Crossing Inventory within three months of the installation or removal
of a yield or stop sign because the State or local entity installed or
removed the sign without notifying the primary operating railroad.
However, the primary operating railroad must submit up-to-date and
accurate crossing data to the Crossing Inventory for each data field
Appendix B to the Inventory Guide assigns to railroads for updating
within three months of the date on which the primary operating railroad
becomes aware that the State or local government has installed (or
removed) a yield or stop sign at the crossing.
Section 234.413 Recordkeeping
    Denver RTD submitted comments on the provisions contained within
this section in the proposed rule recommending that FRA defer to State
laws governing the public's right of inspection of public records, with
respect to the accessibility, format, and timeframes for retaining
railroad records of compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
However, the recordkeeping requirements contained in this section
reflect the exercise of FRA's longstanding statutory authority to
require railroads to produce, and make available for FRA inspection,
relevant records of compliance with Federal safety regulations.
Therefore, because we intend this section to require operating
railroads to make their records of compliance reasonably available to
FRA inspectors for inspection and enforcement purposes, we did not
revise this section in the final rule.
Section 234.415 Electronic Recordkeeping
    We did not revise this section in the final rule. FRA received
comments on the electronic recordkeeping provision in the proposed rule
from Denver RTD recommending that electronic records be retained solely
in non-native format so crossing data submitted to FRA cannot be
changed. FRA agrees that electronic records of crossing data submitted
to the Crossing Inventory must be retained in a manner that will not
allow subsequent changes to be made to the original electronic record.
However, FRA believes that paragraph (a) of this section, requiring the
railroad to adequately limit and control accessibility to electronic
records of crossing data they have submitted to the Crossing Inventory
adequately addresses

this concern. In addition, FRA notes that the GCIS system will maintain
independent records of crossing data that was submitted electronically
to the Crossing Inventory, which FRA can use for verification purposes
if necessary.
    Denver RTD also submitted comments asserting that the requirements
contained in paragraph (a) of this section may discourage electronic
recordkeeping by requiring access, safety, and other control provisions
that are not required for paper recordkeeping and do not appear to be
consistent with current technology. For example, Denver RTD stated it
did not understand the purpose of the dedicated terminal paragraph
(a)(2) of this section requires. In addition, Denver RTD suggested that
FRA consider email capability as relevant as fax and printer
connections for purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section. FRA
acknowledges that the electronic recordkeeping requirements in this
section are not identical to the recordkeeping requirements in Sec.
234.413, which generally apply to the retention of hard-copy records.
However, the electronic recordkeeping requirements in this section are
consistent with requirements in other FRA regulations that also permit
electronic recordkeeping, such as Sec.  234.315 of this part.
    With respect to Denver RTD's specific comment asking about the
purpose of the dedicated terminal required by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, we retained the requirement in the proposed rule that requires
railroads to make a computer available at the office where the railroad
reporting officer conducts his/her official business and at each
location the railroad designates as having a copy of any required
crossing records to ensure FRA inspectors are granted access the
electronic records stored at these locations. FRA agrees that it would
be helpful if the computer made available to FRA inspectors also has
email capability so the operating railroad could also email any
requested documents to FRA inspectors upon request. However, to reduce
the burden on operating railroads that may wish to retain electronic
records under this section, we did not revise the final rule to include
an additional regulatory provision requiring an operating railroad to
provide a computer with email capability. The operating railroad can
provide its electronic records to FRA inspectors by email without the
need for an additional regulatory provision/requirement.

Appendix A to Part 234--Schedule of Civil Penalties

    FRA revised this appendix by adding recommended civil penalties for
specific violations of the reporting and updating requirements
contained in subpart F of this part. For example, we added recommended
civil penalties for failure of a Class I railroad to submit crossing
data to the Crossing Inventory electronically, as well as failure by
the primary operating railroad to timely submit accurate and complete
Inventory Forms (or their electronic equivalent) to the Crossing
Inventory for new and previously unreported crossings.
    Denver RTD responded to FRA's invitation to submit recommendations
on appropriate civil penalty amounts it should issue for non-compliance
with the requirements of this subpart. In its comments, Denver RTD
stated the civil penalties established for non-compliance with the
reporting and updating requirements contained in this subpart should
not be excessive since they will be applied equally to Class I
railroads and publicly operated transit agencies. Thus, Denver RTD
recommended that failure to timely submit Inventory Forms (or their
electronic equivalent) to the Crossing Inventory be treated as
recordkeeping violations with associated civil penalties in the range
of $1,000-$2,000.
    While FRA agrees that we should not establish excessive civil
penalty amounts for violations of the reporting and updating
requirements in this subpart, we believe it is reasonable to establish
standard civil penalties for violations of this subpart which are
consistent with civil penalties FRA established for failure to comply
with the reporting requirements in 49 CFR parts 225 and 234. Therefore,
primary operating railroads and other operating railroads that fail to
timely submit Inventory Forms (or their electronic equivalent) to the
Crossing Inventory may be subject to a $2,500 standard civil penalty
per crossing per day. However, after FRA issues a civil penalty, FRA
may adjust or compromise the initial penalty claim(s) based on a wide
variety of mitigating factors, which include the severity of the safety
or health risk presented, the entity's compliance history, the entity's
ability to pay the assessed civil penalty, and evidence that the entity
acted in good faith.

FRA Guide for Preparing U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Forms

    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Form
should be submitted to an independent third party that specializes in
data and asset management inventory systems so that current best
practices may be incorporated. Then, once the desired data elements
have been identified, defined, and responsibility assigned, several
alternative versions of a new and improved inventory form which is
consistent with modern asset management information systems could be
created for approval. In the alternative, the ICC recommended that FRA
delete all data fields on the Inventory Form it proposed as
``optional,'' unless it can make a business case justifying the time
and expense to retain the data field.
    FRA appreciates the recommendation to recreate the Inventory Form
by evaluating each proposed data field for its continued usefulness and
incorporating current best practices. However, FRA has decided to
instead make revisions to the Inventory Form consistent with other
comments the general public and all affected parties who have reviewed
and evaluated it submitted. FRA notes that the Inventory Form was
extensively vetted with State agencies and railroads prior to the
issuance of the NPRM in this rulemaking.
    We retained most of the optional data fields on the Inventory Form.
Railroads and States are not required to submit data for these data
fields. Therefore, railroads and States are free to determine whether
the safety benefits associated with the collection and evaluation of
additional crossing information railroads and States voluntarily
provide is justified by the time and expense associated with the
collection and retention of this data.
Instructions for Completing the U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form
    In the proposed rule, FRA requested comments on whether we should
retain the proposed Instructions in the Header of the Inventory Form.
While the majority of commenters generally supported retaining
Instructions in the Header of the Inventory Form, several commenters
stated the proposed Instructions in the Header of the Inventory Form
conflicted with the instructions in the Inventory Guide for submission
of the Inventory Form.
    FRA agrees the proposed Instructions at the top of the Inventory
Form were inconsistent with the guidance the Inventory Guide provided
on the submission of Crossing Inventory Forms. Therefore, we revised
the Instructions at the top of the Inventory Form to be consistent with
the guidance in the Inventory Guide.
    The CPUC submitted comments recommending that FRA also revise the

Instructions at the top of the Inventory Form to direct Crossing
Inventory users to complete the Submission Information section at the
end of the form. However, NCDOT recommended that FRA remove the
Submission Information section from the Inventory Form and require
Crossing Inventory users to submit hard-copy Inventory Forms with a
cover letter that provides the identity and contact information for the
Crossing Inventory user.
    While FRA agrees that revising the Instructions at the top of the
Inventory Form would be beneficial, we decline to require Crossing
Inventory users to submit cover letters with their hard-copy Inventory
Forms in this final rule. We believe it is more burdensome to require
Crossing Inventory users to prepare and submit a cover letter than to
require Crossing Inventory users to complete four data fields at the
bottom of the hard-copy Inventory Form. Therefore, we revised the
Instructions to direct Crossing Inventory users to complete the
Submission Information section at the end of the Inventory Form when
submitting crossing data by hard copy. However, Crossing Inventory
users will not be required to complete the Submission Information
section when they submit crossing data electronically to the Crossing
Inventory. The GCIS system has been designed to retain a record of the
identity of the Crossing Inventory user, along with the date on which
data is electronically submitted to the Crossing Inventory.
    AAR also submitted comments recommending that FRA explain which
data fields on the Inventory Form railroads must complete and which
data fields State agencies must complete. In response to this
recommendation, the Introduction to the Inventory Guide explains which
Parts of the Inventory Form need to be completed for the initial
reporting of crossing data for new and previously unreported highway-
rail and pathway crossings. Appendix B to the Inventory Guide also
contains a Responsibility Table which shows the data fields that
primary operating railroads must update, as well as the data fields
that State agencies are assigned for voluntary updating in the Crossing
Inventory.
Header Information
Revision Date
    We retained the Revision Date data field (Item A in the Header of
the Inventory Form) as proposed. Since the date the Inventory Form is
submitted to the Crossing Inventory will often differ from the date
changes took effect at the crossing, NCDOT and the ICC submitted
comments recommending that we revise the Revision Date data field to
show the date the changes in the Inventory Form took effect. However,
the Revision Date data field is intended to show the date the Crossing
Inventory was updated to reflect changes at the crossing. By requesting
that reporting entities provide the date on which the Crossing
Inventory Form was mailed or electronically submitted, the Crossing
Inventory should contain a reasonably accurate record of the dates on
which the Crossing Inventory was updated. This will assist operating
railroads in determining when future periodic updates will become due.
    NCDOT also recommended that the Crossing Inventory should reflect
separate submission dates for crossing data railroads supply and
crossing data State agencies supply. As explained above, we designed
the GCIS system to record the date crossing updates are electronically
submitted to the Crossing Inventory, as well as the identity of the
reporting entity who submitted the update. With respect to hard copy
submissions, the Crossing Inventory will reflect the date contained
provided in the Revision Date data field for each update.
Reporting Agency
    FRA retained the Reporting Agency data field (Item B in the Header
of the Inventory Form) as proposed.
    The CPUC submitted comments recommending that we eliminate the
``Other'' box from the ``Reporting Agency'' data field on the Inventory
Form. Instead of allowing local agencies to submit crossing data
directly to FRA, the CPUC stated that the local agency should be
instructed to provide updated crossing data to the State agency and/or
the railroad for submission to the DOT Crossing Inventory.
    FRA regulations in 49 CFR part 222 (49 CFR 222.49(a)), allow local
governments that meet the definition of a ``public authority'' to file
Inventory Forms with FRA if the State agency and railroad fail to
timely do so. Therefore, we retained the ``Other'' box in the Reporting
Agency data field to reflect FRA entry of updated crossing data for
quiet zone-related purposes. The ``Other'' box is only intended for FRA
use. Accordingly, to avoid improper use of the ``Other'' box, the GCIS
system will not permit non-FRA users to check the ``Other'' box when
submitting crossing data electronically.
    The CPUC expressed strong support for retaining the ``Transit'' box
in the ``Reporting Agency'' data field due to the large number of
crossings in California that also have urban rapid transit tracks and/
or urban rapid transit operations through the same crossing. However,
the CPUC and Denver RTD encouraged FRA to include a discussion in the
Inventory Guide on whether (and how) transit agencies are required to
submit data for crossings subject to urban rail transit operations.
NCDOT also requested clarification on the application of the proposed
crossing reporting requirements to transit agencies.
    We retained the ``Transit'' box in the ``Reporting Agency'' data
field. However, we added a discussion in the Inventory Guide on urban
rapid transit operators who are subject to the reporting and updating
requirements in the Crossing Inventory final rule. (The Section-by-
Section Analysis of the definition of ``operating railroad'' in Sec.
234.401 also contains a detailed discussion on the application of the
reporting and updating requirements of this subpart to urban rapid
transit operators.) Urban rapid transit operators who submit crossing
data to the Crossing Inventory (whether voluntarily or otherwise)
should therefore check the ``Transit'' box in the ``Reporting Agency''
data field.
Reason for Update
    In the proposed rule, FRA requested comments on whether the rule
should give railroads and States the option to select more than one
reason for submitting data to the Crossing Inventory. FRA received
comments from four State transportation agencies and the AAR expressing
support for allowing railroads and States to select more than one
reason for submitting crossing data to the DOT Crossing Inventory. The
AAR reasoned that allowing States and railroads to select more than one
reason for submitting crossing data to the DOT Crossing Inventory would
allow them to capture more than one change in a single submittal.
    However, FRA also received comments from the ICC and FDOT
recommending that FRA limit railroad and State users to selection of
one reason for update. After considering the comments submitted, FRA
decided to continue to require railroad and State users to select only
one reason for update per submission. This will ensure historical
records in the Crossing Inventory continue to reflect the primary
reason for each data submission.
    FRA also received comments from LaDOTD and Tavla Solutions
recommending that the Inventory Guide should indicate which entities
have authority to submit the various types of

