Certification of Glazing Materials

ICR 201602-2130-003

OMB: 2130-0525

Federal Form Document

Forms and Documents
Document
Name
Status
Supporting Statement A
2016-02-09
Supplementary Document
2016-02-09
Supplementary Document
2016-02-09
Supplementary Document
2016-02-09
Supplementary Document
2007-01-04
Supplementary Document
2007-01-04
IC Document Collections
IC ID
Document
Title
Status
26433
Modified
ICR Details
2130-0525 201602-2130-003
Historical Active 201302-2130-001
DOT/FRA
Certification of Glazing Materials
Revision of a currently approved collection   No
Regular
Approved without change 04/26/2016
Retrieve Notice of Action (NOA) 02/25/2016
  Inventory as of this Action Requested Previously Approved
04/30/2019 36 Months From Approved 04/30/2016
25,426 0 25,211
269 0 119
11,150 0 7,000

FRA uses this information to assure that window glazing materials have been fully tested and are in compliance with Federal Railroad Safety Standards. In this final rule, FRA is revising and clarifying existing regulations related to the use of glazing materials in the windows of locomotives, passenger cars, and cabooses. This final rule reduces paperwork and other economic burdens on the rail industry by removing a stenciling requirement for locomotives, passenger cars, and cabooses that are required to be equipped with glazing. This final rule also clarifies the application of the regulations to older equipment and to the end locations of all equipment to provide more certainty to the rail industry and more narrowly address FRA’s safety concerns. In addition, this final rule clarifies the definition of passenger car, updates the rule by removing certain compliance dates that are no longer necessary, and, in response to comments on the proposed rule, modifies the application of the regulations to passenger cars and cabooses in a railroad’s fleet that are used only for private transportation purposes and to older locomotives used in incidental freight service.

US Code: 49 USC 20103 Name of Law: Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970
  
None

2130-AC43 Final or interim final rulemaking 81 FR 6775 02/09/2016

No

1
IC Title Form No. Form Name
Certification of Glazing Materials

  Total Approved Previously Approved Change Due to New Statute Change Due to Agency Discretion Change Due to Adjustment in Estimate Change Due to Potential Violation of the PRA
Annual Number of Responses 25,426 25,211 0 215 0 0
Annual Time Burden (Hours) 269 119 0 150 0 0
Annual Cost Burden (Dollars) 11,150 7,000 0 4,150 0 0
Yes
Changing Regulations
No
Total burden for this information collection submission has increased by 150 hours from the last approved submission. The change in burden hours and responses is due solely to three (3) program changes, detailed in the table provided for the answer to question number 15 of the attached Supporting Justification. The program changes shown in the provided table increased the burden by 150 hours and increased the number of responses by 215. The correct current inventory exhibits a burden total of 119 hours, while the present submission reflects a burden total of 269 hours. Hence, there is a total burden increase of 150 hours. The cost to respondents has increased by $4,600 from the last approved submission (from a total cost of $6,550 to $11,150). This change in cost is due to two program changes. First, FRA removed the glazing requirement under § 223.17 for stenciling the interior walls of locomotives, passenger cars, and cabooses deeming this requirement no longer necessary. This decreased the cost by $1,400 (for purchasing 200 preprinted metal plates). Second, under the final rule, FRA added a new requirement under § 223.23(c) regarding the provision of marked tools (usually small hammers with instructions) near each emergency window in locomotives, passenger cars, and cabooses. This requirement increased the cost by $6,000. Hence, there is a net increase in cost of $4,600 to respondents. (Note: In the OMB inventory, the cost to respondents for the previous submission was rounded off to $7,000 although the actual cost to respondents was $6,550. So, ROCIS will show a cost difference of $4,150 when the actual cost difference is $4,600. This discrepancy of $450 then is nothing more than a rounding difference or error.)

$0
No
No
No
No
No
Uncollected
Steve Zuiderveen 2024936337 [email protected]

  No

On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    (i) Why the information is being collected;
    (ii) Use of information;
    (iii) Burden estimate;
    (iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);
    (v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
    (vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;
 
 
 
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.
02/25/2016


© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy