic submission for the required State grade crossing action plans under § 234.11. Thus, approximately 100 percent of all responses may be submitted electronically, if States so choose.

It should be noted that the estimated burden of this proposed collection of information is fairly minimal.

4. DESCRIBE EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY DUPLICATION. SHOW SPECIFICALLY WHY ANY SIMILAR INFORMATION ALREADY AVAILABLE CANNOT BE USED OR MODIFIED FOR USE FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN ITEM 2 ABOVE.

The information collection requirements to our knowledge are not duplicated anywhere.

Similar data are not available from any other source.

5. IF THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION IMPACTS SMALL BUSINESSES OR OTHER SMALL ENTITIES (ITEM 5 OF OMB FORM 83-I), DESCRIBE ANY METHODS USED TO MINIMIZE BURDEN.

Pursuant to § 312 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), FRA has issued a final policy that formally establishes “small entities” as including railroads that meet the line-haulage revenue requirements of a Class III railroad. 49 CFR part 209, app. C. For other entities, the same dollar limit in revenues governs whether a railroad, contractor, or other respondent is a small entity. Id. Additionally, § 601(5) defines as “small entities” governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations less than 50,000. Such governments would not be directly impacted by this proposal.

The ten States identified will incur the full burden associated with implementation of this rule once it becomes final. The primary burden imposed will be for State labor resources spent to comply with development of the mandated action plans. FRA staff will be available, including FRA regional grade crossing managers and FRA experts from the grade crossing and trespasser prevention division, to provide assistance to States in developing and carrying out, as appropriate, the State highway-rail grade crossing action plans. In addition, the State highway-rail grade crossing action plans may be coordinated with other State or Federal planning requirements.

FRA estimates that, on the average, each State will assign the plan development responsibilities to a team composed of a program manager, a project engineer, a budget analyst, a business specialist, and a legal expert. The estimated aggregate quantified compliance cost for these ten States is estimated at $259,471 over the next year, and the estimated annual burden (as detailed in the answer to question 12) is 6,400 hours.

FRA certifies that this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as this rule only affects the ten identified States. To the extent that this proposal would have any impact on small entities, FRA believes the impact will not be significant. FRA has requested comment regarding this analysis.

6. DESCRIBE THE CONSEQUENCE TO FEDERAL PROGRAM OR POLICY ACTIVITIES IF THE COLLECTION IS NOT CONDUCTED OR IS CONDUCTED LESS FREQUENTLY, AS WELL AS ANY TECHNICAL OR LEGAL OBSTACLES TO REDUCING BURDEN.

If this information were not collected or collected less frequently, FRA would be unable to carry out a Congressional mandate and FRA’s goal of enhancing national rail safety would be significantly impeded. Specifically, if FRA were unable to collect the proposed information, FRA would have no way to know whether the ten States identified with the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the last three years have devised and implemented plans to reduce the excessively high numbers of accidents and corresponding injuries, fatalities, and property damage that they experienced in the recent past.

Without the information collected, FRA could not be assured that each of the ten named States have actually identified specific solutions for improving safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations; could not be assured that they are focusing on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or are at high risk for such accidents; and could not be assured that their plans actually cover the required five-year time period.

Without this collection of information, a new and important means of enhancing highway-rail safety throughout the nation and of saving lives would be unavailable to FRA and its Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Division. Without this collection of information, accidents/incidents at highway-rail grade crossings in the ten identified States would continue to occur at an alarming and unacceptable rate, more motorists would continue to be severely injured and killed, railroad engineers/conductors involved in such accidents/incidents would continue to be traumatized and some doubtless would be unable to continue to function in their normal capacities to earn a livelihood, and rail property, as well as personal auto property, would continue to sustain preventable damages.

In sum, the collection of information helps FRA to promote and enhance safe rail transportation throughout the United States. In this, it furthers both DOT’s top goal and its core agency mission.

7. EXPLAIN ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD CAUSE AN INFORMATION COLLECTION TO BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER:

- REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO REPORT INFORMATION TO THE AGENCY MORE OFTEN THAN QUARTERLY;

- REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO PREPARE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO A COLLECTION OF INFORMATION IN FEWER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF IT;

- REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO SUBMIT MORE THAN AN ORIGINAL AND TWO COPIES OF ANY DOCUMENT;

- REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO RETAIN RECORDS, OTHER THAN HEALTH, MEDICAL, GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, GRANT-IN-AID, OR TAX RECORDS FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS;

- IN CONNECTION WITH A STATISTICAL SURVEY, THAT IS NOT DESIGNED TO PRODUCE VALID AND RELIABLE RESULTS THAT CAN BE GENERALIZED TO THE UNIVERSE OF STUDY;