updates in the ``Reason for Update'' data field. In response to this
recommendation, we revised the Inventory Guide to state that only
operating railroads should check the ``New Crossing'', ``No Train
Traffic'', ``Re-Open'', and ``Change in Primary Operating RR'' boxes.
However, all reporting entities may check the ``Change in Data'',
``Date Change Only'', ``Closed'', and ``Admin. Correction'' boxes.
    New Crossing: The CPUC submitted comments recommending that the
Inventory Guide description of the ``New Crossing'' box in the ``Reason
for Update'' data field reference ``open'' crossings as opposed to
``active'' crossings. The CPUC noted that the term ``active crossing''
is often used to refer to crossings equipped with automatic warning
devices such as flashing light signals and gates. Thus, use of this
term could limit the intended scope of the ``New Crossing'' box in the
``Reason for Update'' data field. FRA agrees and adopted this
recommendation.
    Closed: LaDOTD and Tavla Solutions submitted comments stating that
the removal of track, or otherwise disconnecting crossings from the
main line, should cause all crossings on that segment of rail line to
be classified as closed crossings. NCDOT submitted comments stating
removal of the crossing surface or other situations that make it
impossible to use the crossing (such as fencing) should qualify as
closing the crossing. For purposes of the ``Reason for Update'' data
field, the ``Closed Crossing'' box should be checked when the railroad
tracks have been physically removed or each pathway or roadway approach
to the crossing have been physically removed. However, the ``Closed
Crossing'' box only should be checked in situations involving the
permanent closure of a highway-rail or pathway crossing. The use of
fencing to deter or otherwise prevent access to the crossing does not
constitute closure of a crossing for purposes of the Crossing
Inventory.
    No Train Traffic: The CPUC submitted comments recommending that the
``Abandoned'' box be eliminated from the ``Reason for Update'' data
field. In support of this recommendation, the CPUC stated that
abandonment of the segment of track on which a crossing is located
under the authority of the Surface Transportation Board, merely means
the railroad is no longer required to provide railroad service on that
track segment. It does not necessarily indicate that the crossing is no
longer used or maintained.
    However, FRA also received comments in support of retaining the
``Abandoned'' box in the ``Reason for Update'' data field. NCDOT
submitted comments recommending that the ``Abandoned'' box be retained
to capture data on highway-rail and pathway crossings that are located
on abandoned track yet are still used by hi-rail and other authorized
vehicles that access the railroad right-of-way.
    FRA also received comments recommending that the ``Out-of-Service/
Inactive'' box be removed from the ``Reason for Update'' data field.
The AAR stated that FRA should remove the ``Out-of-Service/Inactive''
box because there are no fixed definitions of ``out-of-service'' or
``inactive.'' The CPUC stated that the data collected would be unlikely
to accurately reflect the physical or operational status of the
crossing since rail lines are often placed back into service with
little or no notification to authorities.
    After considering the comments received, we removed the Abandoned
and Out-of-Service/Inactive boxes from the ``Reason for Update'' data
field on the final Inventory Form. However, FRA intends to continue to
collect data regarding the operational status of crossings, as it may
be useful to filter out crossings that are not subject to train traffic
when conducting statistical analyses. Therefore, we added a new box
titled, ``No Train Traffic'' to the ``Reason for Update'' data field on
the Inventory Form to continue FRA's efforts to identify crossings that
no longer have train traffic.
    We strongly encourage railroads to update the Crossing Inventory to
reflect changes to ``No Train Traffic'' status as soon as possible.
However, it is important to note the ``No Train Traffic'' box/category
is separate and distinct from the ``Closed'' box/category. The
``Closed'' box/category applies to crossings where the roadway
approaches or railroad tracks have been physically removed, leaving
behind no intersection of railroad tracks with either a pathway or
roadway. Also, as discussed in more detail in the Section-by-Section
Analysis of Sec.  234.411(b), the primary operating railroad must
report the closure of a highway-rail or pathway crossing to the
Crossing Inventory within three months.
    Re-Open: The ICC submitted comments recommending that the ``Re-
Open'' box be removed from the ``Reason for Update'' data field because
the re-opening of crossings can be reported by checking the ``Change in
Data'' box. However, FRA has decided to retain the ``Re-Open'' box in
the ``Reason for Update'' data field to continue FRA's efforts to
capture accurate data on the status of formerly closed crossings or
crossings that are placed back into active service.
    The ICC also recommended that the final rule only allow State
agencies to submit updates to the Crossing Inventory that reflect the
re-opening of a formerly closed public crossing or a public crossing
that was previously not subject to train traffic. However, as the
Inventory Guide states, the primary operating railroad is responsible
for providing updates to the Crossing Inventory showing the re-opening
of a highway-rail or pathway crossing and that railroad should have
ready access to up-to-date train traffic data for the crossing. While
the primary operating railroad must report this change in operating
status in the periodic update Sec.  234.409(a) requires, we also
strongly encourage the primary operating railroad to update the
Crossing Inventory as soon as possible after a highway-rail or pathway
crossing is placed back in service.
    Date Change Only: While expressing concern that FRA should consider
renaming the ``Date Change Only'' box in the ``Reason for Update'' data
field, LaDOTD and Tavla Solutions stated the Inventory Guide fails to
provide sufficient guidance for when this box should be checked. While
we retained the title of this box as proposed, we changed the Inventory
Guide to state the ``Date Change Only'' box should be checked to
indicate the crossing data has not changed since the last update to the
Crossing Inventory.
    Change in Primary Operating RR: The CPUC submitted comments
recommending that the ``Operating RR Transfer'' box in the ``Reason for
Update'' data field be removed because the new primary operating
railroad can check the ``Change in Data'' box and provide updated
information. While we removed the ``Operating RR Transfer'' box from
the Inventory Form in the final rule, we added a new box titled,
``Change in Primary Operating RR''. We added the ``Change in Primary
Operating RR'' box to the Inventory Form to facilitate official
notification of a change in primary operating railroad status that may
result from the sale of a highway-rail or pathway crossing. The
``Change in Primary Operating RR'' box should also be checked as part
of the periodic updating process, if there has been a change in the
primary operating railroad since the last railroad submission to the
Crossing Inventory.
    Admin. Correction: FRA has decided to retain the ``Admin.
Correction'' box in the ``Reason for Update'' data field despite
comments from the ICC and

CPUC recommending that the ``Admin. Correction'' box either be
eliminated or combined with the ``Change in Data'' box. The ``Admin.
Correction'' and ``Change in Data'' boxes have separate and distinct
purposes. The ``Admin. Correction'' box should be checked when a
railroad or State user intends to correct crossing data that was
previously submitted in error. However, a railroad or State user should
check the ``Change in Data'' box when it intends to submit crossing
data associated with an actual change in crossing characteristics that
is not reflected by any other box in the ``Reason for Update'' data
field.
    LaDOTD and Tavla Solutions also submitted comments recommending
that FRA allow railroads to check the ``Admin Correction'' box when
reporting previously unreported crossings. However, previously
unreported crossings are ``new'' to the Crossing Inventory. Therefore,
the ``New Crossing'' box must be checked when reporting previously
unreported crossings to the Crossing Inventory.
    Quiet Zone Update: The ICC submitted comments recommending that the
``Quiet Zone Update'' box be removed from the ``Reason for Update''
data field because the ``Change in Data'' box could be checked when
submitting quiet zone updates. However, FRA retained the ``Quiet Zone
Update'' box to reflect FRA entry of Crossing Inventory data that has
been submitted for quiet zone-related purposes. The ``Quiet Zone
Update'' box is only intended for FRA use. Accordingly, the GCIS system
will not allow users to check the ``Quiet Zone Update'' box when
crossing data is submitted or updated electronically.
Part I, Location and Classification Information
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the maximum character
limits reflected in various boxes on the Inventory Form be increased.
In response to these comments, FRA designed the GCIS database to
contain generally accepted database standards for maximum character
limitations. In addition, we revised the Inventory Form by removing
most of the maximum character limits that were specified for individual
data fields.
City/Municipality
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
advise Crossing Inventory users that they should provide the name of
the city or municipality that is located closest to the crossing on the
railroad line segment in the ``City/Municipality'' data field for
crossings that are not located within a city or municipality. We agree
and have revised the Inventory Guide to instruct Crossing Inventory
users to enter the name of the city or municipality along the rail line
that is closest to the crossing if the crossing is not located within
the boundaries of a city or municipality.
Street/Road Name & Block Number
    A private citizen submitted comments recommending that Crossing
Inventory users be allowed to provide a specific address for the
``Street/Road Name & Block Number'' data field, especially for private
crossings, as opposed to a block number. The commenter stated that
because first responders are generally dispatched to an address, the
private citizen believes retention of specific addresses in the
Crossing Inventory could improve response time to problems at grade
crossing locations until dispatchers have access to the latitude and
longitude coordinates that will be submitted in the next required
periodic update. While we designed the GCIS system designed to accept a
specific street address in this data field, we did not revise the
Inventory Guide to advise Crossing Inventory users to provide a
specific street address in this data field because highway-rail and
pathway crossings do not have specific street addresses.
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Street/Road Name
data field be revised to include a subfield for the street name alias,
such as the common name used locally or the name used by 911 system
operators. Although we did not adopt this recommendation, State
agencies may use the State Use data fields to record street name
aliases associated with individual highway-rail crossings.
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that the Block Number
subfield in the Street/Road Name data field be classified as optional.
We agree and revised the Inventory Form based on this recommendation.
Highway Type & No.
    NCDOT and the CPUC submitted comments recommending that FRA revise
the Inventory Guide to include a reference to highways and roadways
that are classified as ``SR'' in the list of highway types. FRA agrees
that this revision would be beneficial and revised the Inventory Guide
accordingly. In addition, since States generally determine highway type
by using established criteria, we revised the Inventory Guide
discussion of this data field to defer to methods States use to
designate highway type.
Do other railroads operate a separate track at crossing?
    The CPUC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
address submission of crossing data by operating railroads other than
the primary operating railroad. Therefore, we have revised the final
rule to specifically address this issue. Unless the ``Yes'' box has
been checked in the ``Do Other Railroads Operate a Separate Track at
Crossing'' data field, the primary operating railroad is the only
operating railroad that is required to submit initial and updated
crossing data for highway-rail and pathway crossings to the Crossing
Inventory.
    If the ``Yes'' box is checked in the ``Do Other Railroads Operate a
Separate Track at Crossing'' data field and the primary operating
railroad has submitted one or more railroad codes to identify the
operating railroads that operate over separate tracks at the crossing,
each operating railroad that operates through the highway-rail or
pathway crossing must submit certain crossing data directly to the
Crossing Inventory and then submit updates to that data every three
years. (However, the primary operating railroad is still required to
submit an accurate and complete Inventory Form, or its electronic
equivalent, to the Crossing Inventory for the crossing, which includes
train count and train speed data that is specifically related to the
primary operating railroad's train operations.) Please refer to the
Inventory Guide for an explanation of the individual data fields that
each operating railroad must complete.
RR Milepost
    The CPUC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
advise Crossing Inventory users to measure the milepost location from
the center of the highway-rail crossing. We did not adopt this
recommendation. As long as the operating railroad adopts a consistent
method for designating milepost locations, the milepost location the
operating railroad submits should be sufficient.
    The CPUC also recommended that FRA eliminate the ``prefix'' and
``suffix'' data subfields because this information appears to be
intended for railroad use. In the alternative, the CPUC recommended
that the ``prefix'' and ``suffix'' data subfields be put in a separate
data field and not combined with milepost information. We decline to
adopt this recommendation and retained the RR Milepost data field as

proposed. The prefix or suffix an operating railroad uses is relevant
and useful information that can be used to distinguish between milepost
locations on different territories or lines.
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Form
only capture milepost data to the hundredths of a mile, as opposed to
the thousandths of a mile on the Inventory Form. Although we retained
the RR Milepost data field as proposed, we modified the Inventory Guide
to state that milepost data provided to the hundredths of a mile will
be accepted.
Line Segment
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Line Segment data
field be a required data field rather than an optional data field. In
addition, the ICC recommended that FRA add a Line Segment data field
for State use. Although we retained the Line Segment data field as an
optional data field, we revised the Inventory Guide to advise railroads
to provide line segment information, if applicable. Railroads and
States are also encouraged to use the Railroad Use and State Use data
fields on the Inventory Form to record additional line segment data for
individual highway-rail and pathway crossings.
Crossing Type
    In the proposed rule, FRA requested comments on the proposed
revision to the Inventory Form that would remove pedestrian crossings
from the list of crossing types, yet allow railroads to select
``Pathway, Ped.'' or ``Station, Ped.'' as the crossing purpose. FRA
received comments in support of these revisions from a number of State
agencies, such as the CPUC, the Delaware Department of Transportation
(DelDOT), and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). However,
FRA also received comments from Denver RTD and the AAR expressing
concern that the Inventory Guide failed to provide sufficient guidance
on the appropriate classification of crossings previously classified as
pedestrian crossings.
    In its comments, the AAR stated the Inventory Guide fails to
explain how crossings currently designated as ``pedestrian'' should be
classified, for purposes of determining crossing type. Denver RTD
requested guidance on whether FRA intended to collect data on the
public/private status of pathway crossings. In response to these
comments, we revised the Inventory Guide to provide definitions of
public and private pathway crossings and public pedestrian station
crossings to provide assistance to railroads and State agencies on the
proper classification of crossings that were formerly classified as
``pedestrian crossings'' for the Crossing Inventory.
    FRA also received comments on the appropriate entity (State agency
or railroad) it should hold responsible for submitting updates to the
``Crossing Type'' data field. LaDOTD recommended that FRA hold State
agencies responsible for submitting crossing data for this data field
because railroads are unable to determine crossing type for crossings
are located on the State/county/municipal system. Similarly, the AAR
submitted comments recommending that State agencies have the exclusive
authority to determine whether a highway-rail or pathway crossing
should be classified as a public or private crossing. However, the ICC
submitted comments recommending that State agencies have exclusive
responsibility for submitting crossing type and crossing purpose
updates for public crossings and the primary operating railroad have
the exclusive responsibility to submit crossing type updates for
private crossings.
    As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, FRA will defer to
the determination of the relevant State agency for the public/private
classification of highway-rail (and pathway) crossings. Accordingly, we
are asking State agencies to submit voluntary updates to the Crossing
Type data field in Part I of the Inventory Form, as stated in Appendix
B to the Inventory Guide. In addition, as the Inventory Guide states,
when Crossing Type is changed from Private to Public for a highway-rail
grade crossing, we are asking the State agency to complete the
remainder of the Inventory Form (or its electronic equivalent) for the
affected crossing. The remainder of the Inventory Form reflects State-
maintained public crossing information, including highway or pathway
traffic control device data and public highway information.
Crossing Purpose
    In the proposed rule, FRA requested comments on the newly added
``Crossing Purpose'' data field on the Inventory Form, which is
intended to allow railroads and States to identify highway-rail
crossings, pedestrian crossings located within railway stations, and
other pedestrian/pathway crossings. Denver RTD submitted comments
recommending that FRA change the title of the ``Highway Vehicle'' box
in the ``Crossing Purpose'' data field to ``Highway'' since highway-
rail crossings are, by definition, subject to vehicular use. The CPUC
submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide advise
Crossing Inventory users to check the ``Highway Vehicle'' box if the
highway-rail crossing is equipped with both vehicular and pedestrian
warning devices.
    In the final rule we changed the title of the ``Highway Vehicle''
box in the ``Crossing Purpose'' data field to ``Highway'' on the
Inventory Form. In addition, we added a description of the crossings
that should be classified as having a ``Highway'' crossing purpose to
the Inventory Guide. (While crossings classified as having a
``Highway'' crossing purpose may be equipped with vehicular and
pedestrian warning devices, a crossing that is dedicated for the use of
non-vehicular traffic should not be classified as having a ``Highway''
crossing purpose).
    As for the ``Pathway, Ped., Other'' box in the ``Crossing Purpose''
data field, Denver RTD submitted comments recommending that the title
of the box be changed to ``Pathway'' since pathway crossings are, by
definition, subject to pedestrian use. Denver RTD also asserted that
use of the term ``Other'' in the title was confusing. We agree and
changed the title of the ``Pathway, Ped., Other'' box to ``Pathway,
Ped.'' on the Inventory Form to assist Crossing Inventory users seeking
guidance on the appropriate classification of crossings that were
formerly classified as pedestrian crossings and are not located within
a railway station.
    While stating there is no need to distinguish between pedestrian
crossings located within a station versus pedestrian crossings located
outside of a station, the ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA
eliminate the ``Station, Ped.'' box from the ``Crossing Purpose'' data
field. However, Denver RTD submitted comments recommending the
``station crossing'' box be retained, yet defined, so that it can be
used to collect passenger transit data. (For example, Denver RTD
requested guidance on whether FRA would classify a station crossing
that is to be utilized only by fare-paying passengers and thus not
otherwise open to or available for general public use as a private or
public crossing).
    FRA retained the ``Station, Ped.'' box on the Inventory Form to
capture crossing data related to passenger stations. However, we
revised the Inventory Guide to include a definition of the type of
pathway crossing that should be classified as ``Station, Ped.'' on the
Inventory Form. We also revised the Inventory Guide to advise Crossing
Users to classify pedestrian station

crossings as public crossings on the Crossing Type data field discussed
above.
Public Access
    NCDOT and the AAR submitted comments requesting additional guidance
on what would constitute a private crossing with public access for
purposes of the Crossing Inventory.
    NCDOT recommended that the Inventory Guide include a privately
maintained road that serves a housing development of multiple property
owners as an example of a private crossing with public access.
Otherwise, NCDOT believes there may be inconsistent classification of
these private crossings by reporting entities. FRA agrees that
additional guidance would be helpful, so we revised the definition of
public access in the Inventory Guide and added a privately-owned road
that serves a residential housing development (of at least five
dwellings) as another example of a private crossing with public access.
    The AAR stated that access for expected guests, including utilities
and public services on private property, should not constitute public
access for purposes of this data field. Instead, the AAR recommended
that ``public access'' designations be restricted to situations where
the public has an easement across a private crossing. However, the
Public Access data field is intended to capture data for private
highway-rail and pathway crossings where the railroad tracks intersect
with a private road open to public travel. If we limited the definition
of ``public access'' to situations involving public access easements,
this data field would fail to capture private crossings where the
public has a reasonable expectation of being able to travel through the
private crossing without restrictions.
    Tavla Solutions also submitted comments asserting that the
Inventory Guide has a different definition for the term ``public
access'' than the standard definition of this term used in the real
estate context. Tavla Solutions further asserted that the definition in
the Inventory Guide may differ from State law definitions of this term.
After considering these comments, FRA revised the Inventory Guide to
make the definition of ``public access'' consistent with the definition
in the Federal Highway Administration's MUTCD.
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
require completion of Parts I through V of the Inventory Form if the
``Yes'' box in the Public Access data field is checked. While we did
not adopt this recommendation in this final rule, FRA strongly
encourages railroads to voluntarily report data on train-activated
warning devices, crossing signs, and crossing surface at private
highway-rail grade crossings and pathway crossings to the Crossing
Inventory. The NTSB recently issued Safety Recommendation R-14-48 that
FRA should require equivalent levels of reporting for both public and
private highway-rail grade crossings. Therefore, FRA may issue
regulations in the future that would require railroads to provide
additional data on private highway-rail and pathway crossings to the
Crossing Inventory.
Type of Train
    The AAR recommended that urban rapid transit operations should not
be reported in the ``Type of Train'' data field because FRA's statement
of jurisdiction published at appendix A to 49 CFR part 209 excludes
rapid transit operations within an urban area that are not connected to
the general railroad system of transportation.
    However, the ``Transit'' subfield has been retained in the ``Type
of Train'' data field in Part I of the Inventory Form. As explained in
the Section-by-Section Analysis of Sec.  234.401, urban rapid transit
operators that operate one or more trains through highway-rail and
pathway crossings that are on or connected to the general railroad
system of transportation are considered to be operating railroads
subject to the reporting and updating requirements in the final rule.
Average Passenger Train Count Per Day
    The CPUC submitted comments recommending that we add an additional
line to the ``Average Passenger Train Count Per Day'' data field in
Part I of the Inventory Form to capture data on the number of daily
urban rapid transit movements through the highway-rail or pathway
crossing. The CPUC believes the number of urban rapid transit movements
should not be combined with the number of passenger/commuter rail train
movements with significantly different safety concerns.
    Even though we retained this data field as proposed, FRA agrees
that it will be useful to capture data on the number of rail transit
movements through highway-rail and pathway crossings. Therefore, as
explained in more detail in the discussion of Part II of the Inventory
Form, we revised Part II of the Inventory Form by adding a data field
dedicated to the total number of transit train movements per day.
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we change the title of
the ``Average Passenger Train Count Per Day'' data field to ``Average
Passenger Train Count Per Weekday'' and instruct the primary operating
railroad to submit data on the total number of trains operated Monday
through Friday, divided by five. We decided to retain the title of this
data field as proposed in the Inventory Form. While many commuter
railroads operate a higher number of trains during the workweek as
compared to week-end operations, other passenger railroads (such as
Amtrak) may have a more consistent number of train movements throughout
the week. Since the primary purpose of this data field is to collect
data on passenger train movements on a typical operating day, the
Inventory Guide gives operating railroads the flexibility to determine
which day of the week best represents a typical operating day for their
passenger train operations.
Type of Land Use
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA change the title
of the ``Type of Development--Primary Purpose of Crossing'' data field
in Part I of the Inventory Form to ``Type of Land Use'' since this data
field will capture data on the type of land use around the highway-rail
or pathway crossing. To more accurately reflect the intended use of
this data field, we changed the title to ``Type of Land Use''.
    The ICC also recommended that we change the title of the ``Farm
(Field to Field)'' box in the ``Type of Development--Primary Purpose of
Crossing'' data field to ``Farm'' since there are some Farm crossings
that are not Field to Field crossings. The ICC also submitted comments
recommending that the Inventory Guide discussion of the ``Farm (Field
to Field)'' box refer to wineries and other types of non-traditional
agricultural enterprises. We agree and revised the Inventory Guide
based on these recommendations.
    DelDOT submitted comments recommending that the primary operating
railroad be assigned the responsibility for submitting three-year
periodic updates to this data field under Sec.  234.409(a). However,
LaDOTD submitted comments recommending that State agencies be
responsible for submitting crossing data for this data field since
States routinely use demographic information for analysis purposes and,
therefore, should have the requisite information.
    After considering these comments, FRA is asking State agencies to
voluntarily submit updates for this data field for public highway-rail
and pathway crossings, as reflected in

