[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47233-47234]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15437]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2023-0002-N-17]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
September 19, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be submitted on regulations.gov to the docket, Docket No. FRA-
2023-0002. All comments received will be posted without change to the
docket, including any personal information provided. Please refer to
the assigned OMB control number (2130-NEW) in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal statutes and regulations mandate. In summary,
FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1)
reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection
requirements in a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such
information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to
retrieve and produce the information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Class I Freight-Train Length Reporting.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-NEW.
    Abstract: On May 2, 2023, FRA issued Safety Advisory 2023-03,
``Accident Mitigation and Train Length,'' (Safety Advisory) to ensure
railroads and railroad employees are aware of the potential
complexities associated with operating longer trains and to recommend
that they take appropriate measures to address those complexities to
ensure the safe operation of such trains.\1\ The Safety Advisory cited
three significant incidents that occurred since 2022 involving trains
with more than 200 cars, each approximately more than 10,000 feet in
length and weighing more than 17,000 trailing tons, where train
handling and train makeup is believed to have caused, or contributed
to, the incidents. In the Safety Advisory, FRA explained that the
operation of these longer trains presents different, more complex,
operational challenges, which can be exacerbated by the weight and
makeup of trains. Consequently, FRA recommended that railroads review
their operating rules and existing locomotive engineer certification
programs to address operational complexities of train length, take
appropriate action to prevent the loss of communications between end-
of-train devices, and mitigate the impacts of long trains on blocked
crossings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 27570.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Safety Advisory, FRA also explained that in 2019, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report finding that
freight-train length, particularly for Class I railroads, increased in
recent years.\3\ GAO was only able to procure

limited data from some of the Class I railroads but, one Class I
railroad provided data indicating an average train length of 6,100 feet
and a second Class I railroad provided data indicating an average train
length of 7,500 feet.\4\ These data represent an increase in the
average length of a train of about 25 percent for both railroads over a
10-year period.\5\ Each Class I railroad reportedly told GAO that they
operate some longer trains, with one railroad operating a train on a
regular basis that was over 12,000 feet long and another railroad
operating a train on a regular basis that was over 16,000 feet long.\6\
These same railroads responded that trains over 10,000 feet long were
only 1 to 2 percent of their total train-miles.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. (citing GAO's May 2019 report titled RAIL SAFETY:
Freight Trains Are Getting Longer, and Additional Information is
Needed to Assess Their Impact, GAO-19-443 (available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-443.pdf).
    \4\ Id. at 11.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id. at 12.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Safety Advisory, FRA also acknowledged that it was in the
process of conducting research on the operational complexities of
longer trains, including air brake system performance and resulting
train dynamics.\8\ The Safety Advisory also noted that in response to a
statutory requirement, FRA entered into an agreement with the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) to examine
factors associated with the operation of freight trains longer than
7,500 feet. FRA notes, however, that any data collected from the
industry in the course of these studies is likely to be limited in the
same way that the GAO was only able to procure limited data for its
report.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-2/2023_RDT_CurrentProjects_complete_FINAL.pdf.
    \9\ Information about NAS's study and its meeting agendas are
available at https://www.nationalacadameies.org/our-work/impacts-of-trains-longer-than-7500-feet. The study was required by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 22422, 35
Stat. 751 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a next step, FRA is initiating a new ICR to gather train length
data from Class I freight railroads as the safety concerns of long
trains is largely an issue particular to these railroads.\10\
Specifically, the proposed information collection would require Class I
freight railroads to provide FRA, on a monthly basis, with data
regarding the total number of trains operated, the total number of cars
in those trains, as well as the total trailing tonnage in specified
train length categories (e.g., less than or equal to 7,500 feet,
greater than 7,500 feet). In addition, FRA proposes to collect data
from the Class I freight railroads that may inform potential
complexities and safety concerns associated with operating longer
trains, such as the number of emergency events, the number of
communication event losses, the number of broken knuckles, the number
of air hose separations, the number of PTC enforcements, and the number
of locomotive engineer revocations under 49 CFR part 240. The requested
data will be collected monthly using an Excel-based form (Form FRA F
6180.277).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This ICR is limited to Class I railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This data collection is necessary to allow objective findings to be
made that can be used to either justify the status quo or to provide
justification for further recommendations or agency action. Of note,
FRA is seeking to collect data on train length on an ongoing basis, as
opposed to this being a one-time study. FRA will use the collected data
to establish an initial baseline for the length of trains operating
within the U.S. rail system as well as to determine if train lengths
are changing over time. FRA may also use the collected data in future
analyses to better understand the impact of train length on safety
(e.g., to determine whether trains of certain lengths are
disproportionately involved in certain type of accidents/incidents or
other undesired events such as loss of communications or train
stalling).
    FRA has incorporated several measures to minimize the respondents'
paperwork burden in this proposed collection. For example, to avoid
duplicating efforts, FRA is not asking railroads to provide train
length information for any FRA-reportable accident or incident for
which a form F6180.54 is filed. Instead, for any train involved in an
accident for which a form F6180.54 is filed, FRA will review train
length data collected on that form and will not seek to collect the
same data proposed in this collection.
    As delegated by Congress to the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation, FRA has broad statutory authority to oversee matters
related to rail safety.\11\ As noted in the Safety Advisory, the
greater operational complexities associated with longer trains
necessitate that railroads take appropriate safety measures to manage
their potentially more complex in-train forces. This proposed
collection is another component of FRA's ongoing research to closely
monitor and analyze the impact of train length on rail safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 49 U.S.C. 20103(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Request: Approval of a new collection of information.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): FRA F Form 6180.277.
    Respondent Universe: Class I freight railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: Monthly/recurring.
    Reporting Burden:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The average burden also includes time for reviewing the
provided instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering,
and maintaining necessary data, and completing and reviewing the
information collection.
    \13\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface
Transportation Board's 2022 Full Year Wage A&B data series for
railroad workers. The wage rate of $85.93 per hour includes a 75-
percent overhead charge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total annual     Average time
                                                   Respondent universe          responses       per response     Total annual     Total cost equivalent
                                                                                (reports)      \12\  (hours)     burden hours
                                                                                (A)              (B)                (C) = A * B          (D) = C * wage rate \13\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form FRA F 6180.277........................  Class I railroads.............              72                8              576                   $49,496
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 72 reports.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 576 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $49,496.
    FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or
sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection
of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control
number.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Allison Ishihara Fultz,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-15437 Filed 7-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/01/2008 09:31 AM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: Re: air-to-blood ratio section