- REQUIRING THE USE OF A STATISTICAL DATA CLASSIFICATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY OMB;

- THAT INCLUDES A PLEDGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED IN STATUE OR REGULATION, THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY DISCLOSURE AND DATA SECURITY POLICIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLEDGE, OR WHICH UNNECESSARILY IMPEDES SHARING OF DATA WITH OTHER AGENCIES FOR COMPATIBLE CONFIDENTIAL USE; OR

- REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO SUBMIT PROPRIETARY TRADE SECRET, OR OTHER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNLESS THE AGENCY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT HAS INSTITUTED PROCEDURES TO PROTECT THE INFORMATION'S CONFIDENTIALITY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.

All the information collection requirements contained in the rule are in compliance with this section.

8. IF APPLICABLE, PROVIDE A COPY AND IDENTIFY THE DATE AND PAGE NUMBER OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER OF THE AGENCY'S NOTICE, REQUIRED BY 5 CFR 1320.8(d), SOLICITING COMMENTS ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTION PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO OMB. SUMMARIZE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THAT NOTICE AND DESCRIBE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE AGENCY IN RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS. SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON COST AND HOUR BURDEN.

DESCRIBE EFFORTS TO CONSULT WITH PERSONS OUTSIDE THE AGENCY TO OBTAIN THEIR VIEWS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF DATA, FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION, THE CLARITY OF INSTRUCTIONS AND RECORDKEEPING, DISCLOSURE, OR REPORTING FORMAT (IF ANY), AND ON THE DATA ELEMENTS TO BE RECORDED, DISCLOSED, OR REPORTED.

CONSULTATION WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THOSE FROM WHOM INFORMATION IS TO BE OBTAINED OR THOSE WHO MUST COMPILE RECORDS SHOULD OCCUR AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 3 YEARS--EVEN IF THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ACTIVITY IS THE SAME AS IN PRIOR PERIODS. THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY PRECLUDE CONSULTATION IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE EXPLAINED.

On September 2, 2009, FRA published a direct final rule in the Federal Register requiring the ten States with the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the past three years, to develop State highway-rail grade crossing action plans. See 74 FR 45336. FRA received one adverse comment regarding the direct final rule. As such, pursuant to 49 CFR 211.33(d), FRA is withdrawing the direct final rule and publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) separately on Friday November 13, 2009, in the Federal Register. See 74 58589. The NPRM solicits public comment and complies with a statutory mandate that the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) issue a rule to require the ten States with the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the past three years, to develop State highway-rail grade crossing action plans. This proposed rule is not intended for general application; instead, it only applies to the ten identified States with the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions.

FRA will respond to any comments received in the final rule and its associated information collection submission.

9. EXPLAIN ANY DECISION TO PROVIDE ANY PAYMENT OR GIFT TO RESPONDENTS, OTHER THAN ENUMERATION OF CONTRACTORS OR GRANTEES.

There are no monetary payments provided or gifts made to respondents in connection with this information collection.

10. DESCRIBE ANY ASSURANCE OF CONFIDENTIALITY PROVIDED TO RESPONDENTS AND THE BASIS FOR THE ASSURANCE IN STATUTE, REGULATION, OR AGENCY POLICY.

Information collected is not of a confidential nature, and FRA pledges no confidentiality.

11. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY QUESTIONS OF A SENSITIVE NATURE, SUCH AS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDES, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE COMMONLY CONSIDERED PRIVATE. THIS JUSTIFICATION SHOULD INCLUDE THE REASONS WHY THE AGENCY CONSIDERS THE QUESTIONS NECESSARY, THE SPECIFIC USES TO BE MADE OF THE INFORMATION, THE EXPLANATION TO BE GIVEN TO PERSONS FROM WHOM THE INFORMATION IS REQUESTED, AND ANY STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO OBTAIN THEIR CONSENT.

There are no questions or information of a sensitive nature or data that would normally be considered private contained in this information collection.

12. PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF THE HOUR BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. THE STATEMENT SHOULD:

- INDICATE THE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS, FREQUENCY OF RESPONSE, ANNUAL HOUR BURDEN, AND AN EXPLANATION OF HOW THE BURDEN WAS ESTIMATED. UNLESS DIRECTED TO DO SO, AGENCIES SHOULD NOT CONDUCT SPECIAL SURVEYS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE HOUR BURDEN ESTIMATES. CONSULTATION WITH A SAMPLE (FEWER THAN 10) OF POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS IS DESIRABLE. IF THE HOUR BURDEN ON RESPONDENTS IS EXPECTED TO VARY WIDELY BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES IN ACTIVITY, SIZE, OR COMPLEXITY, SHOW THE RANGE OF ESTIMATED HOUR BURDEN, AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE VARIANCE. GENERALLY, ESTIMATES SHOULD NOT INCLUDE BURDEN HOUR FOR CUSTOMARY AND USUAL BUSINESS PRACTICES

- IF THIS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL COVERS MORE THAN ONE FORM, PROVIDE SEPARATE HOUR BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR EACH FORM AND AGGREGATE THE HOUR BURDENS IN ITEMS 13 OF OMB FORM 83-I.

- PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF ANNUALIZED COST TO RESPONDENTS FOR THE HOUR BURDENS FOR COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION, IDENTIFYING AND USING APPROPRIATE WAGE RATE CATEGORIES. THE COST OF CONTRACTING OUT OR PAYING OUTSIDE PARTIES FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED HERE. INSTEAD, THIS COST SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ITEM 14.

Note: Respondent universe is the 10 States which were identified in the answer to question number one and which had the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, during the calendar years of 2006 through 2008.

§ 234.11 State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans

This section applies to the 10 States that have had the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, during the calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Action Plans. (1) The 10 identified States must each develop a State highway-rail grade crossing action plan and submit such a plan to FRA for review and approval not later than [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE].

(2) A State highway-rail grade crossing action plan must: (i) Identify specific solutions for improving safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations; (ii) Focus on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or are at high risk for such accidents; and (iii) Cover a five-year time period.

FRA estimates that approximately 10 application plans will be submitted under the above requirement. It is estimated that it will take, on average, approximately 600 hours to prepare and submit each state highway-rail grade crossing action plan. Total annual burden for this requirement is 6,000 hours.

Respondent Universe: 10 States

Burden time per response: 600 hours

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 10 State highway-rail grade crossing action plans

Annual Burden: 6,000 hours

Calculation: 10 grade crossing action plans x 600 hrs. = 6,000 hours

Review and Approval. (1) State highway-rail grade crossing action plans required under paragraph (c) of this section shall be submitted for FRA review and approval using at least one of the following methods: mail to the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; or e-mail to [email protected]

(2) FRA will review and approve or disapprove a State highway-rail grade crossing action plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section within 60 days of receipt.

(3) If the proposed State highway-rail grade crossing action plan is disapproved, FRA will notify the affected State as to the specific areas in which the proposed plan is deficient. A State must correct all deficiencies within 30 days following receipt of written notice from FRA.

(4) FRA may condition the awarding of any grants under 49 U.S.C. 20158, 20167, or 22501 to an identified State on the development of such State’s highway-rail grade crossing action plan.

FRA estimates that approximately five (5) grade crossing action plans will be revised under the above requirement. It is estimated that it will take approximately 80 hours to revise each plan and resubmit it to FRA. Total annual burden for this requirement is 400 hours.

Respondent Universe: 10 States

Burden time per response: 80 hours

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Annual number of Responses: 5 revised grade crossing revised action plans

Annual Burden: 400 hours

Calculation: 5 revised grade crossing action plans x 80 hrs. = 400 hours

Total annual burden for this entire information collection is 6,400 hours (6,000 + 400).

13. PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL COST BURDEN TO RESPONDENTS OR RECORDKEEPERS RESULTING FROM THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. (DO NOT INCLUDE THE COSTS OF ANY HOUR BURDEN SHOWN IN ITEMS 12 AND 14).

- THE COST ESTIMATES SHOULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO COMPONENTS: (A) A TOTAL CAPITAL AND START-UP COST COMPONENT (ANNUALIZED OVER IT EXPECTED USEFUL LIFE); AND (B) A TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND PURCHASE OF SERVICES COMPONENT. THE ESTIMATES SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH GENERATING, MAINTAINING, AND DISCLOSING OR PROVIDING THE INFORMATION. INCLUDE DESCRIPTIONS OF METHODS USED TO ESTIMATE MAJOR COSTS FACTORS INCLUDING SYSTEM AND TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION, EXPECTED USEFUL LIFE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, THE DISCOUNT RATE(S), AND THE TIME PERIOD OVER WHICH COSTS WILL BE INCURRED. CAPITAL AND START-UP COSTS INCLUDE, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, PREPARATIONS FOR COLLECTING INFORMATION SUCH AS PURCHASING COMPUTERS AND SOFTWARE; MONITORING, SAMPLING, DRILLING AND TESTING EQUIPMENT; AND RECORD STORAGE FACILITIES.

- IF COST ESTIMATES ARE EXPECTED TO VARY WIDELY, AGENCIES SHOULD PRESENT RANGES OF COST BURDENS AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE VARIANCE. THE COST OF PURCHASING OR CONTRACTING OUT INFORMATION COLLECTION SERVICES SHOULD BE A PART OF THIS COST BURDEN ESTIMATE. IN DEVELOPING COST BURDEN ESTIMATES, AGENCIES MAY CONSULT WITH A SAMPLE OF RESPONDENTS (FEWER THAN 10), UTILIZE THE 60-DAY PRE-OMB SUBMISSION PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS AND USE EXISTING ECONOMIC OR REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RULEMAKING CONTAINING THE INFORMATION COLLECTION, AS APPROPRIATE.

- GENERALLY, ESTIMATES SHOULD NOT INCLUDE PURCHASES OF EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES, OR PORTIONS THEREOF, MADE (1) PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1995, (2) TO ACHIEVE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE INFORMATION COLLECTION, (3) FOR REASONS OTHER THAN TO PROVIDE INFORMATION OR KEEP RECORDS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, OR (4) AS PART OF CUSTOMARY AND USUAL BUSINESS OR PRIVATE PRACTICES.

There are no additional costs to respondents other than those noted above in the answer question number 12 and the costs included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

14. PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF ANNUALIZED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ALSO, PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD USED TO ESTIMATE COSTS, WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE QUANTIFICATION OF HOURS, OPERATIONAL EXPENSES SUCH AS EQUIPMENT, OVERHEAD, PRINTING, AND SUPPORT STAFF, AND ANY OTHER EXPENSE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED WITHOUT THIS COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. AGENCIES ALSO MAY AGGREGATE COST ESTIMATES FROM ITEMS 12, 13, AND 14 IN A SINGLE TABLE.

There are no additional costs to the Federal Government, since the FRA Rail Grade Crossing Manager will review State grade crossing action plans as part of his routine agency duties.

15. EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR ANY PROGRAM CHANGES OR ADJUSTMENTS REPORTED IN ITEMS 13 OR 14 OF THE OMB FORM 83-I.

This is a new collection of information required by Section 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 2008. The proposed rule and its associated information collection seek to carry out the Congressional mandate, and will incur an estimated burden increase of 6,400 hours as a result. By definition, this new collection of information is a program change.

There are no other or additional costs to respondents besides those estimated in the answer to question number 12 of this document.

16. FOR COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION WHOSE RESULTS WILL BE PUBLISHED, OUTLINE PLANS FOR TABULATION, AND PUBLICATION. ADDRESS ANY COMPLEX ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES THAT WILL BE USED. PROVIDE THE TIME SCHEDULE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, INCLUDING BEGINNING AND ENDING DATES OF THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION, COMPLETION OF REPORT, PUBLICATION DATES, AND OTHER ACTIONS.

There are no plans for publication of this submission. The information will be used exclusively for purposes of determining compliance with U.S. laws and FRA safety regulations.

17. IF SEEKING APPROVAL TO NOT DISPLAY THE EXPIRATION DATE FOR OMB APPROVAL OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION, EXPLAIN THE REASONS THAT DISPLAY WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE.

Once OMB approval is received, FRA will publish the approval number for these information collection requirements in the Federal Register.

18. EXPLAIN EACH EXCEPTION TO THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT IDENTIFIED IN ITEM 19, "CERTIFICATION FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSIONS," OF OMB FORM 83-I.

No exceptions are taken at this time.

Meeting Department of Transportation (DOT) Strategic Goals

This information collection supports DOT’s top strategic goal, namely transportation safety. Without this collection of information, FRA would be unable to carry out a Congressional mandate and FRA’s goal of enhancing national rail safety would be significantly impeded. Specifically, if FRA were unable to collect the proposed information, FRA would have no way to know whether the ten States with the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, over the last three years have devised and implemented plans to reduce the excessively high numbers of accidents and corresponding injuries, fatalities, and property damage that they experienced in the recent past.

Without the information collected, FRA could not be assured that each of the ten named States have actually identified specific solutions for improving safety at crossings, including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations; could not be assured that they are focusing on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or are at high risk for such accidents; and could not be assured that their plans actually cover the required five year time period.

Without this collection of information, a new and important means of enhancing highway-rail grade safety throughout the nation and saving lives would be unavailable to FRA and its Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Division.

In sum, the collection of information helps FRA to promote and enhance safe rail transportation throughout the United States. In this, it furthers both DOT’s and the FRA’s missions.

In this information collection, as in all its information collection activities, FRA seeks to do its utmost to fulfill DOT Strategic Goals and to be an integral part of One DOT.

15