Appendix B of the Inventory Guide. As noted by LaDOTD, the State agency
with jurisdiction over public highway-rail and pathway crossings will
likely have information related to the type of land use in the vicinity
of the crossing. However, primary operating railroads are required to
submit three-year periodic updates for this data field for private
highway-rail grade crossings and private pathway grade crossings.
Is there an adjacent crossing with a separate number?
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that we revise the Inventory
Guide to define the term ``adjacent crossing'' as another set of tracks
crossing the same highway with 25 feet or less between centerlines of
tracks and where the tracks have different crossing numbers. However,
we are defining adjacent crossings as having a distance of 100 feet or
less between the centerlines of the tracks because queuing issues can
occur at 100 feet. Therefore, FRA did not adopt this recommendation.
Quiet Zone
    The ICC, LaDOTD, and Tavla Solutions submitted comments
recommending that we remove the ``Quiet Zone'' data field from the
Inventory Form because FRA is the only entity that will have permission
to submit data for this data field. However, FRA retained the Quiet
Zone data field as proposed in the Inventory Form. To avoid confusion
about whether this data field should be completed, we revised the
Inventory Guide to add specific instructions to leave this data field
blank.
HSR Corridor ID
    We revised the Inventory Guide to make this data field a required
data field and to correct a typographical error in the reference to
Appendix F, which contains a list of the High-Speed Rail Corridor
Designations and Codes.
Latitude in Decimal Degrees/Longitude in Decimal Degrees
    FRA made technical corrections to the title of the Latitude and
Longitude data fields to reflect the correct decimal format required
for this data.
Lat/Long Source
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we should define the
``Actual'' box in the ``Lat/Long Source'' data field in the Inventory
Guide to mean coordinates taken in the field centerline of the roadway
or pathway to the centerline of the railroad tracks with a horizontal
accuracy of one meter or better. The ICC recommended that coordinates
which fail to meet this standard should be classified as estimates.
However, Tavla Solutions submitted comments asserting that a
requirement to conduct field measurements from the center of a highway-
rail grade crossing to meet the criteria for ``Actual'' latitude and
longitude coordinates would create a safety hazard for the data
collection team.
    We revised the Inventory Guide to advise Crossing Inventory users
that they should measure latitude and longitude coordinates taken in
the field at the intersection of the centerline of the roadway or
pathway with the centerline of the railroad track, with a horizontal
accuracy of one meter or better. However, the Crossing Inventory will
continue to classify latitude and longitude coordinates taken using
global positioning system equipment as ``Actual'' latitude and
longitude coordinates. The Crossing Inventory also will continue to
classify latitude and longitude coordinates obtained using free online
technology as ``Actual'' latitude and longitude coordinates for
purposes of the Crossing Inventory. The ``Estimated'' box in the ``Lat/
Long Source'' data field will therefore be largely populated by
existing latitude and longitude coordinates that generated by early
computer models that may have been somewhat inaccurate.
Railroad Use/State Use
    The AAR submitted comments recommending that the Railroad Use boxes
be expanded to allow for crossings that have more than four operators.
However, the number of Railroad Use boxes is not intended to directly
correlate with the number of railroads that may operate through a
highway-rail or pathway crossing because the Railroad Use boxes are
optional. After reviewing current usage patterns associated with the
Railroad Use boxes, we did not change the number of Railroad Use boxes
on the Inventory Form.
Narrative
    We revised the Narrative box on the Inventory Form by dividing it
into two separate boxes, with one Narrative box for railroad use and
another Narrative box for State use. FRA made this change in response
to ICC comments recommending this change to the Inventory Form. This
change also should alleviate concerns expressed in comments NCDOT
submitted that a Narrative box shared by Railroads and State agencies
may lead to over-writing of data in the event of inconsistent
information.
Emergency Notification Telephone No.
    FRA revised the Inventory Guide to provide clarification that
``911'' cannot be used as an emergency notification telephone number in
the Crossing Inventory. As stated in the Inventory Guide, the Emergency
Notification System (ENS) telephone number the railroad publicized for
use in reporting emergencies, malfunctions, and problems at the
highway-rail or pathway crossing under subpart E to 49 CFR part 234,
must be reported in this data field.
Part II, Railroad Information
Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements
    We changed the title of Item One in Part II of the Inventory Form
from ``Estimated Average Number of Daily Train Movements'' to
``Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements'' to clarify that this data
field is intended to collect data on the estimated number of daily
train movements not the average number of daily train movements.
    The CPUC submitted comments seeking clarification on whether local
freight train movements, as well as passenger, commuter rail, and urban
rapid transit train movements, should be included in the train counts
reflected in the ``Estimated Number of Daily Train Movements'' data
field. The CPUC recommended that urban rapid transit train movements
not be reported in the ``Total Day Thru Trains'' data field, if the
data captured in this data field is used for the DOT Accident
Prediction Formula.
    In response to these comments, FRA revised the Inventory Guide to
state that local freight through train movements, as well as passenger
and commuter rail train movements, should be reported as ``Thru Train''
movements for purposes of the Crossing Inventory. We also revised the
Inventory Form to include a separate subfield titled ``Total Transit
Trains'' to capture data on urban rapid transit train movements through
highway-rail and pathway crossings.
    FRA also provided additional guidance in the Inventory Guide on the
train movement data the primary operating railroad must report. The
primary operating railroad is responsible for reporting train movement
data for all railroads that operate through the crossing, unless Item
Seven in Part I of the Inventory Form (``Do Other Railroads Operate a
Separate Track at Crossing?'') shows there are other operating
railroads that operate over a separate track at the

crossing. (If Item Seven in Part I of the Inventory Form shows there
are other operating railroads that operate over a separate track at the
crossing, each operating railroad is responsible for submitting their
own train count and train speed data directly to the Crossing
Inventory.) We provided this guidance in response to CPUC comments
requesting clarification as to whether the primary operating railroad
is responsible for reporting the number of train movements by other
railroads through the crossing.
    FRA received comments recommending that the five proposed data
fields dedicated to train counts be consolidated into fewer data
fields. The ICC submitted comments recommending that four of the
proposed data fields be consolidated into two data fields--one data
field for all daytime train movements and another for all nighttime
train movements. Under this scenario, the Crossing Inventory would not
differentiate between train counts for through trains and switching
train movements. We did not adopt this recommendation because the DOT
Accident Prediction Formula relies upon the number of through train
movements shown in the Crossing Inventory. (Many States use the DOT
Accident Prediction Formula to determine the appropriate allocation of
funding for needed crossing safety improvements.) Since the number of
daily switching movements is not used in the DOT Accident Prediction
Formula, we retained separate data fields on the Inventory Form for
train counts of through train movements and switching train movements.
    The AAR recommended that the Inventory Form be revised to reflect
the train count data fields contained in the 1999 version of the
Inventory Form. In the 1999 version of the Inventory Form, there was
one data field for total through train movements and another data field
for total switching train movements. In support of this recommendation,
the AAR noted that a previously published FRA guidance document related
to data file structure and field input specifications contained
language stating that distinctions between daytime train movements and
nighttime train movements are no longer maintained in the Crossing
Inventory. While asserting that train counts are not constant
throughout the year for many reasons, including changes in operating
plans and changes in shipping/delivery requests from local industries,
the AAR stated that it will be difficult for railroads to break down
their train counts into the requested 12-hour blocks.
    FRA agrees that train counts for daytime and nighttime switching
movements should remain combined. However, we note that the 1999
version of the Inventory Form also contained a third data field for
total daylight through train movements during the 12-hour period
between 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. As discussed above, a distinction was drawn
between daytime through train movements and nighttime through train
movements so daily through train movements could be used in the DOT
Accident Prediction Formula. Therefore, while FRA understands it may be
difficult to provide an accurate count of daily through train movements
due to variations in operating plans and business arrangements,
railroads should be accustomed to submitting data on estimated
``daylight'' through train counts to the Crossing Inventory.
Accordingly, we retained the separate data fields for daytime and
nighttime through train movements on the Inventory Form as proposed.
Year of Train Count Data
    FRA did not revise the ``Year of Train Count Data'' data field in
Part II of the Inventory Form. The CPUC submitted comments recommending
expansion of this data field to collect data on the month, as well as
the year, of the train count data submitted to the Crossing Inventory.
However, we designed the GCIS system to capture the date on which any
update to the Crossing Inventory is submitted, which includes any
update to the train count data fields. Therefore, we retained this data
field as proposed.
Speed of Train at Crossing
    FRA provided additional guidance in the Inventory Guide to clarify
that the highest maximum timetable speed for any type of train movement
through the crossing should be entered in the ``Speed of Train at
Crossing'' data field in Part II of the Inventory Form. Therefore, if a
highway-rail or pathway crossing is subject to freight and passenger
train movements, the highest maximum authorized speed (which will
generally apply to passenger train movements) should be entered in this
data field. We provided this guidance in response to ICC comments
recommending that the ``Speed of Train at Crossing'' data field should
show the highest maximum authorized timetable speed for any type of
train movement through the crossing.
Type and Count of Tracks
    In the proposed rule, FRA solicited comments on the definitions we
provided in the Inventory Guide for the various types of track listed
in the ``Type and Count of Tracks'' data field. FRA received comments
from the AAR and the CPUC recommending that FRA reduce the proposed
list of track types and define each track type consistent with
definitions FRA and the Surface Transportation Board currently use.
NCDOT submitted comments noting that the ``Spur/Lead'' and the
``Storage'' track types appear to be repetitive. The ICC also submitted
comments recommending that the ``Type and Count of Tracks'' data field
be revised to capture data on the number of each type of track at the
crossing. FRA generally agrees with these recommendations and has
therefore reduced the number of track types. For example, we merged the
``Spur/Lead'' and the ``Storage'' track types into the ``Yard'' track
type. In addition, we removed the proposed ``Wye'' track type from the
Inventory Form because there does not appear to be sufficient need to
capture this data.
    In addition, we revised the definitions of the ``Main'',
``Industry'', ``Siding'', and ``Yard'' track types in the Inventory
Guide to make them consistent with the FRA Guide for Preparing
Accident/Incident Reports. We also revised the ``Type and Count of
Tracks'' data field to collect data on the number of each type of track
at the crossing.
Train Detection
    In the NPRM, FRA solicited comments on whether we should collect
data on the number of tracks at a crossing equipped with train
detection technology. Noting the absence of information explaining
FRA's purpose in collecting this data, AAR submitted comments asserting
it could not support the proposed collection of data. However, if FRA
decides to collect this data, AAR recommended elimination of the
``PTC'' category because the Inventory Guide failed to identify which
Positive Train Control characteristics must be present in the crossing
circuitry to qualify as ``PTC'' for purposes of the Crossing Inventory.
    The CPUC, Denver RTD, and the ICC submitted comments in support of
collecting data on the tracks at a crossing equipped with train
detection technology. However, the CPUC and ICC believe FRA should only
collect data on the train detection technology installed on mainline
tracks through the crossing. The BRS submitted comments in support of
reporting the various types of train detection equipment installed at a
crossing so that FRA and railroad personnel can confirm the presence
(or absence) of such equipment when performing inspections. The BRS
also