Heidi,

I talked to Karen about the issues you raised on the air to blood ratio discussion.  The gist of her response is as follows:

We do not state or infer that it is EPA's view that the science-based support for a ratio of 1:7 is "equivalently robust" to the science-based support for any of the other ratios in the range of 1:3 to 1:7.  If further description of our views on the relative science support for various ratios is desired, I would say that we have the most confidence in ratios in the range of 1:4 to 1:6.

Also, as we discussed, we agree with the edits suggested below on point #2.

 ----- Original Message -----

 From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  Sent: 05/01/2008 12:16 AM AST

 To: Lydia Wegman; "Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>  Cc: Tricia Crabtree; Karen Martin; Robert Meyers; Jason Burnett

 Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Lydia,

Thank you for this draft.  Two comments:

1.  We failed to note additional or clarified support for the higher ratios.  We remain somewhat uncomfortable with characterizing the science-based support for a ratio of 1:7 as equivalently robust to the science-based support for standards ranging up to 1:6.  I believe we’ll pick up the conversation in the morning.

2.  Questions regarding “reanalysis” and “potentially” on p 4:

More recently, a study of changes in children’s blood Pb levels associated with reduced Pb emissions and associated air concentrations near a Pb smelter in Canada (for children through age six in age) reports a ratio of 1:6 and reanalysis  << Did the Agency mean to say additional analysis ??  Our conversation had not left me with the impression that the Hilts dataset has been reanalyzed by the Agency >> of the data by EPA for the initial time period of the study resulted in a ratio of 1:7 (CD, pp. 3-23 to 3-24; Hilts, 2003). [1]   Ambient air and blood Pb levels associated with the Hilts (2003) study range from 1.1 to 0.03 µg/m 3 , and associated population mean blood Pb levels range from 11.5 to 4.7 µg/dL, which are lower than levels associated with the older studies cited in the 1986 Criteria Document (USEPA, 1986).

Sources of uncertainty  potentially  << The sentence reads well without “potentially”.  I believe these uncertainties are not potentially related; they were identified by the author as related >> related to air-to-blood ratios obtained from Hilts (2003) study have been identified.

Best regards,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent:  Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:25 PM

To:  King, Heidi R.; Fraas, Arthur G.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject:  Fw: air-to-blood ratio section

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/30/2008 11:24PM -----

To: Wegman Lydia@EPA

From: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 04/30/2008 10:28PM

Subject: air-to-blood ratio section

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

[1]  This study considered changes in ambient air Pb levels and associated blood Pb levels over a five-year period which included closure of an older Pb smelter and subsequent opening of a newer facility in 1997 and a temporary (3 month) shutdown of all smelting activity in the summer of 2001. The author observed that the air-to-blood ratio for children in the area over the full period was approximately 1:6. The author noted limitations in the dataset associated with exposures in the second time period, after the temporary shutdown of the facility in 2001, including sampling of a different age group at that time and a shorter time period (3 months) at these lower ambient air Pb levels prior to collection of blood Pb levels. Consequently, EPA calculated an alternate air-to-blood Pb ratio based on consideration for ambient air Pb and blood Pb reductions in the first time period (after opening of the new facility in 1997).