stated that collection of data on the various types or brands of train
detection equipment installed at a crossing will make it easier for FRA
and railroad personnel to confirm that proper prints are available at
each crossing location. Similarly, Denver RTD stated that reporting the
types of train detection equipment installed at a crossing will create
a more accurate record for determining the root cause of accidents and
ensure proper inspection and repairs of train detection equipment.
    We retained the ``Train Detection'' data field in Part II of the
Inventory Form as proposed. Although FRA agrees that collection of data
on train detection technology installed at highway-rail and pathway
crossings is beneficial, FRA is not requiring the submission of data on
individual brands of train detection equipment installed in the field.
However, railroads that wish to record this information may use the
``Railroad Use'' data fields in Part I of the Inventory Form for this
purpose. We did revise the Inventory Guide discussion of the ``PTC''
box in the ``Train Detection'' data field to include a reference to
FRA's Positive Train Control System regulations in 49 CFR 236.1005,
which contains a list of the required functionalities for positive
train control systems.
Is track signaled?
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA add a subfield for
PTC to the ``Is Track Signaled?'' data field in Part II of the
Inventory Form. In support of this recommendation, the ICC explained
that if the primary operating railroad submits data indicating that the
highway-rail or pathway crossing is located on track equipped with a
block signal, cab signal, or train control system to govern train
operations, the Inventory Guide could direct the primary operating
railroad to specify whether the track is equipped with a PTC system by
checking an additional ``Yes/No'' box.
    We retained this data field as proposed. Since the type of train
detection technology present on mainline tracks through the crossing
must be reported in the ``Train Detection'' data field discussed above,
there is not sufficient need to add a PTC subfield in this data field.
Event Recorder/Remote Health Monitoring
    NCDOT submitted comments asserting that the proposed title of the
``Event Recorder Monitoring Device'' data field on the Inventory Form
was too similar to the title of the ``Monitoring Devices'' data field
in Part III of the Inventory Form and should therefore be changed. The
ICC also submitted comments recommending that FRA divide the ``Event
Recorder Monitoring Device'' data field on the Inventory Form into two
separate data fields, with one data field for Event Recorders and
another data field for Remote Health Monitors. In making this
recommendation, the ICC noted that many crossings have remote health
monitors, whereas far fewer have event recorders. FRA agrees it would
be beneficial to revise this data field and has therefore revised the
Inventory Form by dividing the former ``Event Recorder Monitoring
Device'' data field into two separate data fields, with one data field
for Event Recorders and another for Remote Health Monitoring devices.
Part III, Highway or Pathway Traffic Control Device Information
    FRA changed the title of Part III of the Inventory Form from
``Highway Traffic Control Device Information'' to ``Highway or Pathway
Traffic Control Device Information.'' We made this change in response
to ICC comments to show that Part III of the Inventory Form is intended
to collect traffic control device data for both highway-rail and
pathway crossings.
Are there signs or signals?
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA change the title
of the ``No Signs or Signals'' data field in Part III of the Inventory
Form to ``Are There Warning Signs or Signals in Place?'' and replace
the ``Check if this applies'' box with Yes/No boxes. Consistent with
this recommendation, FRA changed the title of the ``No Signs or
Signals'' data field in Part III of the Inventory Form to ``Are there
Signs or Signals?'' and added Yes/No boxes to replace the proposed
``Check if this applies'' box.
Types of Passive Traffic Control Devices Associated With the Crossing
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we rename the heading
``Type of Passive Traffic Control Devices at Crossing--Signs'' for item
two in Part III of the Inventory Form to ``Type of Passive Traffic
Control Sign at and/or near the Crossing'' since many advance warning
signs are not actually posted at the crossing, but are often located
nearby on adjacent or intersecting roadways. Consistent with this
recommendation, we changed the title for item two in Part III of the
Inventory Form to ``Types of Passive Traffic Control Devices associated
with the Crossing''.
    LaDOTD and Tavla Solutions also submitted comments recommending
that the Inventory Guide include pictures or drawings of the MUTCD
signs referenced in the data fields that make up item two of Part III
of the Inventory Form. FRA agrees and added pictures of warning devices
and signs to the Inventory Guide to provide additional clarification.
However, FRA did not add pictures and drawings of all MUTCD-compliant
signs referenced in the data fields in item two of Part III of the
Inventory Form because the MUTCD is frequently revised. Instead,
Crossing Inventory users are advised to consult the current edition of
the MUTCD for additional information regarding MUTCD-compliant sign and
warning device specifications.
Crossbuck Assemblies
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
advise Crossing Inventory users to submit data on the actual number of
crossbuck signs associated with a crossing, rather than the number of
crossbuck assemblies (which would be counted by the proposed method of
reporting the number of masts or posts on which crossbuck signs have
been installed). The ICC noted that, while unusual, there are
situations in which there may be more than one crossbuck sign per
assembly. The ICC also recommended that the Inventory Guide advise
Crossing Inventory users to submit data on the number of all crossbucks
signs present at the crossing, regardless of the presence of flashing
lights or gates.
    FRA retained the guidance contained in the Inventory Guide to
provide data on the number of masts or posts with mounted crossbucks.
By requiring a count of the number of masts or posts with mounted
crossbucks, Crossing Inventory users can monitor compliance with an
FHWA requirement that crossbuck assemblies must be installed by
December 31, 2019, or when adjustments are made to the crossing,
whichever comes first. FRA also retained the proposed instruction to
refrain from reporting the number of crossbuck signs installed on
train-activated warning devices, such as flashing light structures and
gate masts, because the ``Crossbuck Assemblies'' data field is
primarily intended to collect data on the number of crossbuck
assemblies present at passive crossings.
Stop Signs/Yield Signs
    Consistent with comments submitted on the ``Crossbuck Assemblies''
data

field, the ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
advise Crossing Inventory users to report the actual number of MUTCD-
compliant Stop signs and Yield signs at the crossing, rather than the
number of posts or masts. The ICC also recommended that the Inventory
Guide advise Crossing Inventory users to report the number of all Stop
signs and Yield signs present at the crossing, regardless of the
presence of flashing lights or gates. In addition, the ICC recommended
that FRA add a new data field to the Inventory Form to capture data on
crossings equipped with crossbucks and yield signs.
    Consistent with the approach taken for the ``Crossbuck Assemblies''
data field above, FRA retained the proposed guidance contained in the
Inventory Guide to collect data on the number of posts or masts with
stop signs and the number of posts or masts with yield signs (as
opposed to the number of stop signs and yield signs). However, with
respect to the ``Stop Signs'' and ``Yield Signs'' data fields, the
Inventory Guide advises Crossing Inventory users to provide data on the
number of posts or masts with stop signs and yield signs, regardless of
the presence of any other type of warning device at the crossing. FRA
notes that Crossing Inventory users can identify crossings equipped
with crossbucks and yield signs by reviewing the ``Yield Signs'' data
field, in conjunction with the ``Crossbuck Assemblies'' data field.
Therefore, there is no need to add a separate data field exclusively
dedicated to capturing data on crossings equipped with both crossbucks
and yield signs.
Advance Warning Signs
    In the NPRM, FRA solicited comments on whether the Crossing
Inventory should collect data on the actual number of advance warning
signs posted at a crossing, as opposed to the number of posts or masts
bearing the advance warning signs.
    The BRS submitted comments asserting that the number of signs at a
particular crossing is far more important than the number of posts or
masts bearing signs at the crossing. The CPUC, FDOT, NDOT, ICC, Denver
RTD, and NCDOT also submitted comments recommending that the Crossing
Inventory collect data on the number of advance warning signs posted at
the crossing, rather than the number of posts or mast assemblies. Since
this data field, unlike the data fields for Stop Signs and Yield Signs,
contains boxes that should be checked to indicate the specific type of
advance warning signs present at the crossing, the Inventory Guide has
been revised to instruct Crossing Inventory users to submit a count of
each type of advance warning sign present at the crossing.
    The ICC also submitted comments recommending that the Advance
Warning Signs data field on the Inventory Form be replaced with a list
of all warning signs provided in the current edition of the MUTCD.
However, we would have to update the list of MUTCD-compliant signs on a
continual basis to incorporate new signs that are added to the MUTCD,
which would increase the reporting burden on railroads and may require
railroads to continually update their crossing databases to keep up
with changes that are made in future revisions of the MUTCD. Therefore,
we retained the Advance Warning Signs data field as proposed.
Low Ground Clearance Sign
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the ``Low Ground
Clearance Sign'' data field in Part III of the Inventory Form show the
number of MUTCD-compliant signs present at the crossing. FRA agrees
with this recommendation and revised the Inventory Form consistent with
this recommendation.
Pavement Markings/Channelization Devices
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we add a box for
Dynamic Envelope Markings to the Pavement Markings data field in Part
III of the Inventory Form, a box for ``Other,'' and a text field of at
least 40 characters to record the presence of any additional pavement
markings. Although we did not add an ``Other'' box to the Pavement
Markings data field, we revised the Pavement Markings data field in
Part III of the Inventory Form to add a box for Dynamic Envelope
markings. FRA encourages States to use the ``State Use'' data fields in
Part I of the Inventory Form to record any additional pavement markings
that may be present at the crossing.
    The ICC also recommended that FRA change the title of the
``Channelization Devices'' data field in Part III of the Inventory Form
to ``Medians and Channelization Devices.'' Consistent with this
recommendation, we changed the title of this data field to
``Channelization Devices/Medians''.
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we move the Pavement
Markings and Channelization Devices data fields to a location after the
``Types of Train-Activated Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing''
section in Part III of the Inventory Form, so all warning signs and
then devices are inventoried sequentially. However, we retained these
data fields in their proposed location on the Inventory Form. We
believe it is appropriate to retain these data fields under the
heading, ``Types of Passive Control Devices associated with the
Crossing'' in Part III of the Inventory Form since pavement markings
and channelization devices are considered to be passive traffic control
devices associated with crossings.
Channelization Devices/Medians
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that FRA revise the Inventory
Guide to clarify the proper classification of medians. Therefore, we
revised the Inventory Guide to provide guidance on how to properly
complete this data field when channelization devices or medians are
present at the crossing.
EXEMPT Sign/ENS Sign Displayed
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we add the word
``Sign'' to the title of the ``Exempt'' data field in Part III of the
Inventory Form to clarify that the presence (or absence) of Exempt
signs at the crossing should be reported. FRA agrees and changed the
title of this data field to ``EXEMPT Sign''.
    The ICC also recommended that we revise the ``EXEMPT Sign'' and
``ENS Sign Displayed'' data fields in Part III of the Inventory Form to
require submission of the number of MUTCD-compliant signs present at
the crossing. However, we retained these data fields as proposed. FRA
is primarily interested in obtaining data on the presence (or absence)
of these signs, not the number of these signs present at the crossing.
Other Signs/Private Crossing Signs
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we revise the ``Other
Signs'' data field to accept data on the presence of non-MUTCD
compliant signs, including private crossing signs, at the crossing.
However, given the wide variety of non-MUTCD compliant signs that may
be in use at grade crossings, FRA does not perceive any significant
benefit that would justify the additional burden associated with
obtaining data on every type of non-MUTCD compliant sign currently in
use. Therefore, we retained the ``Private Crossing Signs'' data field
proposed on the Inventory Form to collect data on private crossing
signs at private highway-rail and pathway crossings. In addition, the
Inventory Guide continues to advise Crossing Inventory users to submit
data on the presence of MUTCD-

compliant signs in the ``Other Signs'' data field in Part III of the
Inventory Form.
    The ICC also recommended that signs and warning devices at private
crossings be inventoried and recorded in the same data fields used for
reporting signs and warning devices at public highway-rail grade
crossings. The ICC noted that this approach would eliminate the need
for the ``Private Crossing Signs'' data field. While FRA has not
adopted this recommendation, we may revisit this recommendation in a
future rulemaking. As noted previously, the NTSB recently issued Safety
Recommendation R-14-48 that FRA should require equivalent levels of
reporting for both public and private highway-rail grade crossings.
Therefore, FRA may issue regulations in the future that would require
railroads to complete the data fields used for reporting signs and
warning devices in Part III of the Inventory Form for private highway-
rail and pathway crossings as well. However, in the meantime, FRA
strongly encourages primary operating railroads to voluntarily report
data on train-activated warning devices and crossing signs at private
highway-rail grade crossings and pathway crossings to the Crossing
Inventory.
    The ICC also submitted comments recommending that we require
submission of the number of signs that are present at the crossing in
the data fields for ``Private Crossing Signs'' and ``LED Enhanced
Signs'' in Part III of the Inventory Form. However, FRA is primarily
interested in obtaining data on the presence (or absence) of these
signs, as opposed to the number of these signs present at a crossing.
Therefore, we retained the Private Crossing Signs and LED Enhanced
Signs data fields in Part III of the Inventory Form as proposed.
    The ICC recommended that FRA revise the ``Other Signs'' data field
in Part III of the Inventory Form by adding a check box to denote
whether any signs are ``LED enhanced.'' The ICC suggested that this
check box could replace the ``LED Enhanced Signs'' data field in Part
III of the Inventory Form. We retained the ``LED Enhanced Signs'' data
field as proposed on the Inventory Form. However, we revised the
Inventory Guide to advise Crossing Inventory users to include
references to the applicable MUTCD code when reporting various types of
LED enhanced signs present at a crossing.
Types of Train-Activated Warning Devices at the Crossing
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA change the heading
for item three in Part III of the Inventory Form from ``Type of Active
Warning Devices at Crossing--Train Activated Devices'' to ``Type of
Train-Activated Warning Devices at the Crossing.'' The ICC also
recommended that we arrange the data fields in item three in Part III
of the Inventory Form covered by this heading in hierarchal order to
address flashing light assemblies before gates. Consistent with the
ICC's recommendation, we changed the title of the heading for item
three in Part III of the Inventory Form to ``Types of Train Activated
Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing.'' However, we retained the order
of the data fields in item three in Part III of the Inventory Form as
proposed to provide continuity between the current version of the
Inventory Form and previous versions of this form. We hope this
continuity will minimize the burden on entities that submit electronic
data to the Crossing Inventory that may need to revise their existing
databases to conform to changes made to the Inventory Form.
    In the NPRM, FRA solicited comments on whether we should require
the primary operating railroad to submit updates to the Crossing
Inventory after implementation of one or more train-activated warning
devices at a crossing. FDOT submitted comments recommending that all
updates to the data fields in item three of Part III of the Inventory
Form, under the heading (``Type of Train Activated Warning Devices at
Crossing--Train Activated Devices'') be assigned to State agencies so
any changes railroads make to train-activated warning devices at a
crossing would have to be reported to the State agency. The State
agency would then submit all updates to these data fields to the
Crossing Inventory.
    As stated in Sec.  234.411(c), the primary operating railroad is
required to submit updated data directly to the Crossing Inventory
within three months of any change in warning device at a public
highway-rail grade crossing. While we also encourage the primary
operating railroad to submit a copy of this updated data to the
appropriate State agency, it is not required to do so. However, as
stated in Appendix B to the Inventory Guide, the data fields in item
three of Part III of the Inventory Form (``Types of Train Activated
Warning Devices at the Grade Crossing'') have been assigned to State
agencies for voluntary updating.
Gate Arms
    In the proposed rule, FRA solicited comments on whether we should
assign the Gate Arms data field in Part III of the Inventory Form to
State agencies for updating. FRA received comments from NCDOT, FDOT and
the AAR recommending that State agencies be assigned the responsibility
for updating this data field. However, FRA also received comments from
the CPUC, DelDOT, NDOT, and the BRS recommending that the primary
operating railroad be required to update this data field since the
primary operating railroad should have information about the warning
devices they install and maintain.
    After considering these comments, FRA decided to retain the
assignment of responsibility in Appendix B of the Inventory Guide.
Therefore, it assigned the responsibility for submitting voluntary
updates to the Gate Arms data field to State agencies. This assignment
of responsibility roughly coincides with FHWA's annual reporting
requirement for States for Highway Safety Improvement Plan purposes.
However, the primary operating railroad must still submit updated data
on the number of gate arms installed at a highway-rail or pathway
crossing to Crossing Inventory within three months of any change,
consistent with Sec.  234.411(c).
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA revise the
Inventory Guide to explain that the Gate Arms data field in Part III of
the Inventory Form is only intended to collect data on the number of
traditional red-white gate arms present at the crossing. The ICC
believes the number of pedestrian swing gates or other types of
pedestrian gates that may be present at the crossing should not be
reported in this data field. FRA agrees the proposed revision is
beneficial. Therefore, we revised the Inventory Guide to include a
description of pedestrian gate arms, as well as specific guidance that
this data field is not intended to collect data on the presence of any
pedestrian swing gates at the crossing.
    The ICC also recommended that we replace the word ``Count'' with
``Quantity'' in the Gate Arms data field. FRA notes that the term
``Count'' has been used in multiple places on the Inventory Form in
order to denote that the Crossing Inventory user should provide data on
the number of devices present at the crossing. Therefore, to be
consistent, we retained the term ``Count'' as proposed in this data
field.
Gate Configuration
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA revise the
Inventory Guide to include illustrations of the various types of gate
configurations that may be present at a crossing to help Crossing
Inventory users identify them. However, the attributes associated with
individual

gate configurations tend to vary greatly. Therefore, while the
Inventory Guide contains detailed descriptions of each gate
configuration listed on the Inventory Form, we did not add gate
configuration illustrations.
    The ICC also recommended that we use the terminology and
definitions in the MUTCD for the various types of gate configurations
in the Inventory Guide. In addition, the ICC noted that the proposed
Inventory Guide discussion of four-quadrant gate systems included an
incorrect reference to Section 8.D of the MUTCD. We removed the
erroneous reference to Section 8.D of the MUTCD from Appendix D to the
Inventory Guide. However, FRA notes that the MUTCD does not provide an
official definition for the two-quadrant, three-quadrant, or four-
quadrant gate systems listed on the Inventory Form. Moreover, the terms
used in the Inventory Guide to describe the various types of highway-
rail grade crossing gate configurations constitute standard terminology
commonly used within the railroad industry. Therefore we did not change
the definitions and terminology.
    Finally, FRA revised the Gate Configuration data field by removing
the ``Full Entrance Closure'' box. After further evaluation of the gate
configuration options listed on the Inventory Form, FRA determined that
the ``Full Entrance Closure'' box would likely result in collection of
redundant data.
Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures
    The ICC submitted comments in support of the Inventory Guide
instruction to report the number of posts that support the cantilevered
flashing lights at a crossing, as opposed to the number of flashing-
light pairs. FRA agrees that the number of flashing light pairs should
not be reported to the Crossing Inventory in this data field.
Therefore, the Inventory Guide continues to instruct Crossing Inventory
users to provide a count of the flashing light structures that are
present at the crossing in this data field.
    NCDOT also submitted comments recommending that FRA either remove
the LED boxes from the ``Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light
Structures'' and the ``Post-Mounted Flashing Light Assemblies'' data
fields in Part III of the Inventory Form or move the LED boxes to a new
data field which the railroad would be responsible for updating. In
support of this recommendation, NCDOT asserted that States will have a
very difficult time verifying this data element since the only way to
verify the presence of LED lights is to either open the lens or obtain
access into the signal cabinet bungalow.
    FRA notes that upgrades from incandescent to LED lights are
typically financed, at least in part, by Federal funding, which
requires State DOT involvement. In addition, the presence of certain
LEDs can be detected through simple observation of the flashing light
lens. The primary operating railroad is required to complete the
``Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures'' and ``Mast
Mounted Flashing Lights'' data fields in Part III of the Inventory Form
(and check the ``LED'' boxes, if applicable) for previously unreported
and new public highway-rail grade crossings. In addition, FRA strongly
encourages primary operating railroads to complete the ``Cantilevered
(or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures'' and ``Mast Mounted Flashing
Lights'' data fields for previously unreported and new private highway-
rail grade crossings. As noted previously, the NTSB recently issued
Safety Recommendation R-14-48 that FRA should require equivalent levels
of reporting for both public and private highway-rail grade crossings.
Therefore, FRA may issue regulations in the future that would require
railroads to provide additional data on private highway-rail and
pathway crossings to the Crossing Inventory. However, the
``Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Light Structures'' and ``Mast
Mounted Flashing Lights'' data fields in Part III of the Inventory Form
(and the ``LED'' boxes contained therein) should be voluntarily updated
by State agencies for public highway-rail grade crossings. In addition,
we retained the LED boxes as proposed.
Mast-Mounted Flashing Lights
    In the proposed rule, FRA solicited comments on whether we should
revise the Post-Mounted Flashing Light Assemblies data field in Part
III of the Inventory Form to require reporting of side lights installed
for the benefit of highway users on an approaching parallel roadway.
    NCDOT, CPUC, DelDOT, FDOT, NDOT and the BRS submitted comments
recommending that we revise the Inventory Form to require reporting of
side lights installed on mast-mounted flashing light assemblies. The
BRS asserted that side-mounted lights provide the same level of safety
to individuals approaching the crossing from a parallel roadway as that
provided to individuals approaching the crossing on the main road.
    NCDOT and CPUC recommended adding a check box to this data field to
indicate side lights have been installed on the flashing light
structures. In making this recommendation, NCDOT asserted this
information could prove helpful when conducting a diagnostic analysis
of warning devices at a crossing. The BRS also believes revising the
Inventory Form to collect this data will facilitate prompt replacement
of side-mounted lights after a knock down or accident, if all parties
involved in the inspection, testing, and maintenance of the crossing
know that side lights have been installed at the crossing. FRA agrees
and revised the ``Mast Mounted Flashing Lights'' data field to include
a check box to indicate that side lights have been installed at the
crossing.
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA require counting
all individual posts housing flashing-light assemblies whether they
contain side lights or regular forward-facing lights. The ICC also
recommended that we include illustrations in the Inventory Guide of
flashing light pairs and back lights. We agree and revised the
Inventory Guide to advise Crossing Inventory users that they should
count the total number of masts with flashing lights and indicate
whether they include back lights and side lights. We also added
illustrations of flashing light pairs, back lights, and side lights to
the Inventory Guide.
    The AAR submitted comments recommending that we assign States the
responsibility for updating the ``Mast Mounted Flashing Lights'' data
field because this information is maintained by the States and it
benefits highway users. FRA agrees with this recommendation and revised
Appendix B to the Inventory Guide to assign responsibility for
submitting voluntary updates to this data field to State agencies.
However, the primary operating railroad is required to submit updated
data within three months of any change in the number of masts with
flashing lights at a public highway-rail grade crossing under Sec.
234.411(c). In addition, FRA strongly encourages primary operating
railroads to complete the ``Mast Mounted Flashing Lights'' data fields
for private highway-rail grade crossings. As noted previously, the NTSB
recently issued Safety Recommendation R-14-48 that FRA should require
equivalent levels of reporting for both public and private highway-rail
grade crossings. Therefore, FRA may issue regulations in the future
that would require railroads to provide additional data on private
highway-rail and pathway crossings to the Crossing Inventory.
    We also changed the title of this data field from ``Post-Mounted
Flashing Light Assemblies'' to ``Mast-Mounted Flashing Lights'' to
distinguish between

flashing-lights and crossbuck assemblies.
Total Count of Flashing Light Pairs
    With respect to the ``Total Count of Flashing Light Pairs'' data
field in Part III of the Inventory Form, the ICC submitted comments
recommending that the Inventory Guide advise Crossing Inventory users
to submit data on each pair of flashing lights installed at the
crossing, whether backlight, sidelight or regular, forward facing
flashing-lights. In addition, the ICC recommended that FRA add an
illustration of a pair of flashing-lights to the Inventory Guide to
eliminate confusion between side by side flashing lights and two pairs
of back to back flashing lights. Consistent with this recommendation,
FRA revised the Inventory Guide to advise Crossing Inventory users to
count each pair of flashing lights installed at the crossing, including
back lights, side lights, and flashing light pairs installed on
cantilever structures and added illustrations of flashing light pairs
to the Inventory Guide.
Installation Date of Current Active Warning Devices
    In the proposed rule, FRA solicited comment on whether it should
collect data on the installation date of active warning devices
installed after the final rule effective date for the Crossing
Inventory.
    The CPUC submitted comments supporting collection of data on the
original installation date of the active warning devices installed at
the crossing for the Crossing Inventory to facilitate data analysis of
the types of active warning devices at the crossing when certain
crossing accidents occurred. The CPUC also recommended that the
installation date shown in the Crossing Inventory should only be
updated when there is a change in the configuration of warning devices,
such as the installation of gates at a crossing equipped with flashing
lights.
    The ICC, Denver RTD, and NDOT submitted comments recommending that
FRA only require submission of data on the installation date of active
warning devices that are installed after the final rule effective date.
In addition, the ICC recommended that FRA only require reporting of
installation year since the specific date of any change in warning
devices could be found from a review of the ``history file'' for the
grade crossing. Denver RTD also noted that use of the term ``original
installation date'' in the proposed title of this data field on the
Inventory Form (``Original Installation Date of Current Active Warning
Devices'') could be confusing, especially if additional active warning
devices are installed at a later date.
    In response to the comments, we changed the title of this data
field on the Inventory Form to ``Installation Date of Current Active
Warning Devices'' to avoid confusion. FRA also agrees it would be
helpful to record the installation date of active warning devices
installed at a crossing after the final rule effective date to
facilitate grade crossing safety analyses. FRA encourages the voluntary
submission of data on the installation date of active warning devices
installed at public highway-rail grade crossings prior to March 9,
2015, as well as the voluntary submission of data on the installation
date of active warning devices installed at private highway-rail grade
crossings. However, the primary operating railroad is only required to
submit data on the installation date of active warning devices
installed at public highway-rail grade crossings after the effective
date of this final rule. We hope limiting the application of this data
collection requirement to active warning devices installed after March
9, 2015 will help minimize the reporting burden on the primary
operating railroad. However, the Inventory Guide does require the
primary operating railroad to report the month and year the active
warning devices are installed or upgraded. This will be beneficial if
there is more than one change in warning devices during the calendar
year.
    DelDOT submitted comments recommending that we not hold State
agencies responsible for submitting data or updates to this data field
since railroads should have this information readily available. The
primary operating railroad is required to update this data field within
three months of any change in train-activated warning devices at a
public highway-rail grade crossing under Sec.  234.411(c). In addition,
FRA strongly encourages primary operating railroads to complete this
data field for private highway-rail grade crossings. As noted
previously, the NTSB recently issued Safety Recommendation R-14-48 that
FRA should require equivalent levels of reporting for both public and
private highway-rail grade crossings. Therefore, FRA may issue
regulations in the future that would require railroads to provide
additional data on private highway-rail and pathway crossings to the
Crossing Inventory.
    However, States generally have some involvement in approving the
installation of train-activated warning devices at public highway-rail
grade crossings. Therefore, we are asking States to consider submitting
voluntary updates to this data field for train-activated warning
devices that have already been installed, as well as train-activated
warning devices that are installed after the final rule effective date.
Even though the primary operating railroad is required to update this
data field within three months of any change in train-activated warning
devices at a public highway-rail grade crossing, we retained the
language in Appendix B to the Inventory Guide to invite States to
voluntarily update this data field if the primary operating railroad
fails to do so in a timely manner.

Wayside Horn/Highway Traffic Signals Controlling Crossing

    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA merge the
``Automated Wayside Horn'' and ``Highway Traffic Signals Controlling
Crossing'' data fields in Part III of the Inventory Form into the
``Special Active Warning'' data field. The ICC states that there are
not many crossings equipped with wayside horn system installations or
controlled by highway traffic signals. However, if we retain a separate
data field to collect data on wayside horn systems, the ICC recommended
we change the title of the ``Automated Wayside Horn'' data field to
``Wayside Horn System''. In addition, the ICC recommended that the
Inventory Guide discussion of this data field should refer to Section
8C.07 of the MUTCD, which contains a discussion of wayside horn
systems.
    We retained a separate data field for wayside horn systems on the
Inventory Form to facilitate collection of data on the prevalence of
these warning devices and the date the wayside horn was installed.
Consistent with the ICC's recommendation, we changed the title of the
``Automated Wayside Horn'' data field to ``Wayside Horn.'' However, we
did not add a reference to Section 8C.07 of the MUTCD in the Inventory
Guide because the MUTCD is frequently revised.
Non-Train Active Warning
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we change the title of
the ``Special Active Warning'' data field in Part III of the Inventory
Form to remove the reference to FRA's ``WD-5'' warning device code to
avoid confusion of individuals who are not familiar with this code. FRA
agrees and changed the title of the ``Special Active Warning'' data
field to ``Non-Train Active Warning'' and removed the reference to
FRA's warning device code.
    The ICC also recommended that FRA remove the boxes for ``Manually
Operated Signals'' and ``Watchman''

from the ``Special Active Warning'' data field on the Inventory Form
unless these types of warning can be found at more than 500 locations
nationwide. While FRA acknowledges that manually operated signals and
watchmen are being utilized at a diminishing number of crossings, we
retained the boxes on the Inventory Form to indicate the presence of
manually operated signals and watchmen at crossings to allow long-term
analysis of existing crossing data.
    In addition, the ICC recommended that the Inventory Guide explain
the various scenarios that might constitute ``flagging,'' such as a
flag attached to a crossbuck assembly or a fusee/flare left to burn on
the ground at a crossing. As indicated in the Inventory Guide, the term
``flagging'' is generally understood to mean an appropriately equipped
flagger is actively controlling the flow of vehicular traffic. Thus,
for purposes of the Crossing Inventory, merely attaching a flag to a
crossbuck assembly or lighting a fuse/flare and leaving it to burn on
the ground at a crossing does not, in and of itself, constitute
flagging. Flagging situations are so varied and site specific that
providing a useful list would be impractical.
Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we merge the
``Wigwags'' data field in Part III of the Inventory Form into the
``Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices'' data field since there
were only 440 crossings equipped with wigwags as of December 2012. FRA
agrees it is no longer necessary to retain a separate data field for
the collection of data on wigwags. Therefore, we revised the Inventory
Guide to advise Crossing Inventory users to submit data on the presence
of wigwags in the ``Other Flashing Lights or Warning Devices'' data
field in Part III of the Inventory Form.
Does nearby hwy intersection have traffic signals?
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
define a ``nearby highway intersection'' as a highway intersection
located within 500 feet from the near rail at a crossing. FRA agrees
and revised the Inventory Guide accordingly.
    The ICC also recommended that the Crossing Inventory collect data
on nearby intersections equipped with stop signs to identify crossings
with potential queuing problems. However, potential queuing problems
can be identified by the data collected on intersecting roadways
located within 500 feet of the grade crossing in Part IV of the
Inventory Form. Therefore, FRA did not adopt this recommendation.
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that we assign railroads the
responsibility for updating the data fields which pertain to the
presence of traffic signals at a nearby highway intersection and the
presence of highway traffic signal interconnection and preemption since
some municipalities do not report this information to the State.
However, the ICC submitted comments recommending that we assign the
responsibility for updating the Highway Traffic Signal Interconnection
data field exclusively to State agencies. After considering these
comments, Appendix B to the Inventory Guide, now assigns responsibility
for submitting voluntary updates for items 4.A., 4.B, and 4.C (``Does
nearby Hwy Intersection have Traffic Signals?'', ``Hwy Traffic Signal
Interconnection'' and ``Hwy Traffic Signal Preemption'') on Part III of
the Inventory Form to State agencies. However, the primary operating
railroad is required to complete these data fields for new and
previously unreported public highway-rail grade crossings. The primary
operating railroad also is required to update items 4.B and 4.C (``Hwy
Traffic Signal Interconnection'' and ``Hwy Traffic Signal Preemption'')
after a change in crossing characteristics at a public highway-rail
grade crossing, if applicable.
 Highway Traffic Signal Interconnection
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
use terms and definitions consistent with terminology the MUTCD uses
and refer to the appropriate MUTCD sections that address traffic signal
interconnection and preemption. NCDOT and the CPUC submitted comments
noting that the Inventory Guide did not provide guidance on when the
``For Warning Signs'' box in the ``Hwy Traffic Signal Interconnection''
data field should be checked. FRA has incorporated terms and
definitions that are consistent with the MUTCD in the Inventory Guide,
where applicable. In addition, we revised the Inventory Guide to state
the meaning of ``Not Interconnected'', ``For Traffic Signals'', and
``For Warning Signs.'' However, we did not revise the Inventory Guide
to contain specific references to the applicable MUTCD section(s) due
to frequent updating of the MUTCD.
 Highway Traffic Pre-Signals
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that the definition for
``Stop Line Distance'' in the Inventory Guide should state that stop
line distance is the distance between the highway intersection's stop
line and the nearest crossing gate(s). However, after evaluating the
proposed definition for ``stop line distance'' in the Inventory Guide,
which defines stop line distance as the distance between the stop line
and the crossing gates, we determined that the proposed definition
accomplishes the same purpose.
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we add illustrations
demonstrating how the measurements for Storage Distance and Stop Line
Distance should be obtained to the Inventory Guide discussion of the
Highway Traffic Pre-Signals data field. We did not adopt this
recommendation because these terms are widely used in highway safety
parlance and additional guidance on how to obtain these measurements
can be obtained from a variety of sources, including the MUTCD.
    The CPUC and ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory
Guide should direct Crossing Inventory users to complete the ``Storage
Distance'' subfield in the ``Highway Traffic Pre-Signals'' data field,
if an intersecting roadway is located within 500 feet of the grade
crossing or if a nearby highway intersection has traffic signals. We
did not revise the Inventory Guide to require completion of the
``Storage Distance'' subfield. However, storage distance can be
calculated by using data reported in the ``Intersecting Roadway within
500 feet?'' data field in Part IV of the Inventory Form, which should
contain data on the approximate distance of any intersecting roadway
within 500 feet of the crossing.
Highway Monitoring Devices
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA change the title
of the ``Monitoring Devices'' data field in Part III of the Inventory
Form to ``Automated Enforcement (of Traffic Laws).'' NCDOT also
submitted comments recommending that the title of this data field be
revised to avoid confusion with the ``Remote Health Monitoring'' data
field in Part II of the Inventory Form. FRA agrees and changed the
title of this data field to ``Highway Monitoring Devices'' to clarify
the intent of this data field is to collect data on the presence of
device(s) at the crossing that monitor highway vehicles.
    The ICC recommended that we revise the Inventory Guide to provide
additional explanation of the two types of highway monitoring devices
featured

in this data field. The ICC also recommended that the Inventory Guide
advise Crossing Inventory users that this data field is only intended
to collect data on crossings with train activated warning devices. FRA
agrees and revised the Inventory Guide to provide additional
explanation of the two types of highway monitoring devices in the
``Highway Monitoring Devices'' data field. We also revised the
Inventory Guide to advise Crossing Inventory users that the ``Highway
Monitoring Devices'' data field only applies to crossings equipped with
train activated warning devices.
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that we change the ``Photo/
Video Enforcement'' box in the ``Highway Monitoring Devices'' data
field to ``Photo/Video Recording'' since efforts to use photo and video
data for enforcement purposes are being challenged in court. We agree
and changed the title of the ``Photo/Video Enforcement'' box to
``Photo/Video Recording.'' We also revised the Inventory Guide to state
the temporary installation of these devices (e.g., for research
purposes) should not be reported to the Crossing Inventory.
Crossing Warning Device WD Code
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA remove the
``Crossing Warning Device WD Code'' data field from the Inventory Form
since this data field has been reserved for the exclusive use of FRA.
We adopted this recommendation.

Part IV, Physical Characteristics

    The ICC submitted comments recommending that Parts IV and V of the
Inventory Form be merged into one section titled ``Roadway/Pathway
Information.'' We did not adopt this recommendation because we want to
maintain a clear demarcation between the physical and operating
characteristics of highway-rail and pathway crossings.
Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that we revise the Inventory
Guide to clarify that only dedicated travel lanes should be counted in
this data field. NCDOT noted that some highway-rail crossings have a
double-yellow solid painted cross-hatch island approaching the
crossing, yet further away (say 100 to 200 feet) from the crossing, the
painted island may change/revert into a center turn lane or left turn
lane. Therefore, at a crossing which may be 60 feet wide and physically
capable of carrying five 12-foot wide lanes across the crossing, only
four lanes are painted as crossing the tracks. In this type of
scenario, NCDOT recommended that only dedicated travel lanes be counted
as traffic lanes crossing the tracks. We agree and revised the
Inventory Guide to state this data field is intended to capture through
traffic lanes that cross the railroad tracks.
    NCDOT also recommended that the Inventory Guide should clarify that
the term, ``divided traffic'', refers to the characteristic of the
entire roadway longitudinally away from the crossing. NCDOT believes
the mere presence of channelization at a crossing should not be
considered for purposes of determining whether there is divided highway
traffic on the roadway that crosses the railroad tracks. We adopted
this recommendation and revised the Inventory Guide to state that the
Divided Traffic box in the ``Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad'' data
field refers to the characteristics of the entire roadway (as opposed
to the presence of channelization devices at the crossing).
Is roadway/pathway paved?
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
advise Crossing Inventory users to submit data on paved pathways, in
addition to paved roadways. The ICC also recommended that the
definition of a paved roadway be consistent with the FHWA and/or the
American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials
(AASHTO) definition of a paved road. We did not change the Inventory
Guide description of a paved roadway because it reflects generally
accepted use of the term. However, we did revise the title of this data
field and the Inventory Guide discussion of this data field to include
a reference to paved pathways in addition to paved roadways, at
crossings.
Does track run down a street?
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that the Inventory Guide
provide additional clarification for completing this data field. FRA
agrees and revised the Inventory Guide to provide additional guidance
on the type of crossing configuration for which data is being
collected.
Is crossing illuminated?
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that we should revise the
Inventory Guide state that an illuminated crossing must have publicly
maintained street lighting. However, FRA is primarily interested in
collecting data on the presence (or absence) of street lighting at the
crossing. Since FRA does not wish to exclude crossings that are
illuminated by privately maintained street lighting, we did not adopt
this recommendation.
Crossing Surface
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that FRA remove the box for
``Width'' from the ``Crossing Surface'' data field since it is
essentially captured by the number of tracks at the crossing. The ICC
also recommended that the Inventory Guide explain how length should be
measured when there are sidewalks present at the crossing and add
helpful illustrations on how to measure crossing length in a variety of
different environments.
    We retained the box for ``Width'' as proposed in the Crossing
Surface data field since the distance between railroad tracks is not
uniform and therefore cannot be relied upon for purposes of determining
crossing width. However, we revised the Inventory Guide to provide
additional explanation on how crossing length (and width) should be
measured.
    NCDOT submitted comments recommending that we revise the Inventory
Guide description for the subfield ``Asphalt and Timber'' to refer to a
range of materials that could be used to form flangeway openings, such
as ``rubber, steel, or other flange material.'' However, after
evaluating the language in the Inventory Guide, FRA determined the
description for this subfield (which states that other material which
could be used to form flangeway openings may include rubber) is broad
enough to accomplish the same purpose. Therefore, we did not adopt this
recommendation.
Intersecting roadway within 500 feet?
    LaDOTD submitted comments recommending that FRA revise this data
field to collect data on the presence of an intersecting roadway within
200 feet of the crossing to identify highway-rail crossings that might
be good candidates for highway traffic signal preemption. While the
MUTCD recommends the use of highway traffic signal preemption for
highway-rail grade crossings located less than 200 feet from an
intersecting roadway, FRA believes highway traffic signal preemption
may be beneficial for highway-rail grade crossings that are located up
to 500 feet from an intersecting roadway. Therefore, we did not revise
this data field.
    The CPUC submitted comments recommending addition of checkboxes to
the ``Intersecting Roadway within 500 feet?'' data field in Part IV of
the Inventory Form that would capture additional data on the type of
any highway traffic control device present at the highway intersection.
Although we

did not adopt this recommendation, State agencies may record data on
the types of highway traffic control devices that are present at the
crossing in the State Use data fields in Part I of the Inventory Form.
Smallest Crossing Angle
    The CPUC submitted comments recommending that FRA revise the
Inventory Form to require reporting of the smallest crossing angle as a
whole number between 0 and 90 degrees, as opposed to a 30-degree range
to improve precision. We did not adopt this recommendation because the
specific data that would be captured does not justify the additional
burden that would be imposed by the proposed revision to this data
element.
    The CPUC also recommended that Inventory Guide advise Crossing
Inventory users to determine the smallest crossing angle from the
roadway approach lane to the track on the right-hand side of the
roadway approach. The CPUC asserted that research of detailed angle
data and associated accident history seems to indicate that small
angles on the right-hand side of the roadway approach may be a
significant factor in crossing collisions. FRA did not adopt this
recommendation because FRA has historically collected data on the
smallest angle present at the crossing rather than limiting data
collection to the size of the angle present on the right-hand side of
the roadway approach. The presence of acute angles on the left-hand
side of the roadway approach can also be problematic. Whenever the
railroad tracks intersect roadway approaches at an acute angle, drivers
must look over one shoulder to watch for approaching trains. However,
States may record the measurements of acute angles on either side of
the roadway approach in the State Use fields in Part I of the Inventory
Form.
Is commercial power available?
    The ICC submitted comments recommending removal of the ``Is
Commercial Power Available'' data field from Part IV of the Inventory
Form unless an analysis determines this data field is sufficiently
utilized and demonstrates collecting this data is worth the effort.
However, we retained this data field as proposed on the Inventory Form
because the data collected in this data field is often relied upon when
evaluating crossings that are candidates for potential crossing
improvements.

Part V, Public Highway Information

    The CPUC submitted comments recommending that FRA add a new data
field to Part V of the Inventory Form for the name of the local highway
agency responsible for installing and maintaining signs and pavement
markings near the crossing. FRA also received comments from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln recommending that we add a new data
field to Part V of the Inventory Form to capture data on estimated
pedestrian and bicycle traffic counts at the crossing.
    FRA encourages State agencies to use their ``State Use'' data
fields in Part I of the Inventory Form to record the name of the local
highway agency that is responsible for installing and maintaining signs
and pavement markings, as well as estimated pedestrian and bicycle
traffic counts. However, we did not add data fields to Part V of the
Inventory Form to collect this data.
Highway System
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that we remove the
``Highway System'' data field in Part V of the Inventory Form unless an
analysis determines that this data is sufficiently utilized such that
the burden associated with collecting and reporting this information is
justified. However, we retained the ``Highway System'' data field as
proposed since the data collected in this data field can be useful for
nationwide analyses.
Functional Classification of Road at Crossing
    In the proposed rule, FRA solicited comment on whether the ``Local
Access'' functional classification code should be changed to ``Local''
to be consistent with the official functional classification codes
contained in the FHWA's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HMPS)
Manual. FRA received multiple comments from State agencies, including
the CPUC, NCDOT, DelDOT, FDOT, and NDOT, requesting that FRA revise the
proposed Functional Classification categories provided on the Inventory
Form to make them consistent with FHWA's current Functional
Classification Codes. FRA adopted this recommendation and revised the
functional classification codes in this data field to be consistent
with FHWA's current Functional Classification Codes.
Linear Referencing System (LRS Route ID)/LRS Milepost
    LaDOTD and Tavla Solutions submitted comments recommending
elimination of the Linear Referencing System data fields in Part V of
the Inventory Form based on the assertion that this information can
vary within the State and railroad system. The ICC submitted comments
recommending that the Inventory Guide discussion of the ``Linear
Referencing System'' (LRS) data field explain that this data field is
intended to show whether the crossing is on a State-defined linear
referencing system or the Federal Highway Performance Monitoring System
(HPMS).
    We retained these data fields in the Inventory Form as proposed.
However, to address situations when more than one LRS code is used, FRA
revised the Inventory Guide to recommend that the LRS code entered
should match the HPMS data reported to the Federal Highway
Administration. In addition, FRA notes that the Linear Referencing
System data fields in Part V of the Inventory Form are optional.
Annual Average Daily Traffic
    FRA changed the title of the ``Estimated Average Daily Traffic''
data field in Part V of the Inventory Form to ``Annual Average Daily
Traffic'' to make the title consistent with generally accepted terms
used in highway safety parlance. We made this revision in response to
comments the ICC submitted recommending that the title of this data
field be revised to reflect the terminology used in the MUTCD. While
the ICC also recommended that we add subfields for ``Actual'' and
``Estimated'' to this data field, we did not adopt this recommendation
because there are very few annual average daily traffic counts that
reflect actual (as opposed to estimated) values.
Estimated Percent of Trucks
    We changed the title of the ``Estimated Percent Commercial Trucks''
data field in Part V of the Inventory Form to ``Estimated Percent
Trucks.'' In addition, in response to ICC comments requesting
clarification of the primary purpose of this data field, FRA revised
the Inventory Guide to explain that this data field is intended to
collect data on crossing usage by vehicles having a manufacturer's
gross vehicle weight (GVW) rating of 9,000 pounds for more and having
dual tires on at least one rear axle. This would include buses, single-
unit trucks, combination trucks, and campers/recreational vehicles, but
not school buses.
    The ICC also submitted comments recommending that we add a subfield
to the Estimated Percent Trucks data field to collect data on whether
the crossing is located on a State's officially designated Truck Route
System or a

locally-designated municipal Truck Route. While FRA encourages State
agencies to use their ``State Use'' data fields in Part I of the
Inventory Form to collect this data, we did not add these subfields to
the Inventory Form because the potential benefits that might result
from collecting this additional data do not appear to justify the
increased burden associated with collection of this data.
Regularly used by school buses?
    The ICC submitted comments recommending that the ``Regularly Used
by School Buses'' data field in Part V of the Inventory Form be
analyzed to determine whether this data can be collected with
statistical reliability. However, if this data field is retained, the
ICC recommended that FRA revise the Inventory Guide to capture data on
whether the crossing is located on a local school district's published
school bus route system or a local mass transit fixed route bus system
used to transport schoolchildren. The ICC also recommended that we add
boxes for ``Unknown'' and ``No'' to this data field.
    We retained this data field as proposed except we added a ``No''
box for crossings that are not subject to at least one school bus
movement on a normal school day. While we did not revise the Inventory
Guide to require the submission of data on whether a crossing is
located on a local school district's published school bus route system
or a local mass transit fixed route bus system that is used to
transport schoolchildren, State agencies may use their State Use data
fields in Part I of the Inventory Form to record this data.
Regularly used by hazmat vehicles?
    With respect to the data field titled, ``Regularly Used by Hazmat
Vehicles?'' in the Inventory Form, in the NPRM, FRA solicited comments
on how it should define ``regular use'' in the Inventory Guide. DelDOT
submitted comments asserting the collection of data on crossing use by
vehicles transporting hazardous materials could be time consuming and
costly because it would require additional field data collection.
LaDOTD and Tavla Solutions submitted comments asserting the collection
of this data would be difficult to obtain, not reliable, and might have
liability implications. AAR also submitted comments stating that
railroads do not maintain the type of information which would be
collected in this data field. In response to these comments, we removed
the ``Regularly Used by Hazmat Vehicles?'' data field from the
Inventory Form. However, State agencies may record this information in
one of the State Use fields in Part I of the Inventory Form.
Emergency Services Route
    With respect to the ``Regular Emergency Services Route'' data field
in Part V of the Inventory Form, FRA solicited comments in the NPRM on
how it should define the term ``regular emergency services route.''
    The AAR submitted comments stating that railroads do not maintain
information about emergency service routes and therefore should not be
held responsible for reporting information to the Crossing Inventory
that State agencies maintain. However, under this rule, the primary
operating railroad is only required to provide information for this
data field for new and previously unreported public highway-rail grade
crossings. In addition, under Sec. Sec.  234.405(d) and 234.407(d), if
the primary operating railroad cannot obtain information for this data
field from the applicable State agency responsible for grade crossing
safety, the primary operating railroad may provide a written
certification statement to the FRA Associate Administrator noting that
it has requested, and not yet received, this information from the
appropriate State agency.
    FRA also received comments from NCDOT requesting that we clarify
what would constitute a regular emergency services route. In response,
we added guidance in the Inventory Guide to explain that the ``Yes''
box in the ``Emergency Services Route'' data field should be checked if
highway vehicles routinely use a crossing to obtain access to emergency
facilities including hospitals and police and fire stations.
    While FRA received comments from the ICC, LaDOTD, and Tavla
Solutions recommending elimination of the Emergency Services Route data
field in Part V of the Inventory Form, FRA decided to retain this data
field in order to facilitate safety analysis of crossings located on
emergency services routes. However, we changed the title of the
``Regular Emergency Services Route'' data field in Part V of the
Inventory Form to ``Emergency Services Route.'' We also drew a clear
demarcation between the section titled, ``Submission Information,'' and
Part V of the Inventory Form. FRA made this change in response to CPUC
comments recommending that we revise the Inventory Form to include a
clear separation between Part V and the data fields which identify and
provide contact information for the individual who submits crossing
data to the Crossing Inventory.

Appendix A, U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form

    We revised Appendix A by including specific instructions for the
initial reporting of new and previously unreported highway-rail and
pathway crossings. We also added instructions for reporting changes in
crossing characteristics at a public highway-rail grade crossing, under
Sec.  234.411(c), as well as changes to the public/private status of
highway-rail and pathway grade crossings to this appendix.
    Appendix A contains a draft of the revised Form FRA F6180.71,
``U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form.'' Form FRA F6180.71 was submitted
to OMB for approval and is still pending OMB approval. Therefore,
operating railroads and State agencies cannot use the form until it has
been approved. FRA expects that, prior to the final rule effective
date, the form will be approved. Following approval, the final form
will be available on FRA's safety data Web site under the Forms/
Publications tab.

Appendix B, Responsibility Table for Periodic Updates to the Crossing
Inventory

    In the NPRM, FRA requested comments on the proposed Crossing
Inventory Responsibility Table, which assigns responsibility for
updating specific data fields on the Inventory Form to either the State
or railroad.
    Several commenters recommended that FRA assign responsibility for
the completion of each individual data field (with the exception of the
data fields contained in the Header of the Inventory Form) to either
the State or the railroad. For example, DelDOT submitted comments
recommending that we assign responsibility for updating the ``Type of
Land Use'' data field in Part I of the Inventory Form to railroads,
while Tavla Solutions submitted comments recommending that we assign
responsibility for updating this data field exclusively to States. The
CPUC also submitted comments recommending that we assign responsibility
for updating the ``Gate Arms'' data field in Part III of the Inventory
Form to railroads, while NCDOT submitted comments recommending that we
assign responsibility for updating the ``Highway Traffic Signal
Interconnection'' and ``Highway Traffic Signal Preemption'' data fields
in Part III of the Inventory Form to railroads.
    FRA also received comments recommending that we assign
responsibility for updating certain data fields exclusively assigned to
States. NCDOT and the CPUC submitted

comments recommending that we assign responsibility for updating the
``Latitude in decimal degrees'' and ``Longitude in decimal degrees''
data fields in Part I of the Inventory Form to States, while Tavla
Solutions submitted comments recommending that we assign responsibility
for updating the ``Crossing Type'' data field in Part I